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

[CageFighter 236]

NJ sucks....move the f**k our now!

[njpilot 671]

NJ sucks....move the f**k our now!

+1000000000000000000000000000000000000

[ryan_j 0]

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.

 

It's not really a big difference. Read Hardiman's dissent. NJ banned all forms of carry, open or concealed except for a select few. That is an issue. Posner alluded to that similar argument in the 7th circuit (Illinois) case. 

 

and 25% is actually better than most cases. 

[diamondd817 826]

It's not really a big difference. Read Hardiman's dissent. NJ banned all forms of carry, open or concealed except for a select few. That is an issue. Posner alluded to that similar argument in the 7th circuit (Illinois) case. 

 

and 25% is actually better than most cases. 

 

CA2 and CA4 ruled the same way as our CA3 did on justifiable need. Scotus already denied to hear NY's CA2 case. One judges dissent will not make a difference, especially when its not the majority opinion. I don't see this making it to the supreme court. And what if it does and scotus rules in favor of justifiable need?

[ryan_j 0]

CA2 and CA4 ruled the same way as our CA3 did on justifiable need. Scotus already denied to hear NY's CA2 case. One judges dissent will not make a difference, especially when its not the majority opinion. I don't see this making it to the supreme court. And what if it does and scotus rules in favor of justifiable need?

If you actually read the decision and Hardiman's dissent and understood it, they referenced the Illinois case. This is not simply about justifiable need. This is about 2A outside of the home. It may or may not go to SCOTUS.

[hardlife_nef 1]

IANAL to be sure, but the whole basis of NJs gun laws seems to go against the basic tenat of law. NJ has made firearms possession illegal except for specific exceptions. So much for guilty till proven innocent. While not a law in itself it is a long held tenet. I recall hearing of a case in the late 70s that talked to this. (too lazy to look it up but I think it was somebody v Kentucky) Being that no other laws in that state follow that principal (that I am aware of, specifically dealing with an enumerated right), seems like there would be some basis via that route.

 I did read the ruling and dissent and there seems to be cause for the Supreme Court to take it up, but is it enough for them to do so? I don't know.

[galapoola 102]

Since SCOTUS never publicly gave a reason why they wouldn't take the NY case, we don't know for sure what is the standard they use in conference. It could be something as simple as too many other important cases to decide. Think of it from strictly an administrative point of view. The NY carry case is submitted. In conference they look at the case load and decide that a bunch of other cases need to be heard because no similar cases are in the que for next session. If they take the NY carry case they'd have to drop one or more cases that could never be resubmitted later on. SCOTUS knows that there is the MD case, NJ and a CA case working their way up. To delay a review of one doesn't necessarily mean carry will never be heard. NJ, NY & MD are so similar that any one could be heard and settle whether the 2nd Amendment applies outside the home. SCOTUS I'm sure knew this and maybe the logic is that they didn't have to act last session because they knew the others are on their way. MD is already submitted, NJ should follow this summer so SCOTUS will have at least 2 similar cases before it and maybe next session will be the right time for them to take one. I know much has been said about a split between circuits and that is a cause for review but this may not be the only way to be heard. I'm sure Scalia is chomping at the bit to get carry reviewed because of the way many states and lower courts have misinterpreted his opinion. They ignore the dicta and focus in on only the prayer for relief. I'm optimistic that NJ or MD will be heard.

[ryan_j 0]

The MD shooters forum has a nice thread going. There's even an attorney that practices before the circuit courts and SCOTUS in the thread.

 

Worth a read. He has some good opinions and he seems to think that it will either go en banc or SCOTUS. 

 

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=126972&page=1

 

Long and short of it is that Judge Hardiman basically ripped the other judges a new one and opened the door wide for higher scrutiny. 

[NJPatriot 0]

Sad day, but this perverse decision was not unexpected.  The deck was stacked against Gura from the beginning.  If the decision was based on the weak NJ Brief & Oral argument vs Gura's strong Brief & Oral argument it would have been a clear victory. But this is less about the 2A and infringing rights and more about politics and required liberal outcomes.  The court decisions are usually framed around such tortured sophisticated thought to reach their liberal conclusion or pure disregard for laws & logic, the latter being employed in this decision.  Hopefully, Judge Hardiman's strong and sound dissent will see this case continued in the 3rd via an en banc hearing or elevated to the SC.

[ryan_j 0]

This should tell you what a pile of elephant dung this opinion was, except for Hardiman's excellent dissent. 

