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

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Is that two days in normal people days? That could take forever in nj court days.

 

Sounds about how it works in NJ, but without holding my breath I'll be checking back for news later today.

 

Harry

[theduke 2]

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fsaf.org%2Flegal.action%2Fnj.lawsuit%2F29PlaintiffsBriefinReplyandOpposition.pdf&h=4bc88

 

This link was just posted on the SAF facebook page

[joejaxx 38]

MEMORANDUM in Support re 25 Cross MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint, 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY RIFLE & PISTOL CLUBS, INC., JOHN M. DRAKE, FINLEY FENTON, GREGORY C. GALLAHER, JEFFREY M. MULLER, DANIEL J. PISZCZATOSKI, LENNY S. SALERNO, SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 6-A, # 8 Exhibit 6-B)(JENSEN, DAVID) (Entered: 02/18/2011)

 

Here is the reply we have been waiting for from our side

gov.uscourts.njd.249720.29.0.pdf

[vjf915 456]

53 pages.....anybody got cliff notes?

[hd2000fxdl 422]

http://www.facebook....ion.pdf&h=4bc88

 

This link was just posted on the SAF facebook page

 

Well lets see what the responce is, to us on this side of the fence this has been easy to understand how this should turn out, but again we are in NJ.

 

Harry

[SpecOps2087 3]

53 pages.....anybody got cliff notes?

 

 

Cliff notes: NJ got **** slapped...again

[Bob B 103]

53 pages.....anybody got cliff notes?

 

Heller guarantees a right to carry arms in case of confrontation.

Heller is not limited to "in the home."

"Justifiable Need" is an impermissible standard.

The question is not about concealed carry or open carry, because NJ doesn't allow either - one or the other or both must be permitted.

Defendant's arguments are gibberish.

Amici Brady's arguments were likely written by a first year law student (no offense to first year law students).

 

It's reads like watching a Manny Pacquiao fight.

[vjf915 456]

Thank you kind sirs.

[Nick S 2]

Anyone on this side of the fence could anticipate the response that SAF et al would make to the defendants. I believe it was a well prepared answer to the latest bovine feeces spewed by the defendants. Now the real wait begins to see what the NJ court system says. Will they go against their own lawmakers/legislators in the state and support the citizens or will they stand firm in support of legislators.

[vjf915 456]

Any idea on how long it will take to find out where this leads?

[joejaxx 38]

Any idea on how long it will take to find out where this leads?

 

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

2011.

 

And then whenever the district judge decides to release their opinion on the case we will find out. Also I love the SAF press release they just sent out:

 

 

"The Second Amendment Foundation has funded this important lawsuit because the State of New Jersey can not be allowed to violate the Constitution," said Alan Gottlieb, founder of SAF. "We are not going to let New Jersey or any other state violate the rights of gun owners," he added.

 

"It is now crystal clear that the State of New Jersey has no intention of ever respecting the right to defend yourself with a firearm outside the home, and will have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into compliance with the Heller and McDonald decisions," said ANJRPC President Scott Bach. "With this lawsuit, we intend to do just that, even if we have to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court," said Bach.

 

[vjf915 456]

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

2011.

I forgot about that step

[SpecOps2087 3]

I forgot about that step

 

 

After reading the reply from SAF, I can't wait to see what NJ is going to say back, it's going to be priceless

 

They know they've lost without even starting, I feel bad for the lawyer assigned to defend this :thsmiley_deadhorse:

[Nick S 2]

The real battle will begin when this gets before the justices and they have to write their decision. The two sides can write whatever they want in the end it's what the justices believe to be true that matters. How they look at the laws in the end is what will decide this and what scares me the most is that the longer this case goes on the chance for some of the justices to change becomes greater as some of them may decide to retire rather than get their names attached to this decision. If the court remains a liberal court then the decision may not be as we want it and then the appeal process will begin. So far this is going just as expected.

 

I think the brief that was written by SAF et al was well put together and referenced some great cases to support their opinion. Unfortunately I am not a lawyer or one of the justices hearing the case.

