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

[Dan 177]

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

 

William H. Walls

 

 

Looks even worse according to that bio page:

 

On the unanimous recommendation of New Jersey U.S. Senators Bill Bradley and Bill Lautenberg,

[vjf915 456]

But it has been said a couple times....this ruling will be based solely on the LAW. Hopefully that gives enough room for this judge to rule in favor of the plaintiffs.

[joejaxx 38]

But it has been said a couple times....this ruling will be based solely on the LAW. Hopefully that gives enough room for this judge to rule in favor of the plaintiffs.

 

While having a decision in our favour would be nice, I actually hopes he sides with New Jersey and this goes to the Supreme Court. I want New Jersey to get an even bigger spiked,steel toe boot up their a** (along with national attention). I am sure we can wait a bit more after this ruling to get a Supreme Court decision as we have been waiting forever already. New Jersey is the poster child of failed gun control and I would like to see a national grandstand while these unconstitutional provisions are struck down with fire.

 

Also in furtherance of the original post:

 

New Jersey should be filing their response on Wednesday (Jan 26th) to our Motion for Summary Judgement.

[vjf915 456]

Although I agree with you on some level....I can't help but think that I would REALLY like to be able to have carry laws that mirror some states like PA, have some bordering states that honor our CCW permits, and then worry about the rest after.

 

Yes mag capacity restrictions, the AWB, OGAM, all that is BS and I want to get those laws removed.....in due time. My main concern is protecting myself outside of my home. I live just outside Trenton, and frequently travel into Trenton. It's a serious concern of mine.

[joejaxx 38]

Although I agree with you on some level....I can't help but think that I would REALLY like to be able to have carry laws that mirror some states like PA, have some bordering states that honor our CCW permits, and then worry about the rest after.

 

Yes mag capacity restrictions, the AWB, OGAM, all that is BS and I want to get those laws removed.....in due time. My main concern is protecting myself outside of my home. I live just outside Trenton, and frequently travel into Trenton. It's a serious concern of mine.

 

Oh no I am talking strictly about carry as this case would only bring up the issue of carry in New Jersey to the Supreme court and none of the other things you listed (those would have to be brought up in other lawsuits). While it would be nice to get carry with a district court decision in our favour I would rather have the Supreme Court do it. New Jersey would have its ill intended carry laws struck down for the entire country to see. This should be very entertaining.

[vjf915 456]

I agree, it WOULD be very entertaining, and very satisfying....but at the cost of what? Call me paranoid, but that extra year of not being able to protect myself isn't worth a big F-You to NJ. If it would result in obtaining more of our freedoms, then I could support it....but not just for some simple gratification. I have no problem with those who feel that way, it is your opinion....I just choose to disagree.

[ianargent 7]

Well, I sort of suspect that NJ would appeal if they lose at this stage. Unless Christie surprises the heck out of me and says something to the effect of "we can't afford to appeal a case that would lose at SCOTUS anyway." Given that the decision to appeal is (I believe) in the NJAG's hands, and those hands are attached to Paula Dowd's intense hatred for freedom...

[joejaxx 38]

Here is New Jersey's response (it has not been updated on the docket archive yet):

 

LEGAL ARGUMENT

 

POINT I

PLAINTIFFS ANJRPC AND SAF DO NOT HAVE STANDING, AND THEIR CLAIMS SHOULD BE DISMISSED

 

POINT II

THIS COURT SHOULD DENY PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT BECAUSE THE CHALLENGED PROVISIONS OF N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4 ARE CONSTITUTIONAL

 

A. The Challenged Provisions Do Not Implicate the

Second Amendment Right to Possess a Handgun in

One’s Home for Purposes of Self-Defense and Thus

Are Presumptively Valid or Pass Rational Basis

Review

1. The Second Amendment Does Not Encompass a

Right to Carry a Handgun Beyond One’s Home

2. The Challenged Provisions Are Presumptively

Lawful or Pass Rational Basis Review

 

B. Alternatively, Even If the Challenged Provisions

Implicate a Protected Second Amendment Right, They

Satisfy Any Standard of Review

1. The Reasonable Regulation Test Is the

Appropriate Standard of Review

2. The Challenged Provisions Satisfy Any Standard

of Review

NJ_AG_Motion_to_Dismiss.pdf

[Malsua 1,422]

Here's the summary that ANJRPC sent out. It's essentially the same information as the previous post with some commentary.

 

 

-----------

NJ RESPONDS IN

 

RIGHT TO CARRY LAWSUIT

 

Attorney General Moves to Dismiss Case,

 

Defends NJ Carry Permit Law

 

Says the Lawful Carry of Firearms

 

Poses a Danger to the Public

 

On January 26, the New Jersey Attorney General responded to the recently-filed lawsuit challenging New Jersey’s extreme and subjective handgun carry laws. The legal brief included both a vigorous defense of those laws and a motion to dismiss (i.e., end) the case. The Attorney General is also seeking to drop plaintiffs ANJRPC and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) from the case.

