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

[n4p226r 105]

what are the three judges names? i've read stark, hardiman, and aldisert but couldnt find anyone named stark

[ryan_j 0]

Me neither. Leonard P Stark?

[n4p226r 105]

If that is the guy we are screwed. Not that I thought differently. He is an Obama appointee. He didnt talk much so i couldnt get a feel for it. The old guy was obviously anti gun.

[71ragtopgoat 23]

If that is the guy we are screwed. Not that I thought differently. He is an Obama appointee. He didnt talk much so i couldnt get a feel for it. The old guy was obviously anti gun.

This ! This is exactly where we need to organize and fight. We cant do anything on the legislative front as NJ is so far left.

But we need to write and protest judicial picks going foward. This we must do if we get the deck stacked against us here more then it already is we are done.This is where the real fight should take place.

[ryan_j 0]

Well it's not like we weren't warned but people voted for gay marriage, food stamps and free cellphones not their constitutional rights.

[ryan_j 0]

If that is the guy we are screwed. Not that I thought differently. He is an Obama appointee. He didnt talk much so i couldnt get a feel for it. The old guy was obviously anti gun.

 

I honestly don't know. He is a district court judge for Delaware. No idea why he'd be on that panel in the court of appeals. Must be a different one.

 

http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/judge_24

[ryan_j 0]

Well bad news, it is him.

[ryan_j 0]

If that is the guy we are screwed. Not that I thought differently. He is an Obama appointee. He didnt talk much so i couldnt get a feel for it. The old guy was obviously anti gun.

 

He is and he has a record of being anti gun. I think despite the lawyer contest we'll see this case shot down in flames and the 2A will remaind buried in the district court and not in SCOTUS.

[wooly bugger 1]

 

He is and he has a record of being anti gun. I think despite the lawyer contest we'll see this case shot down in flames and the 2A will remaind buried in the district court and not in SCOTUS.

Does this mean that because there is no disagreement in the district courts, there is no way SCOTUS will hear it?

[ryan_j 0]

 

Does this mean that because there is no disagreement in the district courts, there is no way SCOTUS will hear it?

 

Pretty much. There's no split at this point, IIRC. Unless there are other cases and they are ruled differently.

[NJPatriot 0]

Any word on when the 3rd Circuit Court of appeals is expected to rule on the case?  i think its been over 3 months since A. Gura argued the case.

[ryan_j 0]

No word. None at all. I've been checking too. 

[ryan_j 0]

Don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but there is a minor update to this case.

 

Remember Piszczatoski? I hope I spelled that right. He was the coast guard member who was denied a permit. Well he retired from the CG and managed to get a retired LEO carry permit. It was issued in March. However counsel did not know this.

 

So he's now dropped from the case.

 

The good news is that the case is much easier to remember and pronounce, since it is now called "Drake v Filko."

 

No news other than that. 

[n4p226r 105]

So an active duty coast guard is denied. But retired falls under leosa?

[ryan_j 0]

So an active duty coast guard is denied. But retired falls under leosa?

 

Yeah I thought that to myself too. But it could be that, like Muller, they just gave him a permit to go away. 

 

By the way this is not LEOSA. LEOSA is a Federal law. This is the NJ retired officers' right to carry which is a state permit. 

[71ragtopgoat 23]

Do any of these two people reflect good or bad on this case now that they have CCW ?

[ryan_j 0]

Do any of these two people reflect good or bad on this case now that they have CCW ?

 

I don't think it really has any bearing at all.

 

The state tried to use the fact that Muller was granted a permit to say that they routinely grant permits, but judge Hardiman wasn't buying that. Gura nailed them in the supplemental briefs. 

 

The coast guard guy got a retired LE permit, but they pretty much excluded  that, since letting LEOs carry guns isn't really the point being argued here. 

 

And come on, does anyone really think only 600 people a year would apply for permits in NJ if they were routinely issued? 

[maintenanceguy 510]

Several months ago, I had found the supplemental documentation submitted by both parties to the court after the case had been heard.  these included the number of CCW permits issued by NJ every year for the last several years.

 

I can't find them online now.

 

Does anybody have the URL?

 

thanks.

[NEAHS 11]

I believe what you seek is on Page # 22 Post # 659...   http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/20560-saf-v-nj-muller-et-al-v-maenza-et-al/?p=671070

Several months ago, I had found the supplemental documentation submitted by both parties to the court after the case had been heard.  these included the number of CCW permits issued by NJ every year for the last several years.

 

I can't find them online now.

 

Does anybody have the URL?

 

thanks.

[ryan_j 0]

It's about 600 a year is what they're saying. 94% are approved.

 

But I've also heard there are 30k CCW permits in total in NJ. So that includes retired cops?

[maintenanceguy 510]

That was what I was looking for.  Thank you. 

 

And yes, it looks like there were only 600 applicants in 2011.  I wonder if this includes armed guards that need to carry as part of their job?  If so, there were almost no regular citizen applicants.