[Zed's_Dead 16]

The real battle will begin when this gets before the justices and they have to write their decision. The two sides can write whatever they want in the end it's what the justices believe to be true that matters. How they look at the laws in the end is what will decide this and what scares me the most is that the longer this case goes on the chance for some of the justices to change becomes greater as some of them may decide to retire rather than get their names attached to this decision. If the court remains a liberal court then the decision may not be as we want it and then the appeal process will begin. So far this is going just as expected.

 

I think the brief that was written by SAF et al was well put together and referenced some great cases to support their opinion. Unfortunately I am not a lawyer or one of the justices hearing the case.

 

We're likely talking years before this gets to the Supreme Court, if it does at all. After the district court issues it's opinion, there's the possibility of an appeal to the Circuit Court where a 3 judge panel would review the case. If the issue at hand is deemed to be of sufficient importance, we could have an "en banc" hearing where ALL of the appeals judges on the 3rd circuit would hear the case. Then after that, a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court to see if they want to hear the case. If the federal courts move at the same pace as the NJ state courts do, I would estimate that we're looking at 2013 at the earliest if this were to go all the way to the supreme court.

[karcirate 1]

and this conclusions is part of the Court’s holding

 

Did anyone else notice this typo (the extra 's')?

 

Edit: the the brief was awesome. Make sure to read the footnotes, there are a few places where it basically makes fun of the defendants and of Brady.

[Nick S 2]

We're likely talking years before this gets to the Supreme Court, if it does at all. After the district court issues it's opinion, there's the possibility of an appeal to the Circuit Court where a 3 judge panel would review the case. If the issue at hand is deemed to be of sufficient importance, we could have an "en banc" hearing where ALL of the appeals judges on the 3rd circuit would hear the case. Then after that, a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court to see if they want to hear the case. If the federal courts move at the same pace as the NJ state courts do, I would estimate that we're looking at 2013 at the earliest if this were to go all the way to the supreme court.

 

My original post was not saying that this case was going to the Supreme Court. I was referring to the justices of the NJ Supreme and the Circuit Court of Appeals. I think we'll be lucky if this goes to the district courts before 2013 let alone the Supreme Court. I was involved in a case several years ago (not surrounding gun issues but a wrongful death suit) and it was 4 years before the case even had a date on the calendar. This battle is going to take years and that's what I meant when I expressed concern regarding any change in the judicial make up of the state or Federal court system before the case gets before a judge for oral arguements.

[joejaxx 38]

First MOTION for Leave to Appear Amicus Curiae First Motion by Paul L Abramo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit Cover, # 2 Index Table of Contents and Index, # 3 Brief Brief (as Exhibit A), # 4 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order, # 5 Certificate of Service Certificate of Service)(ABRAMO, PAUL) (Entered: 02/18/2011)

 

N.J.C.S.D and M.C.R.G.O. file to have their Amicus Curiae brief considered in the case:

 

Here is the following link for commenting on and reading the related press release:

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/22175-njcsd-mcrgo-file-amicus-brief-in-landmark-gun-rights-case/

 

Here is the Amicus Curiae Brief:

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49345970/NJCSD-Amicus-Brief-in-Landmark-NJ-Gun-Rights-Case

[NicePants 58]

Any updates?

[joejaxx 38]

Any updates?

 

Timeline is here:

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/20560-saf-v-nj-muller-et-al-v-maenza-et-al/page__view__findpost__p__273147

 

 

Waiting on this:

 

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

2011.

[BigHayden 77]

Scott Bach was on Tom Gresham's GunTalk show on Sunday (guest hosted by Alan Gottlieb). Gottlieb was practically giddy when they were talking about picking plaintiffs, and how they can't get much more perfect that Mr. Muller. Scott hinted at yet another suit aimed at "taking down a major chunk of NJ's gun laws".

 

I know it'll be awhile, but I'm optimistic we're going to see meaningful change to NJ's gun laws.