 

The Attorney General’s brief included the following statements:

 

New Jersey’s carefully conceived and long-standing regulatory scheme is rooted in an appreciation that a permit to carry may not afford any measure of self-protection to a particular applicant and would instead increase the risk of the applicant being involved in "the known and serious dangers of misuse and accidental use.” When a handgun is carried in public, the serious risks and dangers of misuse and accidental use are borne by the public.

 

New Jersey has not merely a significant interest but a compelling interest in combating handgun violence and combating the dangers and risks associated with the accidental and misuse of handguns, which are inherent in carrying a handgun. It also has a compelling interest in reducing the use of handguns in crimes. A government’s foremost function is to ensure the safety of all of its citizenry. When handguns are permitted to be carried beyond one’s home, the dangers and risks necessarily increase and are borne by the public.

 

Generally speaking, one cannot know whether crime against an individual will occur at all, much less know when, where, or how. Neither then can one know whether a handgun would provide an effective measure of self-defense and be safe to use as to other victims or bystanders. Further, the "need” for a handgun for self-defense outside of the home does not stand alone. The carrying of a handgun inherently comes with the dangers and risks of its misuse or accidental use. These dangers and risks are borne by everyone with whom the person encounters.

 

 

The full text of the Attorney General’s brief can be found here. http://www.anjrpc.org/link.asp?ymlink=432732&finalurl=http%3A%2F%2Fanjrpc%2Esite%2Dym%2Ecom%2Fresource%2Fresmgr%2FLegal%5FMotions%5F%5F%5FBriefs%2FNJ%5FAG%5FMotion%5Fto%5FDismiss%2Epdf

 

 

This historic lawsuit, brought in November, 2010 by ANJRPC, SAF and six private citizens, challenges the constitutionality of New Jersey’s "justifiable need” standard for issuance of handgun carry permits – a nearly impossible standard to meet that has all but eliminated the right of self defense with a firearm in the Garden State.

 

"We are disappointed but not surprised by the State’s response to our lawsuit,” said ANJRPC President Scott Bach. "The right to defend yourself with a firearm outside the home has long been disparaged in the Garden State, and if necessary we are prepared to take this lawsuit all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to change that,” said Bach.

 

40 states currently have laws recognizing the right of law abiding citizens to carry a handgun for self defense. Despite the mountain of evidence showing that sustained reductions in violent crime rates result after enactment of these laws, New Jersey has refused to modernize its own laws, instead choosing to imperil its citizens and force them to remain defenseless victims against armed criminals who don’t follow the law.

 

The next step in the case is for ANJRPC, SAF and the individual plaintiffs to respond to the Attorney General, which is scheduled to occur in mid-February. Given the brisk pace at which the case is moving, there could be a decision by the lower court as early as this Spring. Regardless of the decision, appeals are anticipated.

 

ANJRPC will keep you apprised of major case developments as they occur. Please watch for future alerts.

[tommy3rd 132]

Why am I not surprised by the response.

If she's so worried about accidental discharge and misuse or friendly fire, how about eliminating the stupid knife laws instead? No accidental and misuse there.

[Tactical Monkey 51]

Appreciate you keeping us up to date. Good Job!

[ChrisJM981 924]

Thanks for the update. I needed a good laugh after shoveling all that snow!

[karcirate 1]

My favorite line:

 

“Upon being

satisfied of the sufficiency of the application and the fulfillment

of the provisions of [N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4], the judge shall issue a

permit.” N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.7(a) (emphasis added).

 

She thinks that by underlining the word "shall" she can just ignore the whole first clause of the sentence... yeah that is really going to fool the judge.

 

 

If she's so worried about accidental discharge and misuse

 

I think knives would still be subject to misuse, i.e. crime.

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

Here's the summary that ANJRPC sent out. It's essentially the same information as the previous post with some commentary.

 

 

-----------

NJ RESPONDS IN

 

RIGHT TO CARRY LAWSUIT

 

Attorney General Moves to Dismiss Case,

 

Defends NJ Carry Permit Law

 

Says the Lawful Carry of Firearms

 

Poses a Danger to the Public

 

****A government’s foremost function is to ensure the safety of all of its citizenry****

 

Isn't there established Case Law that states otherwise?

[kenw 293]

Isn't there established Case Law that states otherwise?

Yep. There's case law that states that the police are under no legal obligation to protect individual citizens, and that they're immune from action against them for failure to prevent a crime from occurring.

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

Yep. There's case law that states that the police are under no legal obligation to protect individual citizens, and that they're immune from action against them for failure to prevent a crime from occurring.

