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

[ryan_j 0]

Article in today's NJ Herald.  Basically what everyone already knew, but I thought it was overall an honest and unbiased article.

 

And to that, I raise you a totally biased editorial from the Star Ledger.

 

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/02/hey_wyoming_butt_out_of_jerseys_gun_laws_editorial.html#incart_river

[voyager9 3,434]

And to that, I raise you a totally biased editorial from the Star Ledger.

 

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/02/hey_wyoming_butt_out_of_jerseys_gun_laws_editorial.html#incart_river

The comments were actually pretty funny..

[Buns of Guns 7]

I think that NJ's unconstitutionality is far worse than that in other May Issue/Non Issue states.  If there were a serious case being heard (in our favor) it would involve the following:

 

1. The state's inherent inability to rule on "justifiable"ness for the reason that they don't know when nor why a person will be attacked and a firearm is the only reasonable means of self defense. Maybe this is similar to the "Good Cause" requirement in CA, but then again one county's definition is different from another's.
2. In NJ, the presumption of innocence before being proven guilty is reversed for those exercising their 2nd amendment rights outside the home (moving, going to the range..) The judge in Brian Aitken's case said that there was not substantial evidence to show that Aitken qualified for an exemption. It's clear that the burden of proof was not on the state, but on the defendant. It should be the prosecution's burden to produce enough evidence to show that the defendant did not quality for an exemption and was in violation of the law. Otherwise, it would be the gun owner's duty to document the entire trip so as to prove he was not making an unreasonable deviation.
3. Anytime you are leaving the house with a handgun, the law requires that it be unloaded and wrapped. But guns don't unload and wrap themselves the second you step off of your property. What this equates to is a small time frame where the gun owner is disarmed while on his own property. And even NJ law says that nothing in our statutes "shall be construed to prevent a person keeping or carrying about his place of business, residence, premises or other land owned or possessed by him".  Likewise, when you return home from an exempted location, your gun does not unwrap and load itself the second you step onto your own property.

[quikz 34]

Well..... NJ thinks this is their version of "common sense" so tough.

[ryan_j 0]

 

 

1. Anytime you are leaving the house with a handgun, the law requires that it be unloaded and wrapped. But guns don't unload and wrap themselves the second you step off of your property. What this equates to is a small time frame where the gun owner is disarmed while on his own property. And even NJ law says that nothing in our statutes "shall be construed to prevent a person keeping or carrying about his place of business, residence, premises or other land owned or possessed by him".  Likewise, when you return home from an exempted location, your gun does not unwrap and load itself the second you step onto your own property.

 

 

 

I don't get where you're going with this one. 

[raz-0 1,259]

 

I think that NJ's unconstitutionality is far worse than that in other May Issue/Non Issue states.  If there were a serious case being heard (in our favor) it would involve the following:

 

1. The state's inherent inability to rule on "justifiable"ness for the reason that they don't know when nor why a person will be attacked and a firearm is the only reasonable means of self defense. Maybe this is similar to the "Good Cause" requirement in CA, but then again one county's definition is different from another's.
2. In NJ, the presumption of innocence before being proven guilty is reversed for those exercising their 2nd amendment rights outside the home (moving, going to the range..) The judge in Brian Aitken's case said that there was not substantial evidence to show that Aitken qualified for an exemption. It's clear that the burden of proof was not on the state, but on the defendant. It should be the prosecution's burden to produce enough evidence to show that the defendant did not quality for an exemption and was in violation of the law. Otherwise, it would be the gun owner's duty to document the entire trip so as to prove he was not making an unreasonable deviation.
3. Anytime you are leaving the house with a handgun, the law requires that it be unloaded and wrapped. But guns don't unload and wrap themselves the second you step off of your property. What this equates to is a small time frame where the gun owner is disarmed while on his own property. And even NJ law says that nothing in our statutes "shall be construed to prevent a person keeping or carrying about his place of business, residence, premises or other land owned or possessed by him".  Likewise, when you return home from an exempted location, your gun does not unwrap and load itself the second you step onto your own property.

