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

[Spartiati 63]

Ok, so appears they have dropped the SAF has no standing argument and wasted a bunch of electrons saying in 30 different ways that the entire case is gibberish because there is no case law that says the 2A extends beyond the home. So they picked up no ground in my view.

 

How long now before it goes to a judge? Anyone know what the timeline looks like going forward?

[SpecOps2087 3]

Yep, again more nonsense from NJ. What did we really expect?

 

 

Big question is, when is a judge going to actually sit down and listen to oral arguements rather then bickering back in forth in letters?

[BigHayden 77]

Big question is, when is a judge going to actually sit down and listen to oral arguements rather then bickering back in forth in letters?

 

When the decision from this case gets appealed to the 3rd Circuit. Briefs are the arguments for this round.

 

Gut feeling is that this one gets ruled against us and appealed up. Only one more stop between this case and SCOTUS, and I think this one has the legs to make it that far.

 

It's been interesting, to say the very least.

[vjf915 456]

So you're saying that the NEXT step is the judge rules in favor of either the plaintiffs or the defendants? Wow, that was quick.

[BigHayden 77]

So you're saying that the NEXT step is the judge rules in favor of either the plaintiffs or the defendants? Wow, that was quick.

 

That's the next step. It gets into a judges hand and the feeling is that we'll have a ruling by September. ANJRPC keeps cautioning though, no matter what the outcome, appeals are expected. What does that mean for us? If the ruling goes our way, and NJ appeals it, they'll be granted a TRO against the lower court ruling, so nothing changes until no more appeals happen.

 

If you're impatient, you're hoping the ruling goes our way and no appeals are made (remember Christie saying he doesn't want to fight Obamacare because the state doesn't have the money? Perhaps he can be persuaded to do the same here...), we could potentially be obtaining carry permits by Christmas. This is pie in the sky thinking though. If you're looking at this as a long game, you want to see the appeals right up to SCOTUS, since this will help the most people (i.e. MD, NY, DE, RI, MA, CA, HI).

 

We've been denied our right to carry for decades; I think another 2-3 years of waiting is a worthwhile trade to get carry recognized as a right for everyone.

[ianargent 7]

Restoral of rights is a long game via the courts. Hopefully once we can get some traction that way we can move to the legislature, either NJ's (fat chance) or the federal one.

[Live_Free_orDie 1]

Isn't this already in the hands of Clinton appointee Judge, William H. Walls?

[n4p226r 105]

So These cases don't really get decided by the arguments at all do they? More of just what the judges believe. Is that about right?

[Z71 4]

i'm bothered by the way the US constitution was referred to as "federal constitution" in the opening paragraph..,,like to mean the government gives us rights..makes me wanna say hey paula its "we the people" not "us the government"...and they lean on Heller alot for their case..am I correct in saying macdonald defined self defense as the core right to the 2nd amendment?....seems clever on their part to ommitt anything relative from the macdonald decision..

to me, if they prevail(using Dow logic) the juge would be saying the 2nd amendment right exists only because the government allows it...

[Malsua 1,422]

i'm bothered by the way the US constitution was referred to as "federal constitution" in the opening paragraph..,,like to mean the government gives us rights..makes me wanna say hey paula its "we the people" not "us the government"...and they lean on Heller alot for their case..am I correct in saying macdonald defined self defense as the core right to the 2nd amendment?....seems clever on their part to ommitt anything relative from the macdonald decision..

to me, if they prevail(using Dow logic) the juge would be saying the 2nd amendment right exists only because the government allows it...

 

The way I read the argument, they're stating that unrestricted self defense is only allowable "WITHIN THE HOME". They kept focusing on that.

 

If you follow that train of thought, they're arguing that outside the home, self defense is not permissible without government approval. That question will get answered at some point and I don't believe that NJ will prevail. If that were to make it to the Supreme Court AND the SC decided self defense is not a right outside of the home without government approval, the outcome might turn out badly for the supporters of such bs.

[NJ Warlord 1]

Looks like the state is starting to take this case seriously. At least the writing is better-ish.

 

Though they fail to realize that all arguments they are making are full of holes.

 

Its like trying to demonstrate that a bucket with a whole in the bottom will hold water. And even if it won't? Well this other bucket with a hole in it will catch what it doesn't.

[Fawkesguy 57]

No matter which way this case ends up, I'm assuming it will be appealed. What worries me is there is no guarantee the Supreme Court will even agree to hear it if it makes it that far. If it doesn't go our way, that could be the end of the line for us.

[EngineerJet 191]

what would happen if the SCOTUS refuses to hear the case?

[Fawkesguy 57]

what would happen if the SCOTUS refuses to hear the case?

 

 

Whatever the ruling was before it went to them would stand.

[I saw nothing 3]

what would happen if the SCOTUS refuses to hear the case?

 

Then it is time to move. However, I think this administration (Federal) has something up its sleeve regarding "gun control".

