NJ's unreasonable CCW is a de facto violation of our rights

[BCeagle 12]

I have been saying this for some time.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/06 ... ontentBody

 

CA lawsuit basically claims that eventhough there is law allowing CCW since it is routinely denied it is a violation of the 2nd amendment. If this wins out in CA, I would wonder if someone would attempt it in NJ.

[Lublin 3]

I'd love to see that win!

[ronoverdrive 0]

That would be an epic win and people will be lining up at the doors of PD's everywhere.

[Malsua 1,422]

I'm still unclear as to why people think that CCW is a big problem. I guess they think just holding a gun turns you into a homicidal maniac. This is why all rookie police officers don't calm down until they kill 12 people. It's called the Freshmen dozen, after that they become responsible gun owners. It's also why there are so many mass killings at gun shows and police stations.

[Lublin 3]

That would be an epic win and people will be lining up at the doors of PD's everywhere.

 

That would be the most beautiful and liberating sight ever.

[ronoverdrive 0]

That would be an epic win and people will be lining up at the doors of PD's everywhere.

 

That would be the most beautiful and liberating sight ever.

 

Until it takes you a year or two to get it because of everyone in front of you and the local PD's just ignoring filing it for a few months till they have some free time to do one or two here and there.

[BCeagle 12]

That would be an epic win and people will be lining up at the doors of PD's everywhere.

 

That would be the most beautiful and liberating sight ever.

 

 

Esp. coming out of a CA court. We can only hope.

[Lublin 3]

That would be an epic win and people will be lining up at the doors of PD's everywhere.

 

That would be the most beautiful and liberating sight ever.

 

Until it takes you a year or two to get it because of everyone in front of you and the local PD's just ignoring filing it for a few months till they have some free time to do one or two here and there.

 

The early bird gets the worm.

 

Keep your ear to the street.

[BCeagle 12]

That would be an epic win and people will be lining up at the doors of PD's everywhere.

 

That would be the most beautiful and liberating sight ever.

 

Until it takes you a year or two to get it because of everyone in front of you and the local PD's just ignoring filing it for a few months till they have some free time to do one or two here and there.

 

 

A right delayed is a right denied.

[TommyRuss 6]

I would wonder if someone would attempt it in NJ.

 

it's a shame the NRA has given up on NJ legislation...

[djg0770 481]

I'm still unclear as to why people think that CCW is a big problem. I guess they think just holding a gun turns you into a homicidal maniac. This is why all rookie police officers don't calm down until they kill 12 people. It's called the Freshmen dozen, after that they become responsible gun owners. It's also why there are so many mass killings at gun shows and police stations.

 

Epic Post Mark.

[ianargent 7]

For a while there the 9th circuit had incorporated the 2A against the states in it's juristiction - that rulign is pending an en banc review right now.

 

So it doesn't directly help NJ until SCOTUS rules 2A incorporated. SCOTUS votes to take it up or not late sept or early oct, and if they do, action in 2010.

[XDJohnTact 49]

I wonder how many NRA members live here in Jersey and if they would have any might if they collectively asked the NRA to take up the issue again?

[Dewhitewolf 8]

I have been hearing frequent blame for NRA not doing anything in NJ. The real blame, in my opinion, is the apathy of gun owners, who do next to nothing to stop anti-gun legislation. I know gun owners who don't join any organizations, don't vote (aren't registered to), don't contribute to pro-gun candidates, don't volunteer at outreach events to introduce shooting sports to new people, but then sit back and complain about how stupid and ridiculous the laws are.

 

They choose to remain ignorant to the fact that the anti-gun groups (Ceasefire NJ and others) continue to grow every year. They organize events, they get people to show up at town hall meetings, they get petitions signed, they give financials support to political candidates. The point is, they are active. And they are winning.

 

Too often I see other gun owners sit back in defeat, accepting that nothing can be done about it. Whenever I've tried, they would just laugh at me as if I were an out-of-control nut. Then, when the anti-gun crowd gets what they want (assault weapons ban, smart gun law, one gun a month law, etc), what do the gun owners do? They blame the NRA for not doing anything about it.

[SpecialK 193]

I walked around a college campus with about 30,000 students enrolled with a loaded gun! Even more surprisingly no one got shot!!!

 

This is of course in Colorado though. Where people are sane (for now that is ). Stupid liberals and stupid stupid people moving to Colorado and bringing their crap values with them.

