• Announcements

    • Maksim

      NJGF's Gun Range & Store Database   05/23/2017

      Excited about launching a new feature, our very own member- driven range and store database.  Read the announcement and watch the video here... www.njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/86658-njgfs-gun-store-range-database/


Premier Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Community Reputation

108 Excellent

1 Follower

About SJG

  • Rank
    NJGF Regular

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    Union County
  • Home Range
  1. Don't worry about the appeal--the game is over. There is no way the Third Circuit is going to reverse based upon the standard of review that they have to apply to the denial of the preliminary injunction etc.
  2. I have a 2006 loaded Goldwing with 18,000 mi. I have owned several bikes. Honda, Kawi, Victory etc. My favorites are the Goldwing and the Valkerie.
  3. In reality to pass the bill it would take 60 votes in the Senate. I do not see that happening. The only true exceptions now are budget reconciliation or judicial nominations.
  4. Buy some PVC pipe and end caps at Home Depot and get some exercise with a shovel.
  5. It means that the App Div. concluded that the legal arguments made in this case had no merit because prior published court opinions had already shot down the argument made and therefore there was no reason to submit this opinion for publication. More than likely the co-plaintiffs' case will meet the same fate assuming that the same argument was made. Of course, that is just an educated guess. Again, unless the NJ Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme court decides a new case which sets forth new precedent, nothing will change. It would be nice though to try an open carry argument, and even though justifiable need would still need to be demonstrated, the considerations are different and at least 1/2 of the arguments the State makes would not apply
  6. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. IN THE MATTER OF DENIAL OF A PERMIT TO CARRY A HANDGUN FOR JOHN JILLARD. _____________________________ SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2346-17T1 Submitted October 25, 2018 – Decided November 5, 2018 Before Judges Simonelli and O'Connor. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester County. John Jillard, appellant pro se. Charles A. Fiore, Gloucester County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent State of New Jersey (Dana R. Anton, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Appellant John Jillard appeals from the December 14, 2017 Law Division order, which denied his application for a permit to carry a handgun pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(d) for failure to demonstrate justifiable need. On appeal, Jillard does not challenge the court's determination that he failed to satisfy the justifiable need requirement or the general comportment with the Second Amendment1 or Supreme Court precedent. Rather, he contends that District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) precludes New Jersey's "case-by-case" inquiry of the justifiable need requirement.2 We disagree. Findings by the trial court reviewing the denial of an application to carry a handgun in public are binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence. In re Application of Borinsky, 363 N.J. Super. 10, 23 (App. Div. 2003). However, we are not bound by the court's interpretation of the Constitution, State v. Wheeler, 433 N.J. Super. 560, 572 (App. Div. 2013), or the court's evaluation of whether an applicant met the "justifiable need to carry a handgun" standard of N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4, which we review de novo. Borinsky, 363 N.J. Super. at 23-24. A private citizen, such as Jillard, who desires to carry a handgun in public must "demonstrate[] that he is not subject to any of the disabilities set forth in [N.J.S.A.] 2C:58–3c . . . that he is thoroughly familiar with the safe handling and use of handguns, and that he has a justifiable need to carry a handgun." 1 U.S. Const. amend. II. 2 We decline to address Jillard's additional contentions raised for the first time in his reply brief. Goldsmith v. Camden Cnty. Surrogate's Office, 408 N.J. Super. 376, 387 (App. Div. 2009). 2 A-2346-17T1 N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(c). The justifiable need requirement of N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(d) has been found constitutional by the federal court in Drake v. Filco, 724 F.3d 426, 440 (3d Cir. 2013), cert. denied in Drake v. Jerejian, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 2134 (2014), and by this court in Wheeler, 433 N.J. Super. at 616. The person applying for a carry permit must submit a certification of justifiable need, specifying "the urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun." N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.4(d)(1); see also State v. Preis, 118 N.J. 564, 566 (1990) (holding that a permit to carry a handgun in public may "be issued only to those who can establish an urgent necessity for protection of self or others―as for example, in the case of one whose life is in danger as evidenced by serious threats or earlier attacks"). "The [justifiable need] requirement is of specific threats or previous attacks demonstrating a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by other means." Preis, 118 N.J. at 571 (citing Reilly v. State, 59 N.J. 559, 562 (1971); In re Application of X, 59 N.J. 533, 534-35 (1971)). "Generalized fears for personal safety are inadequate, and a