Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The Bruen decision has me thinking of what would be good to mess up NJ's web of crap laws. 

My #1 would be suing not over the purchase permits themselves, but over all the fees associated with it as an infringement on civil rights. The suit would attach damages, which would include all legal fees, and for NJ to return all associated fees to those who had been affected by them or their estate. 

If it needs doing for public safety, let the public pay for it via tax money, not individual fees. 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there's already a justifiable need lawsuit by Mark Cheeseman & Jay Factor.  ANJRPC/CNJFO/SAF/NJ2AS/etc. have been backing it.

The new SCOTUS ruling however does say "That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry." - I don't know if this could be used against the time frame for NJ FID's/PP's.  It may also be able to be used to fight against any ridiculous increases in FID/Permitting costs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a Murphy and AG presser today. All the 2A lawyers are plotting and planning. Thomas wrote a BRILLIANT decision and we are on track. Just cool down for a week or so. Way too many unknowns yet.

 

Ant

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not asking where the lawsuits at. I know that more or less. I'm asking for people to throw some ideas out there no matter how wild. Some fun speculation that might spark some ideas but probably won't. And maybe shoot some holes in said wild speculation because it might be educational. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I read the SCOTUS decision, I came across "common use" multiple times.  NJ State has its agents roadm around all day and protect Politicians with all sorts of "Assault Weapons" and "High Capacity Magazines".  Time to sue on that "Common Use" basis.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about NJ’s law/legal structure that makes carrying any weapon (not just guns), specifically for the purpose of self defense, a crime?

Per Nappen:

Quote

Under current New Jersey case law (See State v. Montalvo), pre-emptively arming oneself with a weapon for use OUTSIDE the home is NOT a court recognized “lawful use” under N.J.S. 2C:39-5d.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a copy and paste of I thread I started but seemed to have gotten buried in the list without being much seen. Its in regard to 30 day must issue or deny statute that is routinely (to say the least) ignored.

The whole premise of NJ being able to ignore the time table they themselves made law, is grounded in some camden judge ruling in the interest of public safety a permit or initial ID card does not have to meet this time table until their investigation is complete (give issuing authority carte blanche as when they decide to get around to looking at or doing anything what so ever with your application)

In today's NY CCW ruling Supreme court justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion: ""In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest.

Does this SUPREME COURT RULING/opinion not directly apply to and  negate the precedent set by this camden judge and replace it with the above as precedent? i.e. Statute says must issue or deny within 30 days, issuing authority must issue or deny within 30 days. the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fslater said:

This is a copy and paste of I thread I started but seemed to have gotten buried in the list without being much seen. Its in regard to 30 day must issue or deny statute that is routinely (to say the least) ignored.

The whole premise of NJ being able to ignore the time table they themselves made law, is grounded in some camden judge ruling in the interest of public safety a permit or initial ID card does not have to meet this time table until their investigation is complete (give issuing authority carte blanche as when they decide to get around to looking at or doing anything what so ever with your application)

In today's NY CCW ruling Supreme court justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion: ""In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest.

Does this SUPREME COURT RULING/opinion not negate the precedent set by this camden judge and replace it with the above as precedent? i.e. Statute says must issue or deny within 30 days, issuing authority must issue or deny within 30 days

 

Does it negate it? Absolutely not, as it was not the question before the court, nor was it fundamentally similar to the question before the court. Does it provide a foundation for challenging it? Yes, definitely. Although your quoted portion is just the kneecapping of means balancing. The elimination of that means that the state can't argue that the state having in interest mitigates any infringement. they ahve to be able to argue by text, history, and tradition that a permitting process or similar analogue was something that existed at the initial signing off on the second amendment, or at the time of reformation after the civil war. That way the people signing off on it could have conceived of said law as a legitimate limitation on the right as they understood it at that time. 

He specifically calls out intentional delays to attempt to stifle the right as unconstitutional in his ruling. 

Because of that, there is grounds to argue that even the 30 day limit is invalid since instant background checks are available. The random delays up to and past a year are not only clearly a delaying tactic, but results in unequal treatment under the law. Significantly so. 

AND we documented the shit out of it. 

AND there's a shit ton of state testimony to hang them with about how and why. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, fslater said:

This is a copy and paste of I thread I started but seemed to have gotten buried in the list without being much seen. Its in regard to 30 day must issue or deny statute that is routinely (to say the least) ignored.

The whole premise of NJ being able to ignore the time table they themselves made law, is grounded in some camden judge ruling in the interest of public safety a permit or initial ID card does not have to meet this time table until their investigation is complete (give issuing authority carte blanche as when they decide to get around to looking at or doing anything what so ever with your application)

In today's NY CCW ruling Supreme court justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion: ""In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest.

Does this SUPREME COURT RULING/opinion not directly apply to and  negate the precedent set by this camden judge and replace it with the above as precedent? i.e. Statute says must issue or deny within 30 days, issuing authority must issue or deny within 30 days. the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest.