[SpecialK 193]

I have been hearing frequent blame for NRA not doing anything in NJ. The real blame, in my opinion, is the apathy of gun owners, who do next to nothing to stop anti-gun legislation. I know gun owners who don't join any organizations, don't vote (aren't registered to), don't contribute to pro-gun candidates, don't volunteer at outreach events to introduce shooting sports to new people, but then sit back and complain about how stupid and ridiculous the laws are.

 

They choose to remain ignorant to the fact that the anti-gun groups (Ceasefire NJ and others) continue to grow every year. They organize events, they get people to show up at town hall meetings, they get petitions signed, they give financials support to political candidates. The point is, they are active. And they are winning.

 

Too often I see other gun owners sit back in defeat, accepting that nothing can be done about it. Whenever I've tried, they would just laugh at me as if I were an out-of-control nut. Then, when the anti-gun crowd gets what they want (assault weapons ban, smart gun law, one gun a month law, etc), what do the gun owners do? They blame the NRA for not doing anything about it.

 

I agree 100%

I was greeted with much "there is nothing we can do" attitude. (not from the guys on this site, just some others about everything and not just guns)

[Genewarper111 18]

I agree too. Where are these out-reach meetings? I'm in.

G

[Dewhitewolf 8]

I agree too. Where are these out-reach meetings? I'm in.

G

 

Events are hosted by the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs (www.njcsd.org), to name a few. I'm sure there are others arranged by other organizations.

[BCeagle 12]

If it wasnt so important, I would file the suits myself but I am paranoid about screwing it up. I wonder if NJ had to face a rash of lawsuits on the matter and was forced to defend each one if they would give in a little. I think someone should fight 1 gun a month as soon as the incorporation issue is decided. I wish I had a large staff of volunteers solely devoted to doing something in NJ.

[ronoverdrive 0]

Honestly if incorporation happens like we want it to there will be a lot of lawsuits. Hell the NRA might actually do something with NJ.

[n4p226r 105]

can someone explain to me what incorporation means?

[ronoverdrive 0]

can someone explain to me what incorporation means?

 

Currently there is both the Federal Constitution, aka the Bill of Rights, and the individual constitutions that each State has. Currently each state can choose to recognize either all or portions of the BoR. Incorporation means every state in the union would be forced to acknowledge the BoR regardless of their individual constitutions. This means if incorporation was to happen all state laws must be compliant with the BoR. For us that means states like NJ, NY, CA, MA, etc would be required to remove or make amendments to existing gun laws to make them 2A compliant. This means no more Assault Weapons Ban, no more time stretching when issuing FPID's, no more habitual CCW denials, no more OGAM, etc.

[KpdPipes 388]

I wonder how many NRA members live here in Jersey and if they would have any might if they collectively asked the NRA to take up the issue again?

 

 

The NRA opposed Heller until it was apparent that it would be a winner...THEN they jumped in with full support. I Wouldnt count on the NRA. I'm a member because i HAVE to be at my club, but they've gone a logn with a lot of incrementalism over the years.

[KpdPipes 388]

can someone explain to me what incorporation means?

 

Currently there is both the Federal Constitution, aka the Bill of Rights, and the individual constitutions that each State has. Currently each state can choose to recognize either all or portions of the BoR. Incorporation means every state in the union would be forced to acknowledge the BoR regardless of their individual constitutions. This means if incorporation was to happen all state laws must be compliant with the BoR. For us that means states like NJ, NY, CA, MA, etc would be required to remove or make amendments to existing gun laws to make them 2A compliant. This means no more Assault Weapons Ban, no more time stretching when issuing FPID's, no more habitual CCW denials, no more OGAM, etc.

 

 

This. I should probably put on nomex undies first, sinc esome here are going to vehemently disagree with what im about to say, but here it goes. The 2nd Ammendement actually doesnt Pertain to the state of NJ, or any other State. It, and the Constitution in general is a control over the power of the FEDERAL Government. The States were supposed to be in essence Independant governments, with the National Government only there to provide for national defense, and to arbitrate disputes between the states. Because SCOTUS has never heard a state-level case regarding the applicability of the 2nd ammendment as an individual right, unlike the first, fourth, fifth sixth, and so-on, States have individually been able to enact MUCH stricter controls than the Federal Government. The other half of the problem here is that NJ never adopted it's own version, from the origina state Constitution in 1776, through it's revisions in 1888 (?) and 1948. Until and unless it is incorporated to apply to the states by a SCOTUS decision, we're gephucked here in NJ.

