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

[Zed's_Dead 16]

As we've all seen from the Occupy Wall Street protests, people being interviewed by the press doesn't always help your position!

[LorenzoS 100]

If you go, please PLEASE don't play into the hands of the anti gun rights bigots and allow them anything to support the stereotype of us as angry, racist, redneck jerks. No shouting, no anger, no anti Obama or other political stuff. Just calm, rational, everyday nice people who believe in a civil right to bear arms.

 

Don't give the Brady Bunch bigots what they are hoping for.

[jcerillo70 16]

If you go, please PLEASE don't play into the hands of the anti gun rights bigots and allow them anything to support the stereotype of us as angry, racist, redneck jerks. No shouting, no anger, no anti Obama or other political stuff. Just calm, rational, everyday nice people who believe in a civil right to bear arms.

 

Don't give the Brady Bunch bigots what they are hoping for.

 

+1

[BigHayden 77]

For those who are going to be in attendance... Are any of you on Twitter? If so, can you please post your username, accept follow requests from those of us who can't be there, and post about the proceedings as they happen?

 

Those of us who can't be there would greatly appreciate it.

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

There are some updates on the NJCSD Facebook page here;

 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/New-Jersey-Coalition-for-Self-Defense/200188629997245

[jcerillo70 16]

So what happens after today?

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

So what happens after today?

 

same old thing, people bitching about how this state sucks.

[BigHayden 77]

There are some updates on the NJCSD Facebook page here;

 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/New-Jersey-Coalition-for-Self-Defense/200188629997245

 

Better than nothing, I suppose... Thanks.

[BigHayden 77]

Sounds like oral arguments are over, and as was to be expected, the judge was anti-gun and biased. Don't know how long before a decision comes back (months?), but you can bet your @ss there will be an appeal. Keep in mind, Heller and McDonald were both lost at the district court level too.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Sounds like oral arguments are over, and as was to be expected, the judge was anti-gun and biased. Don't know how long before a decision comes back (months?), but you can bet your @ss there will be an appeal. Keep in mind, Heller and McDonald were both lost at the district court level too.

 

Isn't an appeal part of the plan? This case was just heard in our district circuit court, and as long as a differing opinion is held by another appeals court, then SCOTUS will be obligated to hear it, right?

[BigHayden 77]

Isn't an appeal part of the plan? This case was just heard in our district circuit court, and as long as a differing opinion is held by another appeals court, then SCOTUS will be obligated to hear it, right?

 

Not "obligated", but "more likely". I would think that SCOTUS would be getting anxious to hear a carry case because the lower courts are really twisting Heller/McDonald into something they weren't, even if there is no split among the district courts.

[PDM 91]

As of October 19, the SAF's Masciandaro case had not been granted cert by the Supreme Court. It would be nice if a 2A case involving carry outside the home made it to the court this year. It is abundantly clear that we will get nowhere in the lower courts.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

As of October 19, the SAF's Masciandaro case had not been granted cert by the Supreme Court. It would be nice if a 2A case involving carry outside the home made it to the court this year. It is abundantly clear that we will get nowhere in the lower courts.

 

Don't forget, you don't want just any case going to SCOTUS, you want one that will set the precedent in our favor, not one that hurts us in the long run.

[Bob B 103]

I attended this morning. Although no decision was rendered, it was absolutely clear within the first 10 seconds that Judge Walls is going to rule against the plaintiffs. He was adamant in his opinion that the Second Amendment does not apply outside of the home, that the State has an interest in regulating firearms possession outside of the home for public safety and he was perfectly okay with the concept of Justifiable Need. He could not be convinced otherwise. It truly was over before it even began.

 

I am sure that the SAF will appeal. This was not the level where they expected to win.

[Fawkesguy 57]

....He was adamant in his opinion that the Second Amendment does not apply outside of the home......

 

 

That opinion would be comical if it wasn't so sad. Not surprising, yet still mind-boggling.

[Malsua 1,422]

I attended this morning. Although no decision was rendered, it was absolutely clear within the first 10 seconds that Judge Walls is going to rule against the plaintiffs. He was adamant in his opinion that the Second Amendment does not apply outside of the home, that the State has an interest in regulating firearms possession outside of the home for public safety and he was perfectly okay with the concept of Justifiable Need. He could not be convinced otherwise. It truly was over before it even began.

 

I am sure that the SAF will appeal. This was not the level where they expected to win.

 

Can we find out if this judge has a carry license? If so, it's a big story.

[compujas 21]

He was adamant in his opinion that the Second Amendment does not apply outside of the home

 

There's your problem. Judges aren't supposed to enforce their opinion or political stance, they're supposed to enforce the law. There should be no Anti-2A (or any #A for that matter) judges, if it's in the constitution or law, it shall be uphold. Period, end of story. I'm getting tired of these judges trying to interpret things with their own spin. If a judge's ruling is ever overturned by a higher court, that judge should have a strike against them. Too many strikes and your dismissed from the bench. At any other job you wouldn't expect to keep your job after performing poorly for too long, why should they?