 

It (the Heller and latest SCOTUS ruling) applies to this and million other shenanigans NJ Political, Bureaucratic and Judicial branches pull all day every day. Question is, who is going to kick them in the rear and make them follow ?   Non stop lawsuits have to follow, which means WE (the collective 2A supporters) have to keep feeding money (which is not  necessarily bad thing), but we cannot sit around, we need to keep the momentum.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have mentioned in other threads, I would love to see someone go after the NJ requirement(s) to list the make, model, and serial number of every handgun to be carried, that qualifications need to be done and recorded with each handgun specified, and that only the handgun(s) cited may be legally carried. I think that is an obvious and outrageous abuse of a basic understanding of Second Amendment rights in general, and of the logic laid out in Thomas' (and Alito's) opinion in Bruen in particular. That means that if you listed and qualified with  a single handgun, and it is damaged such as to be unusable, you are denied your Second Amendment right to carry until you either have it successfully repaired, or if it cannot be repaired, until you go through the handgun purchase permit and the Permit to Carry process for the replacement gun, which could take months. If you elect to upgrade to another carry gun, it is nearly as bad, except I suppose that you could potentially carry the existing gun until paperwork for the new one has been completed. This requirement is to me totally unacceptable, totally inconsistent with the Second Amendment, and grossly exceeds what Thomas articulated when allowing states to mantain reasonable screening and qualifying regulations on the right to carry. In describing that allowance, Thomas' wrote that reasonable processes in "shall issue" states may continue, and that "may issue" states, in becoming "shall issue", may replicate requirements similar to those of the "shall issue" states. To the best of my knowledge, no "shall issue" state has any regulation that even remotely resembles that NJ requirement that only handguns previously identified (and qualified with) in terms of make, model, and serial number may be borne by a citizen in the exercise of his or her right to carry a firearm. I hold non-resident CHP for Utah, Virginia, Florida, and New Hampshire that allow me to carry in a total of at least 34 states, and not one of those application and approval processes required me to provide any information whatsoever about the gun or guns that I intended to carry.

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the topic, its VERY important for People in free states to buy, buy, buy every type of firearm out there and buy them frequently.. SCOTUS is focusing on "Commonly Used" and NJ is trying to take advantage of it by banning 50 cal and hoping SCOTUS will say things like that are not "common"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2022 at 1:49 PM, CJack said:

On the topic, its VERY important for People in free states to buy, buy, buy every type of firearm out there and buy them frequently.. SCOTUS is focusing on "Commonly Used" and NJ is trying to take advantage of it by banning 50 cal and hoping SCOTUS will say things like that are not "common"

My take was that "commonly used" in Bruen had two aspects: 1 - what is in common use today, and 2 - the equivalent arms to what was in common use when the 2nd and the 14th were ratified. Your point is nevertheless absolutely valid. Here is an example of what can happen to "unusual" guns. I have a Noreen ULR in .50 BMG that I bought in 2017. I intend to sell it out of state after the recent legislation incorporating .50 BMG into the "destructive device" category. I could pay $50 and keep it, but I'd be on a select registry, possibly the target of selective enforcement, and it appears that I would be unable to leave it to my heirs. It's no longer worth the hassle. If there was any reasonable chance that some 2A case rooted in Bruen would overturn those restrictions in the near future, I'd keep, it, but Thomas' reliance on "common use" would appear to be a death knell for that possibility. In theory, I guess an analogy could be attempted between my rifle and whatever was used for antimateriel purposes in the late 18th century, but that would have an incredibly unlikely prospect for success. Or, maybe everyone on this forum could run out and buy a .50 :)

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2022 at 6:01 PM, CJack said:

As I read the SCOTUS decision, I came across "common use" multiple times. 

FINALLY, we can own slingshots!!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2022 at 11:10 AM, samiam said:

As I have mentioned in other threads, I would love to see someone go after the NJ requirement(s) to list the make, model, and serial number of every handgun to be carried, that qualifications need to be done and recorded with each handgun specified, and that only the handgun(s) cited may be legally carried.

 
 
As of July 6, 2022 as per the NJSP 2C:58-4:
The Applicant simpy needs to qualify with ONE HANGUN OWNED BY THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT CAN CARRY ANY HANDGUN ACQUIRED AFTER THE PERMIT TO CARRY IS ISSUED AND DO NOT HAVE TO RETRAIN WITH THAT NEW HANDGUN.
 
 
 
 
 
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:
 
 
As of July 6, 2022 as per the NJSP 2C:58-4:
The Applicant simpy needs to qualify with ONE HANGUN OWNED BY THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT CAN CARRY ANY HANDGUN ACQUIRED AFTER THE PERMIT TO CARRY IS ISSUED AND DO NOT HAVE TO RETRAIN WITH THAT NEW HANDGUN.
 
 
 
 
 

Ole Bob must be hating this decision….I know he was very anti-CCW. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:
 
 
As of July 6, 2022 as per the NJSP 2C:58-4:
The Applicant simpy needs to qualify with ONE HANGUN OWNED BY THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT CAN CARRY ANY HANDGUN ACQUIRED AFTER THE PERMIT TO CARRY IS ISSUED AND DO NOT HAVE TO RETRAIN WITH THAT NEW HANDGUN.
 
 
 
 
 

Is that a brand new (7/6/22) revision to 2C-58-4? Because I downloaded the 2021 revision this morning, and it doesn't seem to support that claim. From paragraph c: 

The chief police officer, or the superintendent, as the case may be, shall cause the fingerprints of the applicant to be taken and compared with any and all records maintained by the municipality, the county in which it is located, the State Bureau of Identification and the Federal Bureau of Identification. He shall also determine and record a complete description of each handgun the applicant intends to carry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...