Jump to content
joejaxx

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

Recommended Posts

Because if I had a CCW permit, I wouldn't want my name released publicly....so I'm not going to try to throw someone else under that bus. That being said, I would have to imagine that none of them have a justifiable need, and just know the right people.

I agree. Could you request it without names. Like the nyt did but use it against them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they were to keep the personal information private, yet release information regarding the "justifiable need", then I think that's acceptable. I don't mean MY standard of acceptable, I just think that releasing that much personal information to the public is a moral issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This State sucks!!! :girlwerewolf: What makes law abiding citizens in bordering States like Pennsylvania and Delaware any different than the law abiding citizens of NJ?

They're smarter and know who to vote for and who to get rid of each election. Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if this has already been said in this thread (didn't have time to read through all 14 pages) but can't the plaintiffs gain access to the granted permit information through discovery (or whatever its called, I don't know anything about lawyer speak) and expose the favoritism and blatant arbitrary nature of the issuance of carry permits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if this has already been said in this thread (didn't have time to read through all 14 pages) but can't the plaintiffs gain access to the granted permit information through discovery (or whatever its called, I don't know anything about lawyer speak) and expose the favoritism and blatant arbitrary nature of the issuance of carry permits?

 

You're right...it's called discovery. If they haven't already requeted it, however, the time to do so has more than likely expired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if this has already been said in this thread (didn't have time to read through all 14 pages) but can't the plaintiffs gain access to the granted permit information through discovery (or whatever its called, I don't know anything about lawyer speak) and expose the favoritism and blatant arbitrary nature of the issuance of carry permits?

And that shouldn't be too much to ask, since there's only like 1200 CCW permits throughout the whole state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be a stupid question. But why can't we come up with the list of every current ccw holder and what their justifiable need was. How would you obtain that info? I'm sure we'll see some lame reasons compared to these

 

out of the supposed 1200 permits, id lay 8 to 5 that no more then 200 have a 'justifiable reason'. the rest simply greased the right palms. nothing more. same reason trump has a permit to carry in NYC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

out of the supposed 1200 permits, id lay 8 to 5 that no more then 200 have a 'justifiable reason'. the rest simply greased the right palms. nothing more. same reason trump has a permit to carry in NYC.

Didn't know trump has one.

Howard Stern does.

Sylvester Stalone has one(california) and he supports the brady campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many judges have a license and have denied people that same right , would be interesting to see how many hypocrites we have ???

 

I shoot with two judges on the weekend and neither one can get a CCW permit. So from my experience I don't think there are many if any judges that can get one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that those and armored truck drivers are excluded from that count.

 

Only retired LEO are excluded from that count, since they don't have to provide "justifiable need". Armored car personnel and private security (executive protection) are the majority of those ~1K permits, and they do have to have "justifiable need".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shoot with two judges on the weekend and neither one can get a CCW permit. So from my experience I don't think there are many if any judges that can get one.

I thought active judges were immune or could do no wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if that were true, constitutional carry would be nationwide, uncontested and 100% accepted

 

The problem is that the US Congress passed a law saying that active and retired LEOs (who meet certain requirements) must be permitted to carry, not that anyone must be permitted to carry. The US Congress could pass such a bill, I just doubt they will any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vast majority of PIs are retired LEOs anyway.

I looked at the app at one time, and the requirement was either being a former LEO with at least 5 years experience or working under a current PI. Even Bail Enforcement Agents had strict requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that the US Congress passed a law saying that active and retired LEOs (who meet certain requirements) must be permitted to carry, not that anyone must be permitted to carry. The US Congress could pass such a bill, I just doubt they will any time soon.

I'm still trying to figure out the whole CCW under LEOSA thing and how it squares Constitutionally.

What makes retired LE any different than any other Law Abiding U.S. Citizen, other than the fact that they have a stronger lobby than the NRA and SAF? They no longer have Law Enforcement powers, they’re unsupervised and do not receive any mandated annual training (Physical/Tactical/Weapons).

Are they a different protected class of U.S. citizen and where is that class defined under the Constitution? Are their lives and the lives of their families more important to protect than ours? Does crime only happen to jump out at them when they are not in their homes? If crime does happen to them, can’t they expect the same Police response that we’re afforded? It all makes me sick!!! :girlwerewolf:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was passed during a period of time in which the Second Amendment was not (yet) understood to "...protect 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," much less that it does protect other "lawful purposes" such as self-defense outside of the home.

 

With the change in the legal landscape, laws such as this one will change as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when can we expect the next update on the case? The first page only had up to the reply the AG sent about two weeks ago.

I asked the same. The last brief that New Jersey sent in was the last one and now we wait until September for a ruling. It seems like all we do is wait in this state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked the same. The last brief that New Jersey sent in was the last one and now we wait until September for a ruling. It seems like all we do is wait in this state.

September if we're lucky!

I predict Walls won't care that Dow makes a ludicrous argument, or that her brief's read like a first year law student (being gracious) wrote them...and will find for the State.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

September if we're lucky!

I predict Walls won't care that Dow makes a ludicrous argument, or that her brief's read like a first year law student (being gracious) wrote them...and will find for the State.

 

Do you think he will grant the motion to dismiss, or that he will rule in favor of the State? Not that it makes a difference, because an appeal will be filed post haste, but I'm curious what everybody thinks will happen. BTW, Dow didn't personally write any of the state's briefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...