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

[maintenanceguy 510]

the "have you ever been denied" box is on the NJ application for FID card and P2P.

[Rysdad 5]

I emailed The President of the NJ2AS and received a response. The content is below.Dear Sir, There has been a thread on-going in the NJgunforums about the possibility of members of the forum applying for concealed carry permits from the state of New Jersey as a group. The thought is that if many of us are refused permits it may help to prove that the state is indeed giving de-facto denials on permits. What are your thoughts on this matter? It appears many 2a supporters are looking for guidance before any action is taken. I look forward to hearing your opinion on this issue. Please respond to my personal e-mail address below.Have a great day!V/RHi Richard,As with most things in life, "timing is everything". Personally, I think it would be a mistake for people to take this approach at this time. There are already some very good legal options being explored at high levels throughout the Nation that "could" lead to a successful resolution to the question of "Constitutional Carry". I don't see that kind of a demonstration as useful AT THIS MOMENT. That could certainly change. We are obviously keeping a close eye of the progress of several of these lawsuits.The state of New Jersey is currently being run by a conspiracy between the three branches of NJ Government. I believe that such a move would be fruitless. Why - because it relies upon the statute that requires the police department to "act" within a certain period of time in the processing of these applications. What I believe will happen if they are pressed in this manner is that they will get a judge to rule that the suggested time period need not be strictly adhered to for one reason or another. They have already accomplished this "awkward" feat of “time management” with the infamous case of Adler v. Livak <http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1456634.html> wherein the judge ruled (effectively) that 30 days doesn't REALLY mean 30 days in the processing of FID's and Purchase Permits.We already have enough BAD case law in New Jersey. I would need to investigate this approach further with a qualified legal consultant before I would endorse it. Having said that, everyone over at NJGF is a free individual capable of making their own decisions. I just hope that they are willing to take this information under advisement before proceeding. “Information is power”. The more qualified information one can obtain about this approach BEFORE one engages in it, the better. I feel that there may be other avenues to explore first, but I would never rule out *ANY* non-violent approach to improving the condition of law-abiding gun owners.-----Original Message-----From: Richard, yyyyyy Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 9:36 AMTo: [email protected]: Permit to carry applications

I hate to quote myself but this is the reason I would not apply right now. Sounds like good sound advice to me coming from people that are fighting this fight.

[ryan_j 0]

You know what? We wouldn't even have to apply since a lot of the shenanigans happen well before, mostly that the PD talks you out of it, refuses to take your application, or returns it to you later on unprocessed. 

 

But I would apply. 

[wooly bugger 1]

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.

And I stated before that I'd be happy to do it as part of a concerted effort. Frank from NJ2AS asked everyone to pick up a CCW permit application a while ago, and I thought that was where things were headed.

[quikz 34]

I think it is easier to have those already w NJ "carry" permits to just show you the backside of their "carry" permits which CLEARLY shows, restricted for work use, just like the one I HAVE.

[ryan_j 0]

I think it is easier to have those already w NJ "carry" permits to just show you the backside of their "carry" permits which CLEARLY shows, restricted for work use, just like the one I HAVE.

 

You work in security or something?

[raz-0 1,259]

And I stated before that I'd be happy to do it as part of a concerted effort. Frank from NJ2AS asked everyone to pick up a CCW permit application a while ago, and I thought that was where things were headed.

 

I think everyone also thought we'd have the decision on this case by now, so.... doubt you will see direction before that happens. Then of course we have so many other avenues to sue over as well. If the new bills pass, even more as we don't have to have anyone go break a law to demonstrate harm as you start with a huge pile of legally non-compliant people. 

 

We are going to have to pick our targets, and everything is in flux right now. The current choice has been to challenge the vote rigging in law and public safety. 

[njJoniGuy 2,131]

Agreed, target selection is critical.

With the current (and future) shortage of ammo, well-aimed semi-auto fire will be much more effective than full-auto spray and pray.

 

[EmilyLitella] Never mind [/EmilyLitella]

[NJPatriot 0]

4-1/2 months and counting.  Is that good or bad that its taking so long? I re-listened to the oral arguments today and can't help viewing this through the prism of a prize fight where the underdog (A, Gura) actually wins the fight decisively, but the judges rob him.

[ryan_j 0]

That's really nothing. Moore v Madigan (illinois)took 6 months, almost exactly.

[maintenanceguy 510]

according to a Facebook post by Frank Fiamingo, president of NJ2AS, the ruling is expected in the next couple of weeks.

[ryan_j 0]

according to a Facebook post by Frank Fiamingo, president of NJ2AS, the ruling is expected in the next couple of weeks.

Whaaaat? I missed that.

[maintenanceguy 510]

Whaaaat? I missed that.

I went back and found the comment.  I take it back.  It looks like the comment was only a joke and I missed the joke.