need to protect property alone does not suffice." Id. at 571 (citing State v. Siccardi, 59 N.J. 3 A-2346-17T1 549, 557-58 (1971)). The applicant must show an objective need for the defensive use of a handgun to obtain a carry permit. Wheeler, 433 N.J. Super. at 614. The court must consider justifiable need on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 576 Jillard argues that Heller precludes New Jersey's case-by-case justifiable need inquiry. See McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (deeming the holding in Heller applicable to the states by way of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment). Jillard cites the following passage from Heller to argue that New Jersey's case-by-case justifiable need inquiry is unconstitutional: We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government— the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. [554 U.S. at 634-35 (emphasis added).] However, this passage must be understood in context. 4 A-2346-17T1 In Heller, the Court was confronted with a "catch-22." The District of Columbia's firearms laws prevented ownership of unregistered handguns while simultaneously prohibiting the registration of handguns (and imposing other burdensome restrictions, such as requiring that firearms be kept disassembled or trigger-locked even in the home). Id. at 574. The Court held that "the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." Id. at 635. The Court recognized the Second Amendment confers the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense and the District of Columbia's firearms regulations effectively eviscerated that right. Id. at 635; see McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 791 (2010) (noting that "n Heller, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense"). In the passage Jillard cited, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, chastised Justice Breyer's dissent for advocating that restrictions on an enumerated right should be subject to a case-by-case interest-balancing analysis. Heller, 554 U.S. at 634-35. Although the Court did not identify the standard of review it used in determining the subject firearms laws were unconstitutional, it 5 A-2346-17T1 nevertheless sought to protect the core right enumerated by the Second Amendment from judicial hindsight where the amendment itself "is the very product of an interest balancing by the people—which Justice Breyer would now conduct for them anew." Id. at 635. Conversely, Justice Breyer believed that "any attempt in theory to apply strict scrutiny to gun regulations will in practice turn into an interest-balancing inquiry," and merely sought to "adopt such an interest-balancing inquiry explicitly." Id. at 689 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (speculating that the majority's unnamed inquiry was strict scrutiny). Judicial quibbling aside, Heller did not hold, as Jillard suggests, that firearms regulations may not utilize subjective, case-by-case justifiable need inquiries. See id. at 634-35. Rather, the Court mandated that any inquiry into the regulation itself must be conducted in accordance with traditional forms of judicial scrutiny. Id. at 636. Further, contrary to Jillard's repeated assertions, the Court did not deem possession of a concealed firearm outside of the home an enumerated right even subject to the above disagreement. See id. at 635. The Court, in conducting an historical review of the Second Amendment, recognized that Nineteenth- Century American courts frequently upheld regulation of concealed weapons, id. at 613, 627 (citations omitted), and that "nothing in [the Court's] opinion 6 A-2346-17T1 should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms . . . ." Id. at 626-27, 627 n. 26 (providing regulations concerning possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, among other regulations, as "examples," but not as an "exhaustive" list). In Wheeler, we addressed New Jersey's justifiable need requirement in the wake of Heller and McDonald and determined the justifiable need requirement was constitutional. 433 N.J. Super. at 616. We stated: Based upon the broad reasoning of Heller and McDonald, "we think the Second Amendment right to carry a handgun for the purpose of lawful self-defense exists or extends beyond the home. Nevertheless, we have no reason to decide that question. We are confident that New Jersey's "justifiable need" standard would not impermissibly burden the right. We can reject this challenge to the carry permit law on that ground. [Id. at 597.] In accordance with Heller, we analyzed New Jersey's justifiable need requirement under intermediate scrutiny and determined that: Intermediate scrutiny was appropriate here. The "justifiable need" component of the carry permit law does not target protected conduct. It is an effort to protect the public and accommodate those who have an objective reason to anticipate a need to use a gun in self-defense. The law targets the dangers of misuse and accidental use of handguns that unquestionably have 7 A-2346-17T1 serious, injurious consequences wholly outside the purview of self-defense. [Id. at 607.] Without reiterating Wheeler's thorough analysis, we found New Jersey's justifiableneedrequirement"easilypasse[d]musterunderthatstandard." Id.at 610. Like the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits that had previously upheld laws conditioning issuance of carry permits on "need," we found "the state's interest sufficiently important and the fit between the need-based standard and the interest in order and safety in public places adequate to pass muster under