 

 

” Appellants incorrectly characterize the “justifiable need” standard as a highly discretionary, seat-of-the-pants determination. On the contrary, the standards to be applied by licensing officials are clear and specific, as they are codified in New Jersey’s administrative code and have been explained and applied in numerous New Jersey court opinions. Moreover, they are accompanied by specific procedures that provide “safeguards against arbitrary official action.” See Siccardi, 284 A.2d at 539. Accordingly, we conclude that even if we were to apply the prior restraint doctrine, the Handgun Permit Law would survive its application."

 

 

Yeah so it's not arbitrary despite the fact that the former lead plaintiff was denied twice by the superior court, the only time he got his permit was when the federal lawsuit hit the 3rd circuit. 

 

Now I'm more curious which type of people get permits in NJ apart from security guards and retired law enforcement. Not necessarily names and addresses, but occupations and the justifiable need they used. I suspect this info is as top secret as possible because if it were exposed, this part of the ruling would have not been true at all. 

 

btw, if people think this is just bad news for NJ, I should remind people that the 3rd circuit also encompasses Pennsylvania and Delaware. Delaware under Beau Biden is already talking about changing its laws, and PA's AG is trying hard to chip away at concealed carry in the keystone state. With PA becoming more blue by the day, don't be surprised if PA becomes Jersey East in the future.

 

For that reason when I move (in the distant future) I'm thinking of Utah or some other far away state as far away from the cancer as possible. 

[ChrisJM981 924]

A particular attorney that came to a NJ2AS meeting as a guest speaker was fairly certain one case will make it to SCOTUS. He just wasn't sure which of the pending(at the time) cases it will be. The fight isn't over yet...

[ryan_j 0]

A particular attorney that came to a NJ2AS meeting as a guest speaker was fairly certain one case will make it to SCOTUS. He just wasn't sure which of the pending(at the time) cases it will be. The fight isn't over yet...

 

Was that David Jensen or Alan Gura? Both of them spoke at NJ2AS meetings, IIRC and both were counsel for this particular case. 

[Albanian 121]

Hardiman is the man. Sadly his dissent wasn't enough.

[ryan_j 0]

One good thing is that he even referenced the Pantano case which is headed to the NJSC:

 

 

If the Superior Court denies an application, the applicant may appeal the decision, id. § 2C:58-4(e), but appellate review is highly deferential, see In re Pantano, 60 A.3d 507, 510 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2013).

[galapoola 102]

A particular attorney that came to a NJ2AS meeting as a guest speaker was fairly certain one case will make it to SCOTUS. He just wasn't sure which of the pending(at the time) cases it will be. The fight isn't over yet...

Don't forget Justice Scalia, who was quoted recently as saying one of the carry cases would make it to the court

[PDM 91]

Unfortunately granting cert is not just up to Scalia.  You need 5 judges -- the same five who were the majority in Heller and McDonald.  I worry that one or more of them -- Kennedy in particular -- might feel that they've done enough on the 2A.   After all, the Court took 60 years (following the Miller decision) to address the 2A at all, and then issued 2 major decisions in the span of two years.  Also, when you look at the big picture, with "technical" concealed carry now allowed in all 50 sates there might be less of a sense of urgency.  The reality is that, unlike the much broader question of whether the 2A is an individual or collective right and applicability to the states covered in Heller/McDonald, the outcome of a ccw case will only immediately impact NJ, CA, MD, NY, Ct, MA and a few other states and at least on the surface there is some form of carry even in those states.  And my understanding is that other may issue states like NY, MD and CT and maybe even MA are significantly less restrictive in granting ccw permits than NJ.  I think the justices will consider that.  I am not all that hopeful of them granting cert, although I really hope to be proven wrong.

[PDM 91]

I just finished reading the entire opinion, and all I can say is "wow."  What this decision and the dissent make crystal clear is the difference between judges who take the Constitution seriously and those that feel free to bend or break Constitutional and legal principles to fit their world view.   Judge Hardiman says as much at the end of his dissent where he not so subtly castigates his colleagues by noting "Federal Judges must apply the Constitution and the precedents of the Supreme Court regardless of what each judge might believe as a matter of policy or principle."  The majority opinion is poorly reasoned.  I hope that the Heller majority will be sufficiently offended by this judicial activism so as to compel them to grant cert and overturn this garbage decision.