 

 

Well 1 is essentially the same for the CA law as the NJ law. The only difference is that in CA it is the sheriff that decides on that, and and NJ it is the judge at least, and likely anyone who can step in and testify to him that they don't want you to have one, which I assume means at least the local LEO structure is represented there. Those are really just details. Structurally the mechanism being scrutinized is the same. WE just give more people a chance to turn the crank of that mechanism. 

 

As to 2, I'm not familiar enough with CA law to know if it is structured in as abhorrent a manner as NJ law that denies the right to everyone and than grants it back in bits and chunks. In part that is why I would prefer that NJ's case be heard, because it gives the SCOTUS opportunity to comment on that. 

 

As for 3, you need to take your meds or something. If you think that is something you worthy of discussion on it's own rather than an artifact of no feasible carry option, I don't know what to tell you. As for being able to cry about it more than CA, you can't. They have basically the same provisions with exceedingly minor variations. 

[Buns of Guns 7]

I don't get where you're going with this one. 

Do you have a right in NJ to a loaded handgun while on your own property? Yes

Do you have a right in NJ to transport your handgun to exempted locations from your property? Yes, as long as it is properly stored and unloaded.

 

How do you get your handgun properly unloaded and stored without either

a.) doing so on your own property, which forces you to waive your right to a loaded handgun while on your own property?

b.) doing so after leaving your own property, which is illegal possession of a handgun?

 

Case a.) contradicts the law which states that nothing in the statutes "shall be construed to prevent a person keeping or carrying about his place of business, residence, premises or other land owned or possessed by him" since complying with the manner in which handguns are to be transported prevented a person from keeping and carrying about his premises.

Case b.) can land you in prison.

[kwadz 11]

Do you have a right in NJ to a loaded handgun while on your own property? Yes

Do you have a right in NJ to transport your handgun to exempted locations from your property? Yes, as long as it is properly stored and unloaded.

 

How do you get your handgun properly unloaded and stored without either

a.) doing so on your own property, which forces you to waive your right to a loaded handgun while on your own property?

b.) doing so after leaving your own property, which is illegal possession of a handgun?

 

Case a.) contradicts the law which states that nothing in the statutes "shall be construed to prevent a person keeping or carrying about his place of business, residence, premises or other land owned or possessed by him" since complying with the manner in which handguns are to be transported prevented a person from keeping and carrying about his premises.

Case b.) can land you in prison.

 

I know that you guys are giving him a hard time for this argument and, yes, on the surface it sounds like he's nitpicking.  However, think about it this way:

If you are going to be attacked on your own property, your most vulnerable place is between your front door and your car, on the way out or home.  Your second most vulnerable place is in your car, pulling into or out of your driveway.  What he's saying is that logistically, to stow a gun in your trunk when leaving your property, you will probably end up having to box/lock it while in your house.  This leaves you completely unarmed while you're walking out to your car.  If you have to stow it in your trunk, you definitely have to be physically outside of the car to place it there, leaving you vulnerable at that point, too.  In fact, I would argue that you're even more likely to be a target if you're carrying a gun in a case since criminals love to steal guns from unarmed people.  If you didn't have to disarm yourself to leave your property, you would be able to remain defensive 100% of the time that you were on your own property.

 

I think his argument holds a lot of weight and is worthy of consideration.

[el_cid 0]

if someone is that concerned, they can own two guns, one to remain loaded until the moment they leave their property, another to remain unloaded and properly stowed for transportation. 

[kwadz 11]

if someone is that concerned, they can own two guns, one to remain loaded until the moment they leave their property, another to remain unloaded and properly stowed for transportation. 

 

So you're saying one to illegally carry without a permit to carry and the other to legally transport?

[el_cid 0]

heh, cute. no, the idea would be to have a (secured) dropbox at the property line for the loaded one.

