SAF v NJ (MULLER et al v. MAENZA et al)

[joejaxx 38]

Here is the Complaint:

 

COMPLAINT against RICHARD COOK, PAULA T. DOW, EDWARD A. JEREJIAN, RUDOLPH A. FILKO, RICK FUENTES, FRANK INGEMI, PHILIP J. MAENZA, THOMAS A. MANAHAN ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 3433093.) NONE., filed by FINLEY FENTON, GREGORY C. GALLAHER, JEFFREY M. MULLER, SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC., DANIEL J. PISZCZATOSKI, LENNY S. SALERNO, ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY RIFLE & PISTOL CLUBS, INC., JOHN M. DRAKE.(ld, ) Modified on 12/2/2010 (mn). (Entered: 11/30/2010)

gov.uscourts.njd.249720.1.0.pdf

[vjf915 456]

I am no legal expert....but I do believe this is what we have been talking about for roughly a month.....

[joejaxx 38]

Here is the proposal for a timeline concerning the case:

 

The parties propose the following schedule:

• Plaintiffs will move for summary judgment no later than December 20, 2010;

• Defendants will oppose the summary judgment motion and cross-move to dismiss no

later than January 26, 2011;

• Plaintiffs will reply in support of summary judgment and oppose Defendants’ crossmotion

no later than February 16, 2011; and

• Defendants will submit a reply in support of their cross-motion no later than March 9,

2011.

gov.uscourts.njd.249720.9.0.pdf

[joejaxx 38]

Here is the timeline which has been agreed on:

 

On the joint application of the parties, the Court enters the following Scheduling Order:

 

• Plaintiffs will move for summary judgment no later than December 20, 2010;

• Defendants will oppose the summary judgment motion and cross-move to dismiss no

later than January 26, 2011;

• Plaintiffs will reply in support of summary judgment and oppose Defendants’ crossmotion

no later than February 16, 2011; and

• Defendants will submit a reply in support of their cross-motion no later than March 9,

2011.

 

Defendants and Plaintiffs will submit combined moving, opposition, and/or reply briefs

on January 26 and February 16, respectively, subject to combined page limits otherwise

determined in accordance with Local Rule 7.2(B).

gov.uscourts.njd.249720.11.0.pdf

[vladtepes 1,060]

I give them a lot of credit... that was well thought out..

[vjf915 456]

Definitely well thought out. But this was brought up a couple days ago in the other thread.

[joejaxx 38]

Definitely well thought out. But this was brought up a couple days ago in the other thread.

 

This thread has been placed as a sticky thread so we people have one place where they can go to watch the progress of the case (instead of there being a million threads created anytime something comes up).

[vjf915 456]

I understand. And I think this is a GOOD idea to have this stickied. I was just mentioning that this was already brought up. Thanks for posting it though, as it provoked a sticky for a VERY important topic. Didn't mean to sound like a dick about it.

[djg0770 481]

(instead of there being a million threads created anytime something comes up).

 

Like that's going to help.

[Guest megaman]

Here is a step backwards for the cause.

Showing need was decided as legal.

This was the first case filed post mcdonald.

 

this is bad news....

 

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16850979?nclick_check=1

[Malsua 1,422]

Here is a step backwards for the cause.

Showing need was decided as legal.

This was the first case filed post mcdonald.

 

this is bad news....

 

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16850979?nclick_check=1

 

Needs to happen otherwise it never makes it to SCOTUS.

[Guest megaman]

Needs to happen otherwise it never makes it to SCOTUS.

 

 

Very true!

[hopper 36]

This the part that scares me .... {The county maintained the Supreme Court's decision bestowed no right under the Second Amendment to carry a loaded concealed weapon in public.}

[NJCSD 0]

Things are heating up, folks. SAF makes motion for Summary Judgment.

 

NJCSD Library - Laws & Court Cases

Direct link: PDF of Motion for Summary Judgment

[sig2009 3]

Things are heating up, folks. SAF makes motion for Summary Judgment.