the intermediate level of scrutiny . . . ." Id. at 615 (citing Drake, 724 F.3d at 439; Woolard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, 880 (4th Cir. 2013); and Kachalsky v. Cty. of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 98 (2d Cir. 2012)). In sum, we held the justifiable need requirement comported with the Second Amendment and Supreme Court precedent. Given that the justifiable need requirement does not infringe upon a clearly enumerated right, and, even if it did, it has been upheld under traditional judicial scrutiny, our holding in Wheeler should not be disturbed on the basis of Jillard's meritless misunderstanding of Heller. Simply put, Heller precluded untethered subjective judicial inquiries into firearm regulations to determine their constitutionality, 8 A-2346-17T1 not valid subjective case-by-case justifiable need inquiries under constitutional firearm regulations. Affirmed. 9 A-2346-17T1
  7. Play it safe--move to Alaska
  8. Interstate you are covered under FOPA(federal law) and the manner you describe moving your firearms intrastate in NJ is compliant with NJ State Law
  9. 2018 Gun Buy Back Gun Buy Back efforts like the one being planned for the fall of 2018 have taken nearly 2000 guns off the streets of Essex County in the last five years.* The ECBF's 2018 Bun Buy Back Initiative currently underway is a joint public-private program whereby our Foundation is working to raise the necessary funding to allow local and State law enforcement to execute a full one day "no questions asked" buy back event right here in our community. As officers of the court, professionals and community leaders, our Board has dedicated itself to making every effort to support this program through education, awareness and fundraising so that this effort will result in a substantial number of guns being taken out of circulation and, hopefully, making our Essex community a safe place to live, work and raise our families. Join us now with a donation either online through the link below or by sending your donation check to Essex County Bar Foundation 470 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, B01 Newark, NJ 07102. DONATE
  10. Frankly, I have to question seriously the decision to support our case before the trial court with one testifying expert. Although it may not have made a difference-in a situation where the NRA basically gave us a blank check on this case--we should have had more qualified expert witnesses testifying at the hearing as the record on appeal is limited to that which was made in the trial court. I would rather be on appeal with a strong factual record from multiple experts then putting all my eggs in one basket with one expert.
  11. For those in the know, this was completely expected. Also, I do not believe the 3d Circuit will rule for us on the merits. To my knowledge, no Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has yet ruled for the Plaintiff on the merits. The Ninth Circuit Opinion was just an affirmance of the issuance of a preliminary injunction as opposed to an affirmance of a final decision. In the absence of new U. S. Supreme Court decision on the subject or a U. S. Supreme Court decision in this or a similar case--this is probably going nowhere. Magazine limits are probably not enough of an infringement to constitute a Second Amendment violation. Now open carry is a different issue.
  12. Believe that Ant was the successful bidder in the bankruptcy sale with bank financing and this should not impact a late 2017 or 1st quarter 2019 opening of the new facility
  13. Dream On. You get what you pay for. Yeah, you may find one at that price point but it would be junk and will not hold up--lots of cast parts. Manufacturers cannot build quality AK's at that price point and make any profit
  14. Century Arms announces new ‘heavy duty’ VSKA AK rifle 10/10/18 | by Chris Eger VSKA= Vermont Stamped Kalashnikov (Photos: Century) Incorporating machined S7 tool steel for key components, Century’s new Vermont-stamped Kalashnikov stems from a Pentagon program that sparked efforts to refine production of American-made AK variants. Debuted at last week’s Red Oktober Kalashnikov Championships in Hurricane, Utah, Century’s new VSKA is billed as a “heavy duty AK rifle” by the company. Although a semi-auto pitched to the U.S. commercial market, Jason Karvois, Century’s director of sales, says they have been developing the gun for years and it was based on Century’s response to an initiative by the U.S. Special Operations Command to identify domestic sources of “non-standard weapons” like the iconic AK-47. “We have been working on this project for some time now and the conclusive feedback we received from the U.S. government was clear evidence that our efforts had paid off,” said Karvois. “Now it’s time for civilian consumers to reap the benefits of this project.” The 7.62x39mm VSKA uses a new bolt carrier, front trunnion, and feed ramp machined from S7 tool steel and features both a nitro-carburized 4140 steel bolt and a chrome-moly 4150 barrel. Surfaces have a magnesium-phosphate finish while the furniture is of American Maple in a nod to Century’s New England roots. The rifle uses the company’s RAK-1 enhanced trigger group. In the past several months, Century has moved to make several of their AK variants wholly in the U.S., including the Draco AK pistol, which was formerly constructed by Cugir in Romania. Price on the VSKA, which ships with one 30-round polymer magazine, is $735.95, suggested.
  15. The Chief Justice will become more of a swing vote to try and de-politicize the appearance of the Supreme Court