Jump to content
joejaxx

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

Recommended Posts

No. I think NY was the first appeal to be ruled on and NY won. California won at the circuit level and the other day was the arguments for the appeal. Maryland lost at the circuit level and the case was hear in October. Nj won the circuit level and the case will be argued for appeal in February. So we have 1 win and 1 loss right now with nowhere to go other than the Supreme Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I think NY was the first appeal to be ruled on and NY won. California won at the circuit level and the other day was the arguments for the appeal. Maryland lost at the circuit level and the case was hear in October. Nj won the circuit level and the case will be argued for appeal in February. So we have 1 win and 1 loss right now with nowhere to go other than the Supreme Court.

 

California only won because there was (at the time of the decision) a legal option for people to open carry unloaded weapons which has since been legislated away. Expect to see California back in court and in a serious jam after having criminalized the reason they won the last battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. I think NY was the first appeal to be ruled on and NY won. California won at the circuit level and the other day was the arguments for the appeal. Maryland lost at the circuit level and the case was hear in October. Nj won the circuit level and the case will be argued for appeal in February. So we have 1 win and 1 loss right now with nowhere to go other than the Supreme Court.

 

NJ won at the district level, not the circuit level. Third Circuit just heard oral arguments for our case per earlier posts up-thread. I had forgotten about the NY cases, but I don't think they've been argued or decided at the Circuit level yet. (There's an interesting one out of NY that hinges on what "arms" are; does the term cover things other than firearms, in this case nunchaku?)

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of us who can't listen to the audio right now, can somone summarize? Do the judges come across blatantly anti-gun? What's the next step, if this fails?

 

Well, the old geezer sounding guy is blatantly anti-gun. He was discussing Kachalsky v Cacace(Proper cause in NY) and how great and beautiful of a decision it was. He also discussed that Guru "Can't be serious" and has otherwise harangued him about his arguments.

 

The woman from the state is a bumbling muttering dingdong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was awesome to listen to. I'm a little put off by the idea that the state could legalize open carry in in lieu of concealed knowing that far fewer people would do so regularly. If they are forced to allow carry of some sort, how likely do you think it is that it would be OC only?

 

For those of us who can't listen to the audio right now, can somone summarize? Do the judges come across blatantly anti-gun? What's the next step, if this fails?

 

I think it went pretty darn well. I have not listened to the oral argument from the district court do I can't compare them but it seemed like the state's argument failed to hold water in the face of the justices' questions and analysis.

Edited by TIGL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a puss and know my rights. Also have attorneys in my direct family if police get stupid. I'm also former LE (quit not retired). Didn't mean to side-rail this thread. Back to topic!

 

It has nothing to do with being a puss, it's about being harassed by the police and property owners ceaselessly and making it difficult for you to go about your daily business. Causing that much of a scene everywhere you go would both be very draining and also, IMO anyway, do a disservice to our cause by scaring the general population too much. I agree that a right unexercised is a right lost but I'm just thinking pragmatically here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just listened to it and it does sound more in our favor but nonetheless the ruling can go either way but I'm predicting a 2-1 ruling in favor of the state but my prediction is worth what it is and that's nothing

On a related note, do we know who the three justices making the ruling are? It'd be interesting to see what their history is on 2A issues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with open carry in this State is you would be harassed by the police on a daily basis.

 

I'd be fine with that. Let them do that every day. Are they going to throw gun owners in jail every day? Detain and interrogate everybody who OCs every day? Also, vehicle carry is one of the things I'm most concerned about. Yes, I would like CC but if we get OC I'll take that until we can fight for concealed carry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After listening to the brief it sounds like it could go either way...as Gura was speaking the judges were asking hard questions and I was becoming disheartened. But once the AG came up they really hammered on her. But it could go either way, just have to keep up the fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The judge that asked most of the questions, the one that referenced Vermont's murder rate sounds to be on our side, the other judge who called NYS decision "beautiful" is probably not on our side to say the least lol, it seems like it rests on the final judge who for the most part was pretty silent so its hard to say what he thinks

 

How long do you think till we get a decision?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After listening to the brief it sounds like it could go either way...as Gura was speaking the judges were asking hard questions and I was becoming disheartened. But once the AG came up they really hammered on her. But it could go either way, just have to keep up the fight.

 

They were asking such hard questions she didn't even know how to answer half the time lol, Gura on the other hand had an answer and a response to every remark and question that was asked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The judge that asked most of the questions, the one that referenced Vermont's murder rate sounds to be on our side, the other judge who called NYS decision "beautiful" is probably not on our side to say the least lol, it seems like it rests on the final judge who for the most part was pretty silent so its hard to say what he thinks

That's how it came off to me too. Do we know the third judge's name?

 

 

...Also, vehicle carry is one of the things I'm most concerned about. Yes, I would like CC but if we get OC I'll take that until we can fight for concealed carry.