 

NJCSD Library - Laws & Court Cases

Direct link: PDF of Motion for Summary Judgment

 

 

Too much mumbo jumbo! Anyone care to put this into layman's terms.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

If you haven't joined the SAF yet, I suggest you do soon. These guys have done more in 5 years than the NRA has done in 20. When they're done, things like Assault Weapons Bans and No-Issue CCW will be unconsitutional.

[joecs1 11]

I joined SAF lifetime!

[PDM 91]

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?

[Bob B 103]

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?

 

Nice summary!

[joejaxx 38]

Reading the PDFs from the docket and watching the literary version of New Jersey getting a size 12"-spiked-steel-toed boot up its a** make me happy

[BigHayden 77]

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?

 

That's what I said could happen after I read the brief (posted over on NJCSD). And 3 years ago, when Heller was decided, I read that decision and predicted that because NJ doesn't differentiate between open and concealed carry, that would be the downfall of NJ's may-(not)-issue permit system.

 

It's nice to see the lawyers eating this elephant one bite at a time.

[joejaxx 38]

PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

 

gov.uscourts.njd.249720.14.0.pdf

[vjf915 456]

I hope this pulls through, and SOON.

[mikelets456 78]

PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

 

gov.uscourts.njd.249720.14.0.pdf

 

 

...and to think I was thinking of simply applying for a CCW in hopes I would get one. After reading their stories and they STILL were denied is unbelievable. I have no chance in HELL getting a CCW permit in NJ unless SAF is able to remove these unconstitutional laws. I did not realize how bad NJ is... I guess I simply became "numb" to it.BTW, Stalin was right... you tell a lie long enough and people start to believe it. Well, unfortunately for Stalin and the commie... err, ummm... government officials people are awake now and will not be going to sleep anytime soon.

 

Also, Looks like SAF did their homework. Very clever and honest (to boot) way to interject on this matter.

[BigHayden 77]

...and to think I was thinking of simply applying for a CCW in hopes I would get one. After reading their stories and they STILL were denied is unbelievable. I have no chance in HELL getting a CCW permit in NJ unless SAF is able to remove these unconstitutional laws. I did not realize how bad NJ is... I guess I simply became "numb" to it.BTW, Stalin was right... you tell a lie long enough and people start to believe it. Well, unfortunately for Stalin and the commie... err, ummm... government officials people are awake now and will not be going to sleep anytime soon.

 

Also, Looks like SAF did their homework. Very clever and honest (to boot) way to interject on this matter.

 

Actually, this is mostly ANJRPC's lawsuit. It's their lawyer, not SAF's. SAF is helping fund it and is providing some legal counsel, but the brief is ANJRPC's lawyer. I'm thoroughly impressed with it.

[NJCSD 0]

Actually, this is mostly ANJRPC's lawsuit. It's their lawyer, not SAF's. SAF is helping fund it and is providing some legal counsel, but the brief is ANJRPC's lawyer. I'm thoroughly impressed with it.

Whoa. How did you come upon this interpretaton?

[BRN169 6]

Lets look at what we know...

 

1) SAF is filing federal law suits against the most restrictive carry states one at a time much as they did in the run up to McDonald: CA, IL, MD, NY, etc.

2) They are looking for cases strategically by district.

3) They have filed against individual county sheriffs in CA in District 9

4) They have filed against IL in District 7

5) They have filed against MD in District 4

6) They have filed against NY in District 2

 

 

 

When you compare the US District Court map with the 2011 "right-to-carry" map, what is left; District 1 and District 3... Obviously Massachusetts and New Jersey would be the most likely candidate states in those respective districts. The strategery would seem to be to shotgun the District Courts looking for conflicting decisions that could be run all the way up to the SCOTUS. They are turning the way liberals have used the courts for the last 40+ years in an organized effort to attack our liberties against them and I for one am happy as hell they are finally sticking it to them with their own process. The trick now is to get these cases up to the top before our Marxist in Chief can further corrupt the SCOTUS. All you need is one more Marxist on the bench to flip the 5-4 majority against the Constitution and we will be twisting in the wind for a decade.