[Buns of Guns 7]

I know that you guys are giving him a hard time for this argument and, yes, on the surface it sounds like he's nitpicking.  However, think about it this way:

If you are going to be attacked on your own property, your most vulnerable place is between your front door and your car, on the way out or home.  Your second most vulnerable place is in your car, pulling into or out of your driveway.  What he's saying is that logistically, to stow a gun in your trunk when leaving your property, you will probably end up having to box/lock it while in your house.  This leaves you completely unarmed while you're walking out to your car.  If you have to stow it in your trunk, you definitely have to be physically outside of the car to place it there, leaving you vulnerable at that point, too.  In fact, I would argue that you're even more likely to be a target if you're carrying a gun in a case since criminals love to steal guns from unarmed people.  If you didn't have to disarm yourself to leave your property, you would be able to remain defensive 100% of the time that you were on your own property.

 

I think his argument holds a lot of weight and is worthy of consideration.

Thank you! Going back and forth to Philadelphia made me think about this frequently. If you are going to get attacked, the aggressor is probably going to do it while you are getting out of the car and getting your valuables from the trunk. I didn't mention this to be nitpicky and I don't need my meds (right now anyway).

 

 

Well 1 is essentially the same for the CA law as the NJ law. The only difference is that in CA it is the sheriff that decides on that, and and NJ it is the judge at least, and likely anyone who can step in and testify to him that they don't want you to have one, which I assume means at least the local LEO structure is represented there. Those are really just details. Structurally the mechanism being scrutinized is the same. WE just give more people a chance to turn the crank of that mechanism. 

 

As to 2, I'm not familiar enough with CA law to know if it is structured in as abhorrent a manner as NJ law that denies the right to everyone and than grants it back in bits and chunks. In part that is why I would prefer that NJ's case be heard, because it gives the SCOTUS opportunity to comment on that. 

 

As for 3, you need to take your meds or something. If you think that is something you worthy of discussion on it's own rather than an artifact of no feasible carry option, I don't know what to tell you. As for being able to cry about it more than CA, you can't. They have basically the same provisions with exceedingly minor variations. 

 

The law is structured quite differently. First of all, CA state law doesn't ban open carry [EDIT: a law passed the legislature in 2012 making it illegal in most areas]. Second of all, local government has a lot more to do with issuing permits, which are obtainable in most counties. Thirdly, there is no "directly to or from" requirement. And while the laws might seem similar, what will get you a slap on the wrist in CA will land you in prison in NJ.

[el_cid 0]

(yes, i'm being a little silly; but i think the idea that, given how ludicrously vague and contradictory most NJ gun laws are to begin with, this problem ranks pretty low.) 

[Vlad G 345]

 

 

The law is structured quite differently. First of all, CA state law doesn't ban open carry.

 

Err I'm pretty sure they do as of last year, they changed the open carry law and now it is no go.

 

[kwadz 11]

(yes, i'm being a little silly; but i think the idea that, given how ludicrously vague and contradictory most NJ gun laws are to begin with, this problem ranks pretty low.) 

 

I disagree because if I had a permit to carry, I would be equally as concerned with being able to enter my house while armed and leave my house while armed as I would be about being able to carry in other public places.  Just reading the Armed Citizen reports in NRA magazines, I see a common theme is somebody arriving home and realizing someone is already in his/her house.  Since we cannot carry, we cannot be armed when we arrive at our own front door.  The only way we can legally have even an unloaded handgun in the car (which in theory can be loaded and holstered upon arrival home) is if we were transporting it to/from a range/shop/self-owned-property.  So the restriction on carrying in public actually directly limits our ability to carry on our own property. 

 

I live in a very safe neighborhood and don't ever anticipate anything happening while I'm leaving or entering my home, but there are no guarantees.  If I was to leave my house in the middle of the night to go to work and someone ambushed me before I locked the door of the house, he could get into my house and attack my wife and kids who were still asleep and had no idea what was happening until it was too late.  Short of the facetious lockbox at the end of the property scenario that el_cid suggested, there is no legal way for me to prevent this from happening by remaining armed up to the time I left my property.  