 

Oh, I totally agree. Also, being able to OC when I'm camping would be nice. Would an OC provision apply to vehicles? I know that's not the case in PA, where vehicle carry is considered concealed but they are a shall-issue state so that's not as big of a problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm listening to Alan Guru and my gawd, these judges have already made their decision.

 

Made their decision for which side? I assume you mean made their decision for the State? I don't know, I was think the opposite. I think Guru gave a very compelling case and seemed to me like the judges got it. The AG was absolutely horrible and walked into a number of traps. I am optomistic, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first started to listen to this I thought they were being very hard on Alan Gura. Then I listened to them with the AG and thought...OMG is this a joke? Is she really a lawyer and this unprepared? The one Judge asked her some solid questions and she just started to babble. The older Judge tried to step in and rehabilitate her but she didn't take the lifeline. BTW, WTH is "neead"? Anyway, I think we have a good shot. If I'm wrong and these Judges fall on the side of the State after her horrendous argument...I'll give up on the system.

Wish us luck!

SAF Life Member, NRA Member, Oathkeeper, NJ2AS member, ANJRPC member, Veteran, Nam Knight and a Plaintiff Appellant.

μολὼν λαβέ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, it sounds very positive. For us.

 

I believe it is typical fashion for judges to hammer both attorneys of both sides.

 

Trying to be unbiased here now... Gura supplied the most compelling evidence and argument.

 

I would agree, we need to get past history stance by each of the 3 judges regarding this specific issue. This, in order to pre-assess any possible outcome for or against.

 

But from my point of view, it did seem positive. However, expect NJ to implement highly unreasonable regulations on "carrying" if forced to change their laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say I really enjoyed listening to it. That woman was clearly in over her head.

 

As for restrictions... I don't think they could get too bad. Yearly qualification? No problem. Just means more range time for me anyway. NICS check every month like Kentucky? Eh not a problem given how many people are buying guns these days.

 

They could pull a move like California and allow you to carry the weapon unloaded, in which case it would be annoying. But I'd still carry out of principle.

 

But I'm getting ahead of myself here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I totally agree. Also, being able to OC when I'm camping would be nice. Would an OC provision apply to vehicles? I know that's not the case in PA, where vehicle carry is considered concealed but they are a shall-issue state so that's not as big of a problem

 

Actually vehicle carry in PA is not concealed carry. It's vehicle carry. The main difference is that you can carry in your vehicle if you have a permit from any state even if it's not valid for concealed carry in PA. Remember that PA doesn't have a concealed carry license. They have a license to carry firearms (LTCF) which is good for concealed carry and vehicle carry. The law is silent on open carry except where it prohibits it in Philadelphia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sorry I listened and the Judges for the most part, as far as I am concerned were helping the first Attorney. One of them atleast agreed, that its not boundless.. but its too NARROW... and that it should expand to atleast more options and allow more ways to issue the permit. Essentially... The judges feel Guru is being too confrontational, too limiting towards the state, not as much specific on almost working with the state.

 

I think that, after listening to this... that the judges would be more likely to rule that the Justifiable need clause needs to be edited, but that NJ is allowed to impose "reasonable" restrictions and that the judges agree that "justifiable need" is unreasonable.

 

The Judge who seems to be on our side, is pointing out that the "justifiable Need" clause has been getting more strict, almost to the point of non-issuance. In the one case law instance, the NJ supreme court dialogue says.. "It is getting stricter". The Judge also asks, why does the Judge get to choose why we get or don't the right to carry, he also asks is there proof... and if there isn't why is the "reason" for not issuing based on no evidence. You cannot just choose and make a decision based off nothing or personnal decision as an Objective Judge. Interpretation of the Law is interpretation of the LAW not personnal bias.

 

Also I think Open Carry seems to be a viable compromise. Ill wear it on my hip, openly like a man.

 

 

The deputy AG attorney is utterly terrible. She is literally burning them alive.. I bet she is changed out. Dunno if they can do that once legal council is selected.

- shes unprepared

- shes not at all ready... and I think the older judge is trying to giver her a helping hand and she is failing miserably

- I hope this is the State "trying" because if they are just loling at us.. Im gonna shit

- If she says "i didn't read that" "Haven't seen that" "Didn't look that up" one more time im gonna lol.... oh or "I am not aware"

 

 

 

"Is it still NJ's position that the 2nd Amendment does not extend outside the home..?"

 

"Um.. erh.. um.."

 

If she wants any hope to NOT look any more stupid she better cite some facts. And when she does that... she is so boned.

Guru needs the # of permits submitted vs the # of permits approved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guru needs the # of permits submitted vs the # of permits approved.

 

Agreed on all points. But the above is why the old, "Don't even try to get your NJ carry permit it's hopeless" is really not helpful and could actually hurt SAF's argument. More of us should be going out to apply and appealing the inevitable denial, not less.

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...