 

That said we also know the SAF has been soliciting potential candidate cases in NJ through the ANJRPC and NJCSD. I am sure with NJ being so openly hostile to gun rights they are crossing their Ts and dotting their Is. They could also be looking at multiple litigants in this state in either a combined complaint or separate individual complaints which would further delay filing. Either way I am shocked we have not already seen something filed and I can't imagine they would not file something before the end of the year... I have been somewhat ahead of the curve in calling this stuff for the last 10 years I have been paying attention to it, lets say I have had a better than good batting average in reading the tea leaves and if they do not file against NJ and or MA in at least the next 2-5 weeks I will be highly shocked. I am confident that NJ is going to get its a** handed to it in short order and am sort of surprised at the political hacks in Trenton content in their smug distain for gun rights that they do not see the tsunami coming.

 

Bazinga!

 

Comm2A announces Hightower v. Boston Right to Carry case in MA

 

Monday, 27 December 2010 18:28

Commonwealth Second Amendment would like to announce that a Right to Possess/Right to Carry case was unstayed in the Federal District Court of Massachusetts on Dec 14th and is slated to proceed to be heard on April 7th, 2011. The plaintiff's counsel is now Alan Gura and Chester Darling who are being supported by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc (Comm2A). The case was stayed pending McDonald and with the decision in McDonald, Hightower v. Boston can now proceed. Ms. Hightower had her LTC A revoked as a result of an employment dispute soon after her successful 2008 LTC renewal. The amended complaint alleges that as a result of the license revocation, Ms. Hightower's right to possess and carry a firearm has been violated by the city of Boston's policy, practice and custom. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment to prevent the City of Boston from violating the right to keep and bear arms of all it's citizens including Ms. Hightower.

 

Hightower v. Boston is the first of a series of cases in MA litigating the lawful possession and carry of firearms in MA brought by Comm2A and it's partners SAF. The actions will seek to right the wrongs of a 100 years of licensing practice and policy which have systemically violated the due process, equal protection and second amendment rights of MA citizens. Within the coming months, Comm2A will be filing more complaints in MA and neighboring states. Comm2A will also continue to diligently work with the defense counsels of a variety of people unjustly charged with technical violations of MA gun law in order to prevent further erosion of MA citizen's rights. This erosion occurs due to the abusive and overbroad application of criminal statutes meant to punish true criminals but which are misused against law abiding citizens. Comm2A's continued efforts to protect the rights of New England citizens via strategic and targeted legal action is dependent on the continued support of the firearms community in MA and beyond. Please consider donating to Comm2A by visiting http://www.comm2a.org and clicking on Donate. Please also signup on the Comm2A mailing list in order to stay abreast of future events and activities by Comm2A.

 

 

[vjf915 456]

Wow.....it seems like this bug is spreading across the nation.

[Dan 177]

The District Judge that signed the Scheduling Order is William H. Walls. I'm assuming he is the judge that will issue the summary judgment. If I'm wrong someone please let me know.

 

He was nominated in by Bill Clinton in 1994 on Sept 14th, a day after he signed the AWB ban bill into law. I can't help to think that this is not a good thing.

 

William Walls bio

[BRN169 6]

The District Judge that signed the Scheduling Order is William H. Walls. I'm assuming he is the judge that will issue the summary judgment. If I'm wrong someone please let me know.

 

He was nominated in by Bill Clinton in 1994 on Sept 14th, a day after he signed the AWB ban bill into law. I can't help to think that this is not a good thing.

 

William Walls bio

 

Don't get your hopes up, looks like the zombie recommended him...

 

William H. Walls