PDM

A "tiny majority"? I assume he meant a "tiny minority". What a buffoon.

Wow, this brief really gives me some hope. It is really well done (other than two typos I noticed). For those that are not familiar with the legal jargon and may not know what "summary judgment" means: The complaint that was filed to commence the case is a bare bones recitation of the facts, the alleged violation of the law, and the relief requested. It does not contain legal arguments necessary to persuade the judge to rule in plaintiffs' favor. Plaintiffs just filed what is known as a motion for summary judgment, essentially arguing that there are no issues of fact in this case and that the judge can decide the case purely by applying the law to the facts as stated. The state will also file a summary judgment motion in January. This brief lays out all of the arguments in support of the motion for summary judgment. Given that the facts don't appear to be in dispute, it seems likely that this case will in fact be decided on summary judgment -- by the Spring I think -- and then will certainly be appealed by whichever side loses, probably up to the Supreme Court. The lawyers here do an excellent job of making the case that the Supreme Court, in the Heller/McDonald decisions, did in fact hold that the right to carry a firearm falls within the Second Amendment and that the 2A right is not limited to the narrow facts at issue in that case (the Chicago ban of possession of a handgun in the home). A direct quote from Heller -- the 2A "guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." Going a step further, the brief cleverly uses Justice Stevens dissent -- which argued that "keep and bear" is one phrase applicable only to militia service -- in plaintiff's favor. The majority in Heller, rejecting Justice Stevens, clearly held that "keep" and "bear" are two separate concepts corresponding "to have" and "to carry." The brief also does an excellent job in explaining the following statement from Heller often quoted by the Brady Bunch and their fellow travelers: the right to keep and bear arms is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner whatsoever for whatsever purpose." The brief correctly and logically points out that this statement presupposes that the 2A does in fact include a basic right to carry some weapons, in some manner and for some purposes. Otherwise, why mention "carry" at all. Further, by specifying that the 2A does not prohibit the carrying of guns in "sensitive places", the Supreme Court recognized that carry bans are not presumptively lawful when they pertain to places that are not sensitive. The brief is very logical and compelling on these points. Without getting into too much further detail, the brief then goes on to argue why a strict standard of scrutiny should apply, and why the unlimited discretion of local authorities in NJ (police chiefs and judges) to issue permits is a prior restraint on a fundamental right that is, by definition, unconstitutional. Further, the brief argues that any permitting system based on "need", rather than objective standards (such as training, a clean record, proficieency with a firearm, etc.) is per se unconstitutional. Again, well done. Finally, the lawyers here did a great job of distinguishing two recent federal court cases - Marzzarella(3d cir 2010, holding that a federal law prohibiting firearms with serial numbers deleted is not unconstitutional) and Peruta (S Dist Court 2010, holding that Cal ccw ban did not violate the 2A). Marzzarella looked to 1st amendment jurisprudence and indicated that strict scrutiny would be appropriate in some circumstances, and found that the ban at issue was ok because not all handguns were banned) and Peruta allowed the California CCW ban to stand because other means of carry (open carry) are available there. It is very interesting that this brief specifically states that it is NOT arguing that a ban on CCW is unconstitutional, only that a ban on all carry is unconstitutional. Theoretically, if the State of NJ passed an open carry law similar to that in California, that would undercut the challenge to the CCW statute. Who thinks that might happen?

Summer: PM9 w CT grips in a desantis pocket holster in front pocket Winter: HK p2000 .40sw or M&Pc .40sw, IWB at 4 oclock position

Lincoln Park True Value Hardware charges $35 per transfer total. Bruce the owner is pretty accomodating -- I call the day before telling him I'm coming by and he has as much of the paperwork filled out as he can without me there. I've had all my guns shipped to them -- I'm usually in an out in 15 minutes or so, depending on how quick the State is with the check. And, like I've said, the savings are usually substantial. I just bought a Sig p226 E2 with an MSRP of $1149 for $867, including shipping, no tax, with a Sig pistol light/laser thrown in. Under $900 total with the transfer fee. Purchased from an authorized Sig dealer in Wisconsin. Kind of hard to beat.

Thanks for the input. I am in Bergen county and the shops around relatively close -- Ramsey Outdoor and the Bullethole -- do tend to be pricey. $35 transfer fee at the FFL I use is hard to beat, but like I said I will try the quote system on this forum.

djg0770 -- thanks for that input. I have two purchase permits burning a hole in my pocket and may just try the price request system on this site. I think the next two purchases will be a Kahr PM9 and a Ruger LCR. I have bought most of my guns from Buds. They have the all black PM9 for $678 (cash price), which with FFL transfer would bring the price to a shade more than $700. I would gladly buy from a shop if they could come close to that price including tax -- I wouldn't expect them to match or beat an internet price necessarily, but at least come close.

I'm curious to know how many folks here buy their firearms online and have them shipped to an FFL as opposed to buying at a dealer here in the beautifyl Garden State. Every firearm I've bought so far has been online, shipped to an FFL with a $35 transfer fee. I'd like to support the local shops, but the price differential is just too great when you factor in the a sales price that is usually 15% - 20% higher than the online price plus 8% sales tax. I've found that most local shops don't discount more than 5% of MSRP, if that. True you don't get to handle or inspect the gun first, but there is something exciting about driving to the FFL and opening up the package -- kind of like birthday, Christmas and Chanuka all rolled into one. So far, I've been extremely pleased with my online purchases - had no problems and probably saved well over $1000 on the 10 guns that I own.

I recently applied for 3 permits in Teaneck and got a call 35 days later that they were ready. I was pleasantly surprised. When I applied for my FID it took 2 months. Last year I applied for three permits and it took 6 months. I was thinking that, just maybe, local PDs are making an effort to get these things out more quickly in light of the changed legal environment (ie, pending SAF lawsuit and threats of others). But sounds like things haven't improved in other places.

I saw the alert. I read the complaint. My next step was a call to the SAF to make a nice donation (I also thanked them and told them the donation was on account of the NJ lawsuit that we just filed). The next step was a donation to the ANJRPC on line. I am already a member of both organizations. It's really time for all of us to put our collective money where our collective mouth is -- each to his own ability. This lawsuit is a big, big deal. I also think it was smart to tackle the CCW issue first, before the permitting system, because it is a much harder case to win. If they lose this lawsuit they will at least still be able to sue to fix the permitting system. Not so sure it a CCW lawsuit would have been possible if they had sued first over permitting and lost.