another carry permit denial link

[Z71 4]

this was decided in july here in jerseyhttp://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a0865-09.opn.html

will this line of thinking ever change......

[Malsua 1,422]

Against this record, appellant argues that the trial court erred in not finding that he demonstrated a justifiable need to carry a handgun, that our State's laws in this area are "out of sync with the rest of the country," and that the decision of the trial court violates his constitutional rights under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. We reject these arguments.

 

Enjoy it while you can, you black robed fascist. Your day of reckoning is coming.

[sirsloop 1]

So if you are scared for your life, what alternatives do you have? Carry a knife and hope they don't bring a gun... and hope if you use it you won't be strung up for using a knife to defend yourself? Leaving protection up to the police force is a laughing matter, not to mention it is not their job.

[fliks 20]

I think the law says something to the effect that the cops are not obligated to protect you. and you're not allowed to protect yourself... so what then? lay down and take it, New Jersey resident, criminals have RIGHTS in our state... ridiculous...

[sirsloop 1]

ya... cops are not supposed to protect, just clean up and arrest

[fliks 20]

what about that "to serve and protect" slogan I see on some cop cars... what a load of crap.

[jeff47 30]

In all fairness the lawsuit that was dissmissed basically said that the police aren't legally obligated to save you if they're not around. While I don't remember the exact details it wasn't like the police were drinking coffee and eating donuts while those woman were being raped and tortured and said "F' it, I'm on break" or something.

 

But that having been said if you can't carry a cop with you it would nice to have some sort of legal protection.

[FFDP82 4]

In all fairness the lawsuit that was dissmissed basically said that the police aren't legally obligated to save you if they're not around. While I don't remember the exact details it wasn't like the police were drinking coffee and eating donuts while those woman were being raped and tortured and said "F' it, I'm on break" or something.

 

I'm no lawyer and I do not remember specific names, but there are hundreds if not thousands of court cases in this state and pretty much every other state, as well as federal suits up to and including in the supreme court, where the courts have upheld time and time again that the police have no duty or obligation to protect an individual, only society as a whole. Some of the cases are indirect, others are very egregious and I recall one where police did not even respond to a call while the woman was raped and murdered. Some the police's actions have stopped the crime and the victim died anyway. Sure the family might get some cash in a civil suit six years later, but what good is money when you're worm food. I am sure smity can reference many cases for you.

 

It's foolish to expect the police to be able to protect everyone at all times, nor would I want them to, if it were somehow even possible. Personal protection is an individual's responsibility first and foremost, and laws that keep a regular person from defending themselves are unconstitutional and need to be abolished. It's as simple as the old corny quote "self defense is a basic human right"

 

Here's one:

 

Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special cases, explained below). Despite a long history of such failed attempts, however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails. Legal annals abound with such cases.

 

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

 

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect.

[SpecOps2087 3]

So when is NJ being sued over this BS...?

[FFDP82 4]

So when is NJ being sued over this BS...?

 

SAF is vetting plaintiffs for a lawsuit against NJ as we speak. Gun owners who actually give a crap about their rights should ditch the NRA and donate to SAF instead.

[Guest]

Roland Straten is a candidate for congress against Pascrell. He will most likely sue further as he is 'connected'.

I think the cases in MD and NY will be tests for NJ. The Gov needs to sit the AG and SP down with some sensible folks and straighten NJ law out.

Get rid of pistol permits

Get rid of recording of handgun ammo sales

Get rid of illegal carry permitting system.

Get rid of FAKE assault weapon ban.

 

You can keep your one gun a month, it only makes me actually buy ONE GUN A MONTH, so its a good thing.

The carry and transport laws need to change as well and not pin me as an honest person.

Then I will think about staying.

[crackaloon 15]

Should have been issued a carry permit as soon as he said he had a reason to travel in Paterson.

[ChrisJM981 924]

Against this record, appellant argues that the trial court erred in not finding that he demonstrated a justifiable need to carry a handgun, that our State's laws in this area are "out of sync with the rest of the country," and that the decision of the trial court violates his constitutional rights under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. We reject these arguments.

 

Enjoy it while you can, you black robed fascist. Your day of reckoning is coming.

 

http://www.rpmswavs.com/aceventurawnc/repent.wav One of my favorite movie quotes of all time. And in this case it's applicable.

[djg0770 481]

Roland Straten is a candidate for congress against Pascrell. He will most likely sue further as he is 'connected'.

 

If this guy can't get a CCW - there's no hope for Joe the Plumber, Ramy the Taxi Driver, Dan the Engineer, Matt the (perpetual) College Student, etc...

[vjf915 456]

Personally....I dont think that PAST experiences should be that much of a requirement for a CCW permit. I have never had any true life threatening experiences in the past, but I STILL want a CCW permit very much, simply because I live in Jersey. In such a densely populated state, with poverty in several areas (Trenton being ten minutes away from me) anything can happen at anytime. I dont feel the need to even have a past experience to be granted the opportunity to carry a concealed weapon. If I have no criminal background, I should be granted the RIGHT to do it. Bottom line.

[Wavecaster 22]

fear for personal safety is an inadequate basis to demonstrate a justifiable need for a permit to carry a handgun.

 

yea noone cares if an honest law abiding citizen dies but please dont harm the precious criminals if we shot back who would be left for these people to hug?

[Radek 73]

So if you are scared for your life, what alternatives do you have? Carry a knife and hope they don't bring a gun... and hope if you use it you won't be strung up for using a knife to defend yourself? Leaving protection up to the police force is a laughing matter, not to mention it is not their job.

[Z71 4]

here's a link to a recent article about the yet to be decided, nordyk case in ca. ... the article predicts a crushing blow to gun laws....