 

Joe Biden's Office Joins Gun Policy Discussions Gun policy

 

 

I hate Huffpo but this was the only place i could find it...

[EngineerJet 191]

so if the judge rules in our favor, then scotus says no thanks...we'll have carry in NJ? (theoretically)

[Fawkesguy 57]

so if the judge rules in our favor, then scotus says no thanks...we'll have carry in NJ? (theoretically)

 

If the judge in whatever court is last before the Supreme Court rules in our favor, then technically, yes. I believe.

[EngineerJet 191]

let's hope for that case then, it seems like the shortest route at this point. and to be honest, im sure the longer this is prolonged the more tax payer dollars are being used to deprive the tax payers of their rights

[quikz 34]

Permit me to play devil's advocate.

 

NJ is saying, I DARE you to find legal precedence or justification based on HELLER, or anything else, that says one is guaranteed a right to carry outside the home. NJ is safe in that it does have reasonable common-sense regulation for carry based upon justifyable need, already on the 'books' & so what if we deny anyone or everyone we deem not satisfying that need in the reasonable interest of common-sense public 'safety' and good. These gun nuts are straining the argument here to try to usurp NJ's long standing 'common-sense' regulatory policy which NJ believes is well within legal and constitutional guidelines, reasonableness and common-sense, even in light of Heller.

 

The next level judge will rule in favor of us (NJ) and your Plantiff's (wingnut) arguments are MOOT.

 

Have a nice day.

[BigHayden 77]

Looks like the state is starting to take this case seriously. At least the writing is better-ish.

 

I got the exact same impression when I read it the first time.

 

They seem to focus on the stronger parts of their arguments in this brief. Of course, their strongest argument is that Heller defined the right as the right to a handgun inside the home, which, as much as they would like that to be the case, the relief that was granted to Heller was not the holding of the court. The court held that the second protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that D.C.'s ban (which, incidentally was also a "regulation, not a prohibition", as NJ keeps reiterating) on handguns in the home was in violation of that right. That, and they seem to think that if they declare the statute constitutional enough times, it will automatically become so. Sort of like saying "Beetlejuice" 3 times. "It's constitutional. It's constitutional. It's constitutional."

 

The other fallacy they keep harping on is that there is no case law beyond Heller that extends Heller beyond the home. That's a bit like defending segregation before Brown vs. Board of Education. They don't seem to understand that sometimes jurisprudence doesn't exist and needs to be built through new cases. By their argument, McDonald should not have incorporated the 2A against the states because it hadn't been done since Heller (though, I'm not entirely sure they didn't believe that...).

[vjf915 456]

Wait wait wait.....the judge will be ruling by September? What the hell does the judge need 6 months to rule by? All four presentations could be read, re-read, and read once more for clarification in less than a day.

[NJ Warlord 1]

The funny thing is if we were to get a ruling September that'd be considered rather quick.

 

Man I wish I could find a job where reading less than a hundred pages and writing maybe 20 in six months time would be considered working quickly...

[ianargent 7]

This isn't his only case, presumably. The federal judiciary is overloaded (which isn't new). This is sitting in a hopper right now.

[sig2009 3]

Wait wait wait.....the judge will be ruling by September? What the hell does the judge need 6 months to rule by? All four presentations could be read, re-read, and read once more for clarification in less than a day.

 

 

By then MoBamma will have inacted all of his executive orders banning guns!

[ptbr321 59]

It's just upsetting when you read the NRA website and you see other states getting more gun rights and we continue to keep none.

[BigHayden 77]

It's just upsetting when you read the NRA website and you see other states getting more gun rights and we continue to keep none.

 

None? Hell son, we went backward on the 1st anniversary of the Heller decision! That's the day OGAM passed. To be honest, we're worse off now than we were before the Heller case even started.

 

I hate this state.

[karcirate 1]

The funny thing is if we were to get a ruling September that'd be considered rather quick.

 

Man I wish I could find a job where reading less than a hundred pages and writing maybe 20 in six months time would be considered working quickly...

 

To be fair, he also needs to go through every case referenced by every brief in this one. You know all those numbers and letters you skipped? He needs to go through those (or at least his clerk does). Then he should be (emphasis on should) thoroughly digesting all the arguments and case law before making any decisions. Then he must write his decision, being careful with every line not to say more or less than he means to.

 

Of course he might also just be some shlub who will just dash off some stupid decision after doing nothing for months. I guess we will find out.

[BCeagle 12]

The funny thing is if we were to get a ruling September that'd be considered rather quick.

 

Man I wish I could find a job where reading less than a hundred pages and writing maybe 20 in six months time would be considered working quickly...

 

 

I recently got an appeal brief that said there were too many letters on each line. It looked great but i think you are only supposed to have 46 letters on each line and I had 50 something. You wouldnt want the judges to do too much reading.

[quikz 34]

Does anyone know how this next Judge will rule???

[robot_hell 72]

Clinton appointee... take a guess