[ryan_j 0]

That was what I was looking for.  Thank you. 

 

And yes, it looks like there were only 600 applicants in 2011.  I wonder if this includes armed guards that need to carry as part of their job?  If so, there were almost no regular citizen applicants.

 

Pretty sure that it does include armed guards and armored car drivers. It does not include retired police. 

[Live_Free_orDie 1]

Don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but there is a minor update to this case.

 

Remember Piszczatoski? I hope I spelled that right. He was the coast guard member who was denied a permit. Well he retired from the CG and managed to get a retired LEO carry permit. It was issued in March. However counsel did not know this.

 

So he's now dropped from the case.

 

The good news is that the case is much easier to remember and pronounce, since it is now called "Drake v Filko."

 

No news other than that. 

 

"However counsel did not know this".

 

My understanding is that Piszczatoski informed counsel prior to applying.  Since nothing changed (other than his retiring) no one thought he'd receive the retired LEO permit, since he didn't receive a permit originally.  Personally, I think Gura could use this to show the NJ system is highly subjective.

 

[maintenanceguy 510]

Pretty sure that it does include armed guards and armored car drivers. It does not include retired police. 

The 600 may include armed guards but probably not armored car drivers.  Armored car guards are allowed to carry by federal law - no state jurisdiction.   600 applicants total is 28 per county.  I'm sure there are at least 28 armed guards per county.

[johnp 45]

Armored car guards are allowed to carry by federal law - no state jurisdiction. 

 

 

So your saying those guys who drive a Brinks truck don't need to have a NJ state CCW? That sounds incorrect.

 

 

The only people who can CCW in NJ without a NJ issued CCW, are leos from other states.

[maintenanceguy 510]

If you have a permit from the state where you are employed for an armored car company, you can carry in any other state while doing your job.  Many armored car companies have their headquarters in DE or PA and this allows the guards to carry in NJ.

[johnp 45]

Do you have first hand knowledge of this, or a source that says this is legal?

 

I have never heard of a federal law/statue that allowed armed security guards to cross state lines especially into NJ.

[ryan_j 0]

Do you have first hand knowledge of this, or a source that says this is legal?

 

I have never heard of a federal law/statue that allowed armed security guards to cross state lines especially into NJ.

 

It is indeed the law and it's because they engage in interstate commerce.

 

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/15C85.txt

 

 

(a) In general

If an armored car crew member employed by an armored car company -

 

(1) has in effect a license issued by the appropriate State

agency (in the State in which such member is primarily employed

by such company) to carry a weapon while acting in the services

of such company in that State, and such State agency meets the

minimum requirements under subsection (b) of this section; and

(2) has met all other applicable requirements to act as an

armored car crew member in the State in which such member is

primarily employed by such company,

 

then such crew member shall be entitled to lawfully carry any

weapon to which such license relates and function as an armored car

crew member in any State while such member is acting in the service

of such company.

[JoeInOcean 0]

So, as we wait for the decision from the Appeals Court, I was reviewing some of the statistics and documents associated with the case. .And I was amazed to see that in the last reported year there were only 600 or so applications for permits to carry, and few if any civilians applying.

 

This of course generates the statistic that over 90% of applications are approved, giving the appearance of a fair and balanced system.

 

My thought was this; What if the legal gun owners of New Jersey who are patiently waiting for this decision to restore their rights were to go now and apply... en masse, stating only the truth on the forms, and filling in the line where specific need is requested with something to the effect of "To protect myeslf, and to observe my Second Ammendment right. "

 

I have read many psotings that are critical of the idea of applying if the person believes this will lead to a denial, as that denial will need to be reported on all future forms.. But we are cowered into non-action by this thought. The legal term is "chilling effect".  And I was thinking that in a case where 1000 or 5000 citizens apply for permits within a 30 day window, that at minimum this would create several hundred plaintiffs for any follow-on case to the Federal courts, and would make NJ's applications approved percentages look like they actually are, <10% of people who desire a permit are granted one under our "may-issue" system.

[johnp 45]

My thought was this; What if the legal gun owners of New Jersey who are patiently waiting for this decision to restore their rights were to go now and apply... en masse, stating only the truth on the forms, and filling in the line where specific need is requested with something to the effect of "To protect myeslf, and to observe my Second Ammendment right. "

 

I have read many psotings that are critical of the idea of applying if the person believes this will lead to a denial, as that denial will need to be reported on all future forms.. But we are cowered into non-action by this thought. The legal term is "chilling effect".  And I was thinking that in a case where 1000 or 5000 citizens apply for permits within a 30 day window, that at minimum this would create several hundred plaintiffs for any follow-on case to the Federal courts, and would make NJ's applications approved percentages look like they actually are, <10% of people who desire a permit are granted one under our "may-issue" system.

 

 

I suggested the same thing months ago, but everyone is scared of having been denied a carry permit.

 

Even though just about every state that does issue CCWs doesn't ask on the application if you were ever denied. But there is still an irrational fear of checking an imaginary denied box.