 

So then how can NJ perpetuate this myth? Has anybody taken them to Court on this?

[ianargent 7]

Difference between legal and moral duty, I suppose. I have no legal duty to jump in after you if you can't swim - but I have a moral duty...

[Dan 177]

As expected.. nanny state rhetoric promulgated under the auspice of public safety and fear. The logic can be utilized for banning any type of object or behavior. Knives, cars, power equipment, tools, etc etc.

[tommy3rd 132]

 

I think knives would still be subject to misuse, i.e. crime.

so is a bat, a car, a rock, a hammer...

[YankeeFan 49]

.

.

.

bla bla bla legalese bs bla bla bla

.

.

.

1. The Second Amendment Does Not Encompass a

Right to Carry a Handgun Beyond One’s Home

.

.

.

bla bla bla legalese bs bla bla bla

.

.

.

 

Ok, Mrs. Attorney General, let's read word-for-word what the 2nd amendment says:

 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

Where exactly do you infer that the word "bear" means "only in your home"?

 

Geez...I hate scumbag politicians...

[karcirate 1]

Only thing I will agree with her on is that NJ does try to enforce a certain standard for when to issue permits (so it is not completely discretionary): Never.

[joejaxx 38]

Ok, Mrs. Attorney General, let's read word-for-word what the 2nd amendment says:

 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

Where exactly do you infer that the word "bear" means "only in your home"?

 

Geez...I hate scumbag politicians...

 

You know what is funny?

 

From Mcdonald:

 

JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.

 

Then we have from Heller (with SUCH AS being the key phrase here):

 

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a

firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for

traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

 

This is what New Jersey politicians are pretty much doing:

 

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a

firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for

traditionally lawful purposes, such as for self-defense within the home.

 

So the New Jersey AG wants to selectively read and modify the text decision to their liking.

[BRN169 6]

Ok, Mrs. Attorney General, let's read word-for-word what the 2nd amendment says:

 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

Where exactly do you infer that the word "bear" means "only in your home"?

 

Geez...I hate scumbag politicians...

 

Because of this sentance in Heller

 

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a

firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for

traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

 

To me the term "such as" would imply that this is only one of many reasons... We shall soon see.

 

The anti's seem to feel justified that it only pertains to one's home... A smell a severe beat down coming...

[cubflyer50 1]

No one ever mentioned what if someone were to go into a crowd with a samurai sword??? It is much more lethal than a firearm if someone were to start swinging it around and no one with a firearm was there to stop them...they are meant to cut someone in half and they are not limited to slashing 10 times!! ....there are so many ways a criminal or deranged individual can cause mass murder if that is their intent..

[YankeeFan 49]

Because of this sentance in Heller

 

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a

firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for

traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

 

 

To me the term "such as" would imply that this is only one of many reasons... We shall soon see.

 

The anti's seem to feel justified that it only pertains to one's home... A smell a severe beat down coming...

 

 

You would think that would be clear to these idiots when you read the phrase "for traditionally lawful purposeS"...as in MORE THAN ONE. Is it me, or do you have to take a class in lawyer school to "unlearn" basic English grammar?

[Drew 4]

No one ever mentioned what if someone were to go into a crowd with a samurai sword??? It is much more lethal than a firearm if someone were to start swinging it around and no one with a firearm was there to stop them...they are meant to cut someone in half and they are not limited to slashing 10 times!! ....there are so many ways a criminal or deranged individual can cause mass murder if that is their intent..

 

Police: N.J. Man Attacks Women With Tomahawk

 

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/01/07/n-j-man-attacks-women-with-tomahawk/

 

P.S. Don't give them any ideas, I like my samurai sword.

[stronski 0]

AG Dow's response is so poorly written, with no teeth in her arguement, one can almost think she was told to "throw the fight".

[CageFighter 236]

one can almost think she was told to "throw the fight".

 

we cant be that lucky! ...but im hoping we are!

[Z71 4]

AG Dow's response is so poorly written, with no teeth in her arguement, one can almost think she was told to "throw the fight".

 

it was like reading something pelosi would say..oooh the 60's..surprised she did'nt say nj could be a no issue state if we feel like it

oooh the 60's..and she argues like the suit is about nj was a "no issue" then says we do but we dont want you to but you can..so the plaintiff has no standing..I read the whole thing and WoW is all i'm left with.. AG dow is something special...

[sig2009 3]

I don't want to sound negative but hasn't SCOTUS said that states can impose reasonable restrictions on gun laws and the court hearing this case could side with the state on the grounds that this is a reasonable law?

 

Or as a lawyer friend of mine puts it. "No court is going to require a state to issue permits if it doesn’t already have its own ccw statute."

 

Your thoughts!