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.viewpage1d=193893

okay dam link wont work....article is from keepandbeararms site (dated

sat. aug 21st news) its a good read......

[e80hydro 120]

what about that "to serve and protect" slogan I see on some cop cars... what a load of crap.

 

 

That only applies to the free donuts and coffee they just shook some business owner down for.

[joejaxx 38]

here's a link to a recent article about the yet to be decided, nordyk case in ca. ... the article predicts a crushing blow to gun laws....

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.viewpage1d=193893

okay dam link wont work....article is from keepandbeararms site (dated

sat. aug 21st news) its a good read......

 

 

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=193893

[71ragtopgoat 23]

He has not identified a recent, concrete incident substantiating a justifiable need to carry a handgun. Appellant's remaining arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion

 

So lets see.In the last sentence quoted here the judge ducks hard on having to explain his decision to deny the second amendment right to this person.

I did not know judges did not have to explain there rulings of law.

Secondly a person has to convince a bureaucrat that they feel threatened to receive second amendment protections ?? So if a person who knocked the crap out of you and was never charged for it returns to threaten you and yours again you have to hope to survive enough abuse to maybe document it enough to convince someone who hears the case to rule in your favor based on nothing more then how they feel about it at that moment ??

There is no standard to be met ?? I dont know who to scream at more the clowns down in Trenton or the supposed organizations that say they are the protectors of the second amendment that many of us belong to.

Waiting for test cases my a$$ one need not look much further then the weekly crime blotter to find plenty of test cases. These guys (NRA,SAF and GOA) are no more then beggars and con men in suits for letting this crap go unchallenged for many,many years.

[AtlanticCounty 0]

Would a class action suit with a few of these guys who have been denied permits be more effective or is a solo case the way to go?

 

Not sure if this topic was discussed at the 2A club meetings. Just wondering if the case has more merit in numbers?

[KpdPipes 388]

He has not identified a recent, concrete incident substantiating a justifiable need to carry a handgun. Appellant's remaining arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion

 

So lets see.In the last sentence quoted here the judge ducks hard on having to explain his decision to deny the second amendment right to this person.

I did not know judges did not have to explain there rulings of law.

Secondly a person has to convince a bureaucrat that they feel threatened to receive second amendment protections ?? So if a person who knocked the crap out of you and was never charged for it returns to threaten you and yours again you have to hope to survive enough abuse to maybe document it enough to convince someone who hears the case to rule in your favor based on nothing more then how they feel about it at that moment ??

There is no standard to be met ?? I dont know who to scream at more the clowns down in Trenton or the supposed organizations that say they are the protectors of the second amendment that many of us belong to.

Waiting for test cases my a$$ one need not look much further then the weekly crime blotter to find plenty of test cases. These guys (NRA,SAF and GOA) are no more then beggars and con men in suits for letting this crap go unchallenged for many,many years.

 

What basis do they challenge it under???? The NJ State Constitution HAS NO RKBA PROVISION, and the US Constitution DID NOT FRIGGING APPLY Until McDonald.

[SpecialK 193]

"1. All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness."

 

That would be from the NJ Constitutions. My argument would be "Your honor you expect me to defend life liberty and protect my property against criminals with guns with a spork?" Then if I was denied I'd attack him with a spork, in which I would probably fail against the bailiff who is armed. As I was being hauled off I would be screaming "See! See! the spork was no match!!!! The spork was no match!!!!"

[71ragtopgoat 23]

What basis do they challenge it under???? The NJ State Constitution HAS NO RKBA PROVISION, and the US Constitution DID NOT FRIGGING APPLY Until McDonald

McDonald should have been KpdPipes years before. Then it would have FRIGGING APPLIED!!! We are all not passive like yourself and wait for others to fight our battles. They should have been in here regardless of what the state constitution says because the feds trump. That is in part what our civil war was fought over as the southern states did not like what the feds did.

[kenw 293]

... regardless of what the state constitution says because the feds trump. That is in part what our civil war was fought over as the southern states did not like what the feds did.

Really??

Tell us how you feel about the Fed trumping state's rights when talking about the Montana and Tennessee Firearms Freedom Laws, and Arizona's Immigration Law, and sanctuary states, and etc.

 

You gotta believe in one or the other. Can't have your cake and eat it, too.

[KpdPipes 388]

What basis do they challenge it under???? The NJ State Constitution HAS NO RKBA PROVISION, and the US Constitution DID NOT FRIGGING APPLY Until McDonald

McDonald should have been KpdPipes years before. Then it would have FRIGGING APPLIED!!! We are all not passive like yourself and wait for others to fight our battles. They should have been in here regardless of what the state constitution says because the feds trump. That is in part what our civil war was fought over as the southern states did not like what the feds did.

 

And that worked out REAL well for them, didnt it???? :roll:

[Z71 4]

here's a link to a recent article about the yet to be decided, nordyk case in ca. ... the article predicts a crushing blow to gun laws....

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.viewpage1d=193893

okay dam link wont work....article is from keepandbeararms site (dated

sat. aug 21st news) its a good read......

 

 

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=193893

thanx joe..

[71ragtopgoat 23]

... regardless of what the state constitution says because the feds trump. That is in part what our civil war was fought over as the southern states did not like what the feds did.

Really??

Tell us how you feel about the Fed trumping state's rights when talking about the Montana and Tennessee Firearms Freedom Laws, and Arizona's Immigration Law, and sanctuary states, and etc.

 

You gotta believe in one or the other. Can't have your cake and eat it, too.

If the supreme court decides against Arizona and for sanctuary cities then I will scream my head off and move on to the next battle.