 

Not to mention if 80% of the country agrees that 2A applies outside the home, how can the rest feel it doesn't? How about I sue the government when someone is elected with 55% of the vote, but my opinion is that the other person should win. Majority rules unless you have power.

 

Can we find out if this judge has a carry license? If so, it's a big story.

He should be put on a list of people never allowed to have a CCW. If he thinks 2A doesn't apply outside the home then why would he ever want to carry a gun?

 

/soapbox rant/

[PDM 91]

The problem is that, when judges are so idealogically biased, even a supreme court ruling in our favor won't necessarily help. If an when this gets to the supreme court we really need that decision to be explicit and strict scrutiny to be applied in order to give the ruling any teeth. Given the way things are developing politically, part of me believes that we might see a legislative solution before we see a legal solution if the swing to the right continues.

[stever 16]

Can we find out if this judge has a carry license? If so, it's a big story.

 

I was going to make a comment, but it wasn't nice, so I deleted it..

 

 

I am also self-banning myself an hour for my thoughts..be back after I have a glass of warm milk and a cookie.

[n4p226r 105]

So maybe we'll hear something 2012??

[diamondd817 827]

I attended this morning. Although no decision was rendered, it was absolutely clear within the first 10 seconds that Judge Walls is going to rule against the plaintiffs. He was adamant in his opinion that the Second Amendment does not apply outside of the home, that the State has an interest in regulating firearms possession outside of the home for public safety and he was perfectly okay with the concept of Justifiable Need. He could not be convinced otherwise. It truly was over before it even began.

 

I am sure that the SAF will appeal. This was not the level where they expected to win.

 

Really. So where and when do they expect to start winning?

 

Also, am I right that Walls is 80yrs old?

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Really. So where and when do they expect to start winning?

 

Also, am I right that Walls is 80yrs old?

 

The Supreme Court of the United States... where else?

[Malsua 1,422]

He's certainly got his liberal bona fides. I'd still like to know if this 79 year old relic has now or has ever had a carry license in NJ.

 

William H. Walls (born 1932) is a United States federal judge.

 

Born in Atlantic City, New Jersey, Walls received an A.B. from Dartmouth College in 1954 and an LL.B. from Yale Law School in 1957. He was a law clerk from 1957 to 1959. He was in private practice in Newark, New Jersey from 1959 to 1962. He was an Assistant corporation counsel, Newark, New Jersey from 1962 to 1968. He was a judge on the Newark Municipal Court from 1968 to 1970. He was in private practice in Newark, New Jersey from 1968 to 1970. He was a Corporation counsel, Newark, New Jersey from 1970 to 1973. He was in private practice in Newark, New Jersey from 1972 to 1975. He was a Business administrator, City of Newark from 1974 to 1977. He was a judge on the Essex County Court from 1977 to 1978. He was a judge on the New Jersey Superior Court from 1979 to 1994.

 

Walls was a federal judge on the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Walls was nominated by President Bill Clinton on September 14, 1994, to a seat vacated by Harold A. Ackerman. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on October 7, 1994, and received his commission on October 11, 1994. He assumed senior status on January 31, 2005.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Time to not get discouraged and turn up the flame on the burner, it's not the battle, it's the war.

[Spartiati 63]

Truly you all couldn't have believed anything different would have resulted at this stage. The only way we will be shall issue is if SCOTUS forces us to be. Will be a long fight but have to continue to fight.

[Bob B 103]

The judge is going to say in his opinion that Justifiable Need is fine because the 2nd Amendment does not extend outside the home. The appeal will ask the question "Does the 2A extend outside the home?" The answer, eventually (think SCOTUS), has to be yes, although it may be to a lesser degree (lower standard of scrutiny) than the core right of self-defense in the home that judges believe is what Heller says. I don't think Intermediate Scrutiny will be acceptable to SCOTUS, so they will have to come up with some kind of enhanced scrutiny that isn't quite Strict Scrutiny, but is better than Intermediate to apply to RKBA questions outside of the home.

 

Today was a necessary step. Frustrating, yes, but necessary. It's going to take SCOTUS to come up with the "how." Until then, District Courts are going to refuse to extend RKBA outside the threshold.

 

Once SCOTUS decides how to treat RKBA outside of the home, either by granting cert to Masciendaro or this case or some other case, our case will be remanded back to the District Court with instructions to start over and use the new-fangled scrutiny method on Justifiable Need. Hopefully, at that point, Justifiable Need falls or at least must include self-defense.

 

Patience.

[n4p226r 105]

wasn't the lack of definition of justifiable need also an issue brought on by this case? even if justifiable need was constitutional, shouldn't it be easily defined? or is this a simple case of judges know best and we'll let them all have their own opinion

[RLTW 3]

If New Jersey feels that it can legal stop us from protecting our life, liberty, & property has anyone looked at suing the state for lost carjackings, murder, armed robberies, etc. If they are responsible for our safety