 

I think the more arguments that we have against the carry restriction, the better.  Nothing says that a case must be limited to a single argument by the plaintiff. 

[Buns of Guns 7]

Err I'm pretty sure they do as of last year, they changed the open carry law and now it is no go.

Acknowledged. It is restricted in public areas.

[ryan_j 0]

Do you have a right in NJ to a loaded handgun while on your own property? Yes

Do you have a right in NJ to transport your handgun to exempted locations from your property? Yes, as long as it is properly stored and unloaded.

 

How do you get your handgun properly unloaded and stored without either

a.) doing so on your own property, which forces you to waive your right to a loaded handgun while on your own property?

b.) doing so after leaving your own property, which is illegal possession of a handgun?

 

Case a.) contradicts the law which states that nothing in the statutes "shall be construed to prevent a person keeping or carrying about his place of business, residence, premises or other land owned or possessed by him" since complying with the manner in which handguns are to be transported prevented a person from keeping and carrying about his premises.

Case b.) can land you in prison.

 

You do not have a right to anything first of all, you have exemptions. Now that we have that out of the way, let's address the rest of it.

 

The exemption allows you to keep or carry a firearm about your place of business, residence, premises or other land owned or possessed. It doesn't say anything about unloaded or loaded. Loaded and unloaded does come into play when you are transporting, in which case they specify the manner in which it must be transported, which is, "unloaded and contained in a closed and fastened case, gunbox, securely tied package, or locked in the trunk of the automobile in which it is being transported."

 

So it is perfectly legal to unload your firearm and case it before you leave your property. If your car is on your property you're good.

 

If your car is not on your property (eg. the street or a common garage or parking lot in an apartment complex), it is unclear whether it is legal to transport your firearm on foot in a case to your car. But it may be covered under reasonable deviation, but it may not. No case law on this, so it's up to a judge to decide. 

[ryan_j 0]

I disagree because if I had a permit to carry, I would be equally as concerned with being able to enter my house while armed and leave my house while armed as I would be about being able to carry in other public places.  Just reading the Armed Citizen reports in NRA magazines, I see a common theme is somebody arriving home and realizing someone is already in his/her house.  Since we cannot carry, we cannot be armed when we arrive at our own front door.  The only way we can legally have even an unloaded handgun in the car (which in theory can be loaded and holstered upon arrival home) is if we were transporting it to/from a range/shop/self-owned-property.  So the restriction on carrying in public actually directly limits our ability to carry on our own property. 

 

I live in a very safe neighborhood and don't ever anticipate anything happening while I'm leaving or entering my home, but there are no guarantees.  If I was to leave my house in the middle of the night to go to work and someone ambushed me before I locked the door of the house, he could get into my house and attack my wife and kids who were still asleep and had no idea what was happening until it was too late.  Short of the facetious lockbox at the end of the property scenario that el_cid suggested, there is no legal way for me to prevent this from happening by remaining armed up to the time I left my property.  

 

I think the more arguments that we have against the carry restriction, the better.  Nothing says that a case must be limited to a single argument by the plaintiff. 

 

 

You're arguing need and practical things. This is about a right. Once you have a right, it's no one's business why you need that right. 

[Buns of Guns 7]

You do not have a right to anything first of all, you have exemptions. Now that we have that out of the way, let's address the rest of it.

 

The exemption allows you to keep or carry a firearm about your place of business, residence, premises or other land owned or possessed. It doesn't say anything about unloaded or loaded.

 

Yes you do have a right to a loaded handgun at home. . This is coupled with NJ law saying that nothing in the statutes shall prevent a person from carrying at home, and the 2008 Heller v DC which said you can't be required to keep guns unloaded at home.  If you are arguing that we don't have the right to a loaded handgun at home, then that would mean our legislature could ban the carry of loaded guns anywhere they wanted to.