[Bob B 103]

"It's an exciting time to be a gun owner in New Jersey!" Attorney Dan Schmutter at the Feb 16th NJ2AS meeting, Belleville, NJ

[kenw 293]

"It's an exciting time to be a gun owner in New Jersey!" Attorney Dan Schmutter at the Feb 16th NJ2AS meeting, Belleville, NJ

It's probably also an exciting time to be:

 

a citizen of Egypt/Libya/Greece/etc.

a resident of Wisconsin

a Somali pirate

[YankeeFan 49]

It's probably also an exciting time to be:

 

a citizen of Egypt/Libya/Greece/etc.

a resident of Wisconsin

a Somali pirate

[LorenzoS 100]

I believe they honestly think guns are so obviously evil that it does not warrant deeper thought or legal argument. Any time someone resorts to "common sense," as in "common sense regulation," you know they've run out of rational argument and are falling back to dogmatic beliefs. An if we do indeed win the court case, they will think the only possible explanation is that court is in the pocket of the evil NRA corporate lobby.

[Bob B 103]

It's probably also an exciting time to be:

 

a citizen of Egypt/Libya/Greece/etc.

a resident of Wisconsin

a Somali pirate

 

 

Now that's funny!

[djg0770 481]

It's probably also an exciting time to be:

 

a citizen of Egypt/Libya/Greece/etc.

a resident of Wisconsin

a Somali pirate

 

as well as:

 

a citizen of Camden

a citizen of Paterson

a citizen of Newark

[quikz 34]

All NJ has to do as was said, is "adopt" a CA et al, style system of CCW which as we know, will be a complete userptation of the SCOTUS rulings and our US Constitution, not to mention the fact that NJ will behave and has behaved in similar fashion many times before in emulation of certain states' policies (i.e. MA, CA, NY, DC & etc.)

 

So.... Im hoping that (like alot of our incumbent career politicians,) it will NOT be still more of the same BS.

 

Question is, will NJ have a significant counterargument to obstruct this case from going to the SCOTUS to begin with? Also, has NJ been sued like this before (prolly has, no doubt) and what was the result? (Zero as we are all aware.)

 

Like it or not, NJ -imho, is a TOUGH "nut" to crack. Generations of anti-gun, govt control fetish brainwashing has lead to this. -imho...

 

I am hoping for what amounts to be a quiet revolution in NJ, but even I must admit, there are plenty of landmines that may derail some/a few/any progress here.

[BigHayden 77]

Question is, will NJ have a significant counterargument to obstruct this case from going to the SCOTUS to begin with? Also, has NJ been sued like this before (prolly has, no doubt) and what was the result? (Zero as we are all aware.)

 

Have you read the response from NJ in this lawsuit? They have no legal ground to stand on, and they know it. And no, NJ has never been sued like this before. NJ laws have been challenged in NJ court (which is a bit like putting Osama on trial in an Al Queda court...), but this is the first time it's been done at the federal level.

 

All NJ has to do as was said, is "adopt" a CA et al, style system of CCW which as we know, will be a complete userptation of the SCOTUS rulings and our US Constitution, not to mention the fact that NJ will behave and has behaved in similar fashion many times before in emulation of certain states' policies (i.e. MA, CA, NY, DC & etc.)

 

Remember, this lawsuit is only challenging the justifiable need portion of the permit system! It isn't attacking the permit system itself. If this gets appealed up to the SCOTUS and they say the justifiable need portion of the law is unconstitutional, I'm not 100% sure that if they made unloaded open carry legal, that would satisfy the court in their ruling. And, if this case makes it to the SCOTUS, the issue will be whether or not the 2A protects an individual's right to carry a firearm at all. The wording is all there in Heller/McDonald, but another ruling is needed to establish case law.

[ianargent 7]

NJ has a very LARGE problem if the "justifiable need" section is pulled out. There is NO other firewall to keep people from carrying. The rest of the law is relatively unobjectionable if the permit is "shall-issue" and the judge's discretion as to what and where is pulled - both of which can be done by a judge (and ought to be) without destroying the law. NJ would therefore have to pass new laws to clamp down. Better hope this goes through while Christie is still Governor and he's still got national ambitions for 2016 or 2020...