[djg0770 481]

What frosts my baloney is listening to Cam & Company and they say stuff like "only 2 states" meaning Wisconsin and Illinois don't have right to carry laws. C'mere Cam - lemme show you my 'right to carry' in NJ. :?

[ronoverdrive 0]

This. I should probably put on nomex undies first, sinc esome here are going to vehemently disagree with what im about to say, but here it goes. The 2nd Ammendement actually doesnt Pertain to the state of NJ, or any other State. It, and the Constitution in general is a control over the power of the FEDERAL Government. The States were supposed to be in essence Independant governments, with the National Government only there to provide for national defense, and to arbitrate disputes between the states. Because SCOTUS has never heard a state-level case regarding the applicability of the 2nd ammendment as an individual right, unlike the first, fourth, fifth sixth, and so-on, States have individually been able to enact MUCH stricter controls than the Federal Government. The other half of the problem here is that NJ never adopted it's own version, from the origina state Constitution in 1776, through it's revisions in 1888 (?) and 1948. Until and unless it is incorporated to apply to the states by a SCOTUS decision, we're gephucked here in NJ.

 

Actually I agree with you 100%. While I'm no expert myself I can still say that majority of this country don't know how its actually run. Its a sad truth, but this is why so many politicians one up us every day. They take advantage of ignorance and in some cases enforce the ignorance to remain in power for as long as they can.

[ianargent 7]

"Incorporation (of the Bill of Rights) is the American legal doctrine by which portions of the Bill of Rights are applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, although some have suggested that the Privileges or Immunities Clause would be a more appropriate textual basis. Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, in 1833 the Supreme Court held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal, but not any State, government. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1890s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporat ... _of_Rights) - since I would have spent all day coming up with that)

 

There are essentially 2 ways for a consitutional "right" to be incorporated against the states. One of them has been precluded by previous suits (Cruikshank and the Slaughterhouse cases, primarily - which have neutered the "privileges and immunities" clause). The third way is the one the the 9th circuit (amazingly enough) chose to use when they held the 2A is incorporated against the states (and the argument SAF etc is using in the Chicago cases); that is to say that the right guaranteed by the 2A is a right guaranteed by "Due Process"; which requires that the right be "fundamental".

 

(http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=3778 for a link to the news about the 9th circuit - but note that decision is in abeyance until it is reviewed by an en banc panel).

[BCeagle 12]

I was always told to give to the Gun Owners of America rather then the NRA since they were more hardline on the issues.

[Dewhitewolf 8]

If it wasnt so important, I would file the suits myself but I am paranoid about screwing it up. I wonder if NJ had to face a rash of lawsuits on the matter and was forced to defend each one if they would give in a little. I think someone should fight 1 gun a month as soon as the incorporation issue is decided. I wish I had a large staff of volunteers solely devoted to doing something in NJ.

 

What's your legal strategy? Which court (state or federal) were you planning on filing in? What's the issue, and what is the legal basis for challenging it?

 

Remember that Jersey City had at least four attorneys representing the city pro bono in the case where the city's one gun per month ordinance was challenged. You'll be fighting just as many, if not more if you plan on challenging the one gun a month statute.

 

If you plan on filing in federal court, keep in mind you need an actual controversy, not a hypothetical one. That means you have to show how you were actually harmed by existing legislation, AND that that legislation is either contradictory to existing federal law (and argue supremacy) or that it is a violation of your Constitutinal rights.

 

The Supreme Court in the Heller case still recognized the authority of states to pass "reasonable restrictions." You would have to demonstrate that any restrictions you face are "unreasonable."

 

Realistically, you will require the services of an attorney experienced in federal court proceedings as well as Constitutional issues. Then figure out a way to pay for him.

[ianargent 7]

Which is why I'm waiting for Alan Gura and his team. We know from the Chicago case that they had a lawsuit fueled and on the pad waiting for the verdict in Heller I. (From the timing, the lawyer in that case got the news of the Heller verdict on his blackberry, stood up, and filed the case that is now NRA vs Chicago). In fact they had several, many of which the towns chose to capitulate to rather than fight.

 

Assuming incorporation, there's several different state-level targets. There's already a case in CA filed by the SAF concerning their "permitted handguns" list. There's another in DC concerning denail of CCW.

 

For a variety of reasons I don't expect NJ to be the staging ground for the primary suits - there are worse places for each aspect of gun control. NJ, for example, doesn't have ownership permits (outside of the AWB), the way MA or NY have. CA has a more onerous AWB, etc. It's jsut that NJ is second-worse in so many ways...