[ryan_j 0]

Yes you do have a right to a loaded handgun at home. . This is coupled with NJ law saying that nothing in the statutes shall prevent a person from carrying at home, and the 2008 Heller v DC which said you can't be required to keep guns unloaded at home.  If you are arguing that we don't have the right to a loaded handgun at home, then that would mean our legislature could ban the carry of loaded guns anywhere they wanted to.

 

I'm arguing that you have the CHOICE of having one at home. They are not forcing you to have one. 

[Buns of Guns 7]

I'm arguing that you have the CHOICE of having one at home. They are not forcing you to have one. 

Right, but they (SCOTUS) forced local government to let their citizens have that choice, such as in D.C. and Chicago. Simply put, government at any level is forbidden from banning loaded guns at a person's home.

[JoeInOcean 0]

10 rounds, Smart guns, and constitutionaly protected natural rights:

 

OK. So seeing today's news Im guessing a small show of force at the proper time is appropriate. I will not accept any round limit in exchange for a slave bargain around "reasonable transport".

 

I suggest.. Given the high courts schedule a two-pronged assault. First a letter and email campaign to the governor and elected representatives that there is no further compromise. No round limits.. And no deals

 

And Secondly; let every member of NJ2AS,NRA, SAF, etc.. apply for a permit to carry concealed on 7\3\14 in support of Drake.

 

Momentum is with us, let us make this FTW (For The Win)

[ryan_j 0]

I would hold off on applying. The case seems to be solidifying now for a grant of cert, just need that 9th cir decision to stand. 

[chris327 30]

I would hold off on applying. The case seems to be solidifying now for a grant of cert, just need that 9th cir decision to stand. 

i assume nothing will change with the 9th cir decision before the supreme court chooses weather or not to hear drake. NJ's arguments are due march 14th i believe. So maybe a few weeks to a few months the supreme court will say if they are willing to hear it or not. With that in mind i dont think and en banc would happen within that time in the 9th cir, figure it would take much longer..

[ryan_j 0]

i assume nothing will change with the 9th cir decision before the supreme court chooses weather or not to hear drake. NJ's arguments are due march 14th i believe. So maybe a few weeks to a few months the supreme court will say if they are willing to hear it or not. With that in mind i dont think and en banc would happen within that time in the 9th cir, figure it would take much longer..

 

Plenty could change. San Diego has until the 27th to apply for a rehearing en banc. If they do, the decision will be stayed pending appeal. The split becomes weaker, but it's still there. But if they let the decision stand, the split is strong, pretty much compelling the high court to review the case. 

[ryan_j 0]

As I posted in the other thread, Sheriff Gore from San Diego has decided not to appeal. So now we almost pretty much have an established split (barring a judge asking for en Banc) and this will work in our favor for the Supreme Court to hear Drake.

[n4p226r 105]

Good news.

[intercooler 41]

I think that the supreme court is going to have to take this case. They have been looking for a case that will define "to bear" arms for a while since Heller defined "to keep"

There is a lot of things to consider in this case...if it goes good for us, it can be the end of NJ gun laws as we know them.

consider what actually on the table here?

there is a possibility that this case will end FPID's, p2p, OGAM and the AWB because they have already opined that you cannot restrict or ban what is in common use.

The very fact that NJ's basis for ALL of their gun laws is infact a defacto ban is the key...and that is why they are going to take this case, it is why all the other states and the NRA came in and NJ is gonna have a hard time defending it...I suspect that offers have been made in hopes of settlements with the plaintiffs to preserve the system, but if they don't take them and it goes to the SCOTUS, I believe that NJ will become shall issue and the books on FPID's, OGAM and P2P will be obliterated in some part if not all.

as Gun owners in NJ, we have nothing to lose here. The state on the other hand, and the Dems in DC must be hoping they don't take it because this is going to deal a crushing blow to their agendas if it falls.   

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

We just have to hope a lot of these cases are heard while SCOTUS still has a slight conservative edge. Once it goes the other way, with one more liberal appointment, we'll be screwed forever.

[intercooler 41]

that is another reason they will take it...