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

[1LtCAP 4,263]

presumably legal. means they're assuming it's ok since it's been around so long. can't we fire them?

[gd1147 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. 

 

 

Jeff Muller is a good friend of my Aunt's.  He used to be a regular at family bbq's but I haven't seen him in a few years as he doesn't go out much anymore since his ordeal.  If I by chance run into him anytime soon I will be sure to ask him.

[ryan_j 0]

Jeff Muller is a good friend of my Aunt's. He used to be a regular at family bbq's but I haven't seen him in a few years as he doesn't go out much anymore since his ordeal. If I by chance run into him anytime soon I will be sure to ask him.

Thanks. I'm not trying to pry into his personal life but I'm wondering since the state got what out of him that they'd be back to their old tricks. He absolutely needs his permit and I hope he gets to renew and keep it.

[ryan_j 0]

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.

I want to see them apply that to something else, like same sex marriage... I'm betting they wouldn't apply that reasoning.

[djg0770 481]

I want to see them apply that to something else, like same sex marriage... I'm betting they wouldn't apply that reasoning.

 

I wish someone had the balls in court to use that as an argument as to exactly why that type of reasoning is BS.

[71ragtopgoat 23]

I wish someone had the balls in court to use that as an argument as to exactly why that type of reasoning is BS.

It does not matter what other examples you bring up.They are going to twist it any way they have to to reach there liberal view on things.

Luckily our framers knew this and added shall not be infringed in the language to thwart them.

[Soju 153]

So basically they refused to rule on it because they know the ruling would be contrary to their personal opinion? I bet they would have no problem on ruling on things that are "not necessary to [their] conclusion" if they were in line with their own views. Not surprising. Standard politics.

[mikeyjones 88]

 

A civilian FBI employee should be unarmed daily?  He is an LEO, for Pete's sake. 

 

I prayed that maybe intelligent, well educated, rational, and "law abiding" judges would see the OBVIOUS ERRORS in the denials of these people.  If this is not "justifiable need", then SCOTUS CLEARLY needs to take this case and redefine what Justifiable Need means. 

 

 

I agree with you on everything except that a civilian FBI employee is not a LEO.  That's like saying a record clerk at a local PD is a LEO.  What makes him interesting is he had death threats from terrorist organizations against him.

[ryan_j 0]

One of the plaintiffs, Piszczatoski was a member of the coast guard. He could not get a NJ carry permit while he was active but when he retired he could get a retired LEO permit, which he did. 

 

Obviously I think everyone should have the right to carry but all of these people should have qualified.

 

One of them, John M Drake owns a business that restocks ATMs. He carries large amounts of cash. He was denied a carry permit. Sort of similar to Pantano who carries large amounts of cash payments for his landscape business.

 

Yet the superior courts have no problem issuing carry permits to armored car drivers who also shuttle around cash. The state is in fact inconsistently applying the standard.

 

This should not have been upheld. But you knew that already. 

[djg0770 481]

What makes him interesting is he had death threats from terrorist organizations against him.

 

I still don't understand what their basis then is for justifiable need?  NJ judges and courts apparently want to see you dead before they issue a carry permit - unless of course you are politically or financially connected.

 

For purposes of a court case and only for this purpose, I would love to see a list of carry permits issued, those which are NOT limited to "working hours" (ala armed security) and then investigate the names and see what standard of justifiable need was used to grant their permits.  It's a slipperly slope though, for if one person can request the information, then so can others which is how the lefty rags in NY disclosed that info earlier this year.

 

I also note (with great disgust) how when they have a case pending that would blow the current standard out of the water they "manage" to issue a carry permit, in order to get the appelant off the docket in order that they can rule for justifiable need and against the other appelants.

[PDM 91]

And let's not forget the connected politicians who are granted carry permits.  Check out this link http://www.michaelwildes.org/OnFirearms.htm in which Michael Wildes, the former mayor of Enlgewood cites his possession of a carry permit to provide his "bona fide" credentials as a "gun guy" who supports Loretta Weinberg's inane and dangerous smart gun legislation. Wildes states that he got his ccw because as a lawyer prior to 9/11 he "engaged in international cases involving the federal government and with persons who posed a threat to our nation and, later, more directly, to myself."

 

Really.  So an FBI employee who is involved in anti-terrorism work, a business owner who carries cash, a person who was kidnapped by a biker gang -- all are denied permits (at least, in the case of Mueller, until the pressure gets to much for NJ and he is given his permit to shut him up) and told to find some other way to protect themselves because the don't meet the "justifiable need" standard".  But Wildes gets his because he is a Democrat insider and buddies with Loretta Weinberg.  THIS is the point that needs to be publicized and shouted from the roof tops.  Even for someone who isn't in favor of concealed carry. this stinks to high heaven.  Cronyism, elitism, "do as I say not as I do" -- all these intractable problems of NJ politics are at play in the States unfair and nonsensical gun laws.