[wink-_-wink 1]

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

 

LEOSA only applies to "Qualified law enforcement officers"  Until VERY recently it did not even cover DoD Police.  It has such changed to include them.

[KevD 0]

according to a Facebook post by Frank Fiamingo, president of NJ2AS, the ruling is expected in the next couple of weeks.

Still no word?

[ryan_j 0]

Still no word?

 

I predict the decision will be published in the Fall.

[Live_Free_orDie 1]

LEOSA only applies to "Qualified law enforcement officers"  Until VERY recently it did not even cover DoD Police.  It has such changed to include them.

 

Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and the Air Force are in the DOD, but Congress placed the U.S. Coast Guard in Treasury because they wanted them to enforce Federal Laws.  Nixon placed the CG into the DOT, and Bush placed them in DHS. The CG gets their authority to "enforce" Federal Laws under 14 USC 89.  Under 14 USC 89 commissioned, warrant, and petty officers may at any time go on board of any vessel subject to the jurisdiction, or to the operation of any law, of the United States, address inquiries to those on board, examine the ship’s documents and papers, and examine, inspect, and search the vessel and use all necessary force to compel compliance.  14 USC 89 also states when from such inquiries, examination, inspection, or search it appears that a breach of the laws of the United States rendering a person liable to arrest is being, or has been committed, by any person, such person shall be arrested.  So CG Commissioned, Warrant and Petty Officers are LE. 

 

The pinheads in the CG put out a message about two years ago stating their stance on LEOSA and tried to define what personnel may qualify under LEOSA.  IMHO 14 USC 89 has not been changed or amended and clearly states who can enforce the Federal laws...so I think the CG SOP falls flat...as would the PD Chief's who don't agree w/ LEOSA and think they can stop their retired LE from being qual'd under LEOSA.

Edited July 19, 2013 by djg0770
changed Nikon to Nixon

[diamondd817 827]

We lost. Opinion was issued today.

 

 

Two of the three judges on the panel joined to affirm the lower court. Judge Hardiman has dissented.

 

The dissent is brilliant, unfortunately it doesn't count.

 

What a surprise.

12-1150 Piszczatoski Opinion.pdf

[ryan_j 0]

As predicted.  Judicial activism rears its ugly head. 

[gd1147 0]

And now we all get our hopes up that SCOTUS will hear this case, but they will probably just pass in light of everything going on in this country.  Will now be seriously looking into moving to a free state.

[diamondd817 827]

And now we all get our hopes up that SCOTUS will hear this case, but they will probably just pass in light of everything going on in this country. Will now be seriously looking into moving to a free state.

SCOTUS won't take the case. There is no conflicting opinions on justifiable need. Your best bet is moving to a free state. Now you know why the NRA has written off NJ and states alike.

[pho3nix 5]

... =(

[mikeyjones 88]

Wasn't there another case pending as well or is this it?

[diamondd817 827]

Wasn't there another case pending as well or this it?

Nappen has a pending case in the NJ Supreme court waiting to be heard. Don't hold your breath, its the "NJ" supreme court.

[mikeyjones 88]

Nappen has a pending case in the NJ Supreme court waiting to be heard. Don't hold your breath, its the "NJ" supreme court.

 

Ok, that's what I thought. So NJ won't be getting CCW any time soon.

[gd1147 0]

SCOTUS won't take the case. There is no conflicting opinions on justifiable need. Your best bet is moving to a free state. Now you know why the NRA has written off NJ and states alike.

 

I know, I just love that now citizens of Chicago and IL alike now have CCW rights and we don't, yet both states face the same high crime city issues.

[ryan_j 0]

Wasn't there another case pending as well or is this it?

 

There's another case pending in the 9th. The 9th includes California. They don't call it the 9th circus for nothing.

 

There is a cert petition for the MD case, Wollard v Sheridan.

[ryan_j 0]

Ok, that's what I thought. So NJ won't be getting CCW any time soon.

There's still SCOTUS. Don't count it out yet.

 

The 7th circuit decision actually creates a split believe it or not. Volokh gives it 25% chance of getting cert.

 

http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/31/third-circuit-upholds-new-jerseys-highly-restrictive-scheme-for-gun-carry-licenses/

[diamondd817 827]

Ok, that's what I thought. So NJ won't be getting CCW any time soon.

 

NO.

[diamondd817 827]

There's still SCOTUS. Don't count it out yet.

 

The 7th circuit decision actually creates a split believe it or not. Volokh gives it 25% chance of getting cert.

 

http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/31/third-circuit-upholds-new-jerseys-highly-restrictive-scheme-for-gun-carry-licenses/

That means there is a 75% chance they will not hear it!

 

The CA7 decision was based on a complete ban on carry. NJ doesn't ban carry, they just don't let average citizens get a permit. Big difference.