[galapoola 102]

the outcome of a ccw case will only immediately impact NJ, CA, MD, NY, Ct, MA and a few other states and at least on the surface there is some form of carry even in those states.  And my understanding is that other may issue states like NY, MD and CT and maybe even MA

There is huge difference between NY, CT & MA (throw CA in there as well). Since state permits are issued on a county level in these states, you have folks outside the big cities with what is a shall issue scheme. In MD and NJ you have a state permit issued by the state so no soup for you, next. NJ is different then in that we have carry in word but not in practice. Maybe SCOTUS was waiting for MD and NJ to bundle because unlike the others, we do not carry in practice

[ryan_j 0]

There is huge difference between NY, CT & MA (throw CA in there as well). Since state permits are issued on a county level in these states, you have folks outside the big cities with what is a shall issue scheme. In MD and NJ you have a state permit issued by the state so no soup for you, next. NJ is different then in that we have carry in word but not in practice. Maybe SCOTUS was waiting for MD and NJ to bundle because unlike the others, we do not carry in practice

 

CT has a peculiar scheme. First you get a local temporary permit and then apply for a state permit. However you can apply if you are a nonresident and if you move later on to CT you can keep your state permit, just change your address to CT by submitting a change address to DESPP. But in practice, CT is shall issue.

 

Another issue that CT, NY, MA have is that to even purchase a handgun you need a carry permit.

 

Oh and RI is shall issue but both local authorities and the AG issue permits. The AG has been denying people for lack of proper cause. But if you are a resident you can apply to your local authorities and get a permit that is good in the state. 

 

I kind of wish we had local discretion for permit issue. What jams us up is the superior court.

[PDM 91]

There is huge difference between NY, CT & MA (throw CA in there as well). Since state permits are issued on a county level in these states, you have folks outside the big cities with what is a shall issue scheme. In MD and NJ you have a state permit issued by the state so no soup for you, next. NJ is different then in that we have carry in word but not in practice. Maybe SCOTUS was waiting for MD and NJ to bundle because unlike the others, we do not carry in practice

Could be -- I hope you are right.  Or, since there are only two states that are impacted, they may decide not to take the case.

[diamondd817 826]

Don't forget Justice Scalia, who was quoted recently as saying one of the carry cases would make it to the court

No. Scalia said "gun control" will eventually make it to the high court. He said nothing about carry cases. 

[71ragtopgoat 23]

We need to start paying more attention to who gets appointed to the bench. Not just for 2A but for the constitution and liberty as a whole.

[ryan_j 0]

We need to start paying more attention to who gets appointed to the bench. Not just for 2A but for the constitution and liberty as a whole.

 

3 more years of Obama appointees. Let's hope none of them on the SC resign or croak. And if Hillary wins in 2016, kiss your 2A goodbye!

[galapoola 102]

No. Scalia said "gun control" will eventually make it to the high court. He said nothing about carry cases. 

Antonin Scalia says gun control is heading to Supreme Court

Scalia explained why he wrote Heller, but wouldn't discuss current gun control limits in Congress and the states. "There are doubtless cases on the way up," he said, adding that limits on what weapons can be owned will likely be part of any new decision. "There are doubtless limits, but what they are we will see."

 

Carry/May Issue are the current "gun control" laws before the federal courts so I suppose since almost all the cases working there way to SCOTUS are these types, these were the ones he was referring to.

[diamondd817 826]

And just what if scotus rules in favor of justifiable need?

 

Then what? Opens up a whole new can of worms.

[diamondd817 826]

Antonin Scalia says gun control is heading to Supreme Court

Scalia explained why he wrote Heller, but wouldn't discuss current gun control limits in Congress and the states. "There are doubtless cases on the way up," he said, adding that limits on what weapons can be owned will likely be part of any new decision. "There are doubtless limits, but what they are we will see."

 

Carry/May Issue are the current "gun control" laws before the federal courts so I suppose since almost all the cases working there way to SCOTUS are these types, these were the ones he was referring to.

 

Assualt weapons and mag limits were the current issues when scalia did that interview.

[ryan_j 0]

And just what if scotus rules in favor of justifiable need?

 

Then what? Opens up a whole new can of worms.

 

Well that's a risk we have to take.

[ryan_j 0]

Jog your memory a bit. Muller was the head plaintiff of this case and he got a permit in May 2011.

 

So 2 years have passed since Muller got his permit.

 

I'm just curious, was he able to renew? Because supposedly the permit is valid for 2 years and you have to provide justifiable need for a renewal. 

[ChrisJM981 924]

Jog your memory a bit. Muller was the head plaintiff of this case and he got a permit in May 2011.

 

So 2 years have passed since Muller got his permit.

 

I'm just curious, was he able to renew? Because supposedly the permit is valid for 2 years and you have to provide justifiable need for a renewal.

That's a very good question.

[maintenanceguy 510]

As I understand the decision, it is okay to violate a constitutional right as long as (1) you've been violating that right for long enough - "long standing tradition" or (2) it's for the greater good - "intermediate scrutiny". 

 

I can't believe they would even say this, the can't possibly believe it to be true.