[plode 0]

I just posted the NJ.com article on my Facebook, and stated that it would be very awkward if the founding fathers intended for "keep and bear arms" to only pertain to your home.  A former coworker of mine commented back and said:

do you realize how old that amendment is...most of the constitution was written before the civil war...i think time has changed alot...but we are still going by rules over 224 yrs old....doesn't make sense

 

 

People are such idiots.  I don't even know what to say back to her. 

[raz-0 1,259]

presumably legal. means they're assuming it's ok since it's been around so long. can't we fire them?

 

No, presumptively legal means that Heller basically said that some regulation is permitted, and some is not. They listed some examples they felt were legal, and then stated that this is not an exhaustive list. Because they said that it was not exhaustive, all regulations are presumptively legal until challenged (more or less). The circuit court basically said... neener neener, we believe in general, we can refuse to make a real decision and pass the buck because this is a regulation that is part of that undefined, presumptively legal pool of state regulations, and since you can carry a gun to hunt and as a security guard, the state has not eliminated every means to bear arms outside the home, so we are presuming that longstanding law does not actually eliminate your 2nd amendment rights, and is thus ok because it has been around a while. 

 

It's pretty tortured, but what is to be expected. The NJ constitution says you have a right to self defense. However, if you want a permit, the only way to get it other than for your job, is to have someone try to harm you to the point lethal force would have been justified, and to have failed to kill you, but still actively wants to right now. THEN because the threat is imminent, you might get it after a few court dates sometime in the future. Seems pretty broken to me as a formula. 

[ryan_j 0]

2.  Daniel Piszczatoski received death threats from terrorist organizations.  These death threats result from his *employment* at the FBI.  For all common sense interpretations, I believe NJ state law should allow him a CCW permit.  He received death threats, he IS LEO, no questions asked.  In my mind, if you are in a position at the FBI investigating / interviewing / evidencing terrorist organizations, that alone should qualify you for CCW in NJ. 

 

Wasn't Piszczatoski a member of the coast guard? He got a retired LEO permit when he retired and dropped out from the case. 

[djg0770 481]

People are such idiots. I don't even know what to say back to her.

Tell her the 10 commandments specifically the two about not stealing and killing are ~7000 yrs old. She's right we should flush those as well.

[galapoola 102]

US Court of Appeals Affirms NJ Gun Law Requiring Gun Owners Provide Justifiable Need to Own a Gun, Full-hearing Next

 

"The defendants have appealed and will proceed to a US Court of Appeals full-hearing, which could then head to the supreme court."

 

Who knows what the full court will do? Maybe they will review and see how dumb the majority decision is.

[intercooler 41]

it would seem reasonable to conclude that even in affiriming the law in NJ, the majority did give reasonable justification for application to higher courts...they did not want to set a precedent that was not clear from Heller. 

This is going to the SCOTUS sooner or later...no doubt

[ryan_j 0]

US Court of Appeals Affirms NJ Gun Law Requiring Gun Owners Provide Justifiable Need to Own a Gun, Full-hearing Next

 

"The defendants have appealed and will proceed to a US Court of Appeals full-hearing, which could then head to the supreme court."

 

Who knows what the full court will do? Maybe they will review and see how dumb the majority decision is.

So they did in fact petition for an en banc hearing?

[ryan_j 0]

Yes, he is / was currently employed by the FBI and from Wayne, NJ. He is / was a warrant officer for the US Coast Guard:

 

 

PLAINTIFF DANIEL PISZCZATOSKI

 

Mr. Piszczatoski is a civilian employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation residing in Wayne, New Jersey. Mr. Piszczatoski serves as the program coordinator for the New York imaging services unit. Mr. Piszczatoski is also a warrant officer with the United States Coast Guard. In his capacity as a warrant officer, Mr. Piszczatoski has the statutory power of arrest.

 

At times in the past, Mr. Piszczatoski has carried a handgun in the course of performing his Coast Guard duties. At the present time, Mr. Piszczatoski is not qualified to carry a firearm while performing Coast Guard duties.

 

On October 30, 2009, the FBI advised Mr. Piszczatoski and other employees that it had received information that a specified Islamic fundamentalist group planned criminal attacks against FBI employees and their family members in retaliation for the treatment of Muslims by the U.S. government. The FBI warned that the group might follow employees home from work and attempt to kidnap or kill the employees or their family members. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Piszczatoski was dismayed to learn that an internet search for his name revealed both his home address and the fact that he was employed by the FBI.

 

See this should have ended the whole thing right then and there.

 

They say that justifiable need is for specific threats. So this guy gets specific threats from Islamists and he doesn't qualify? What kind of threats exactly would qualify you? I really do want to know.

[CMJeepster 2,778]

What kind of threats exactly would qualify you? I really do want to know.

Guess they were looking for names, soscial security numbers and DNA samples... This whole thing is so unreal.

[springfieldxds 0]

So they did in fact petition for an en banc hearing?

+2 I would like to know this also

[ryan_j 0]

I believe Gura or Scott Bach was saying that they'd do it. En banc and then scotus. 

 

The Pantano case should play into this as well, hopefully we push this at SCOTUS.

[Luso 6]

We need a ton of people willing to get rejected on ccw applications to apply before these cases get heard, so that the state can not fall on their "statistics" on "overwhelming approval rates".

 

It needs to be clear they are violating tons of applicant's rights

[Imaginos 0]

Well the law about aggregate numbers for permit holders that Christie just signed might help show that this law creates a defacto ban on ccw 

[kwadz 11]

Well the law about aggregate numbers for permit holders that Christie just signed might help show that this law creates a defacto ban on ccw 

 

When I dropped off my paperwork for more PPPs yesterday, at my municipal PD, I informed the police records staff that per the law Christie signed today (effective immediately) I wanted to request the following information from the PD:

 

# of Pistol Purchase Permits issued in 2011, 2012, 2013

# of FID cards issued in 2011, 2012, 2013

# of carry permits issued in 2011, 2012, 2013

# of Pistol Purchase Permit applications rejected in 2011, 2012, 2013

# of FID card applications rejected in 2011, 2012, 2013

# of carry permit applications rejected in 2011, 2012, 2013

 

They were noticeably annoyed with me and confused over the law since they were completely unaware and told me I’d have to talk to the state police.  I informed them that they were incorrect and that this information, per the law, was on a municipal basis, not just statewide.  They told me “uhhh, uhhh,  you’re going to have to talk to the clerk.  His office is down the hall on the left” in a very annoyed and angry tone.  I smiled (huge, devilish smile) and told them, “thank you VERY much!”

 

I went to the clerk’s office and asked the same question.  They politely told me that weren’t aware of the details of the law, yet, but that I’d have to fill out an OPRA request (with which they very nicely and willingly helped me make sure I filled out correctly) and that they’d give me whatever information they could per the law which they would research.  They said to give them a week or two and that they’ll get back to me.  I will keep you all updated with any response I receive.  I urge everyone to perform the same request at your local PDs.  If anyone has any other ideas for what we can request, I’d be game for heading back to the clerk and filling out more OPRA forms.

 

[Vlad G 345]

You do realize this law could backfire a lot of it turns out only like 3% of people in NJ own guns, right? I mean sure the number is not that low, but this goes both ways.

[71ragtopgoat 23]

I just posted the NJ.com article on my Facebook, and stated that it would be very awkward if the founding fathers intended for "keep and bear arms" to only pertain to your home.  A former coworker of mine commented back and said:

Quote

do you realize how old that amendment is...most of the constitution was written before the civil war...i think time has changed alot...but we are still going by rules over 224 yrs old....doesn't make sense

 

 

 

People are such idiots.  I don't even know what to say back to her. 

Nothing you say will sway that person. However my reply would be that people born today are exactly the same is those born back then. They have the same qualities and faults. 2A is there to dampen the faults and enhance the qualities among society.

[raz-0 1,259]

You do realize this law could backfire a lot of it turns out only like 3% of people in NJ own guns, right? I mean sure the number is not that low, but this goes both ways.

 

This law was always a double edged sword. Yes it prevents people form palying moral vigilante, but it also makes it harder to demonstrate the inequity in how carry permits are doled out and demonstrate a pattern. 

[voyager9 3,434]

You do realize this law could backfire a lot of it turns out only like 3% of people in NJ own guns, right? I mean sure the number is not that low, but this goes both ways.

 

Politicians (through the AG) would already have access to this number if they wanted to ask for it. This law just means that the public can get it.   Sure, it means both pro- and anti- groups can get it.. but from a political sway-perspective it was already available.

[Alex V 99]

When I dropped off my paperwork for more PPPs yesterday, at my municipal PD, I informed the police records staff that per the law Christie signed today (effective immediately) I wanted to request the following information from the PD:

 

# of Pistol Purchase Permits issued in 2011, 2012, 2013

# of FID cards issued in 2011, 2012, 2013

# of carry permits issued in 2011, 2012, 2013

# of Pistol Purchase Permit applications rejected in 2011, 2012, 2013

# of FID card applications rejected in 2011, 2012, 2013

# of carry permit applications rejected in 2011, 2012, 2013

 

They were noticeably annoyed with me and confused over the law since they were completely unaware and told me I’d have to talk to the state police.  I informed them that they were incorrect and that this information, per the law, was on a municipal basis, not just statewide.  They told me “uhhh, uhhh,  you’re going to have to talk to the clerk.  His office is down the hall on the left” in a very annoyed and angry tone.  I smiled (huge, devilish smile) and told them, “thank you VERY much!”

 

I went to the clerk’s office and asked the same question.  They politely told me that weren’t aware of the details of the law, yet, but that I’d have to fill out an OPRA request (with which they very nicely and willingly helped me make sure I filled out correctly) and that they’d give me whatever information they could per the law which they would research.  They said to give them a week or two and that they’ll get back to me.  I will keep you all updated with any response I receive.  I urge everyone to perform the same request at your local PDs.  If anyone has any other ideas for what we can request, I’d be game for heading back to the clerk and filling out more OPRA forms.

 

My pistol purchas permits are ready to be picked up... I should do the same when I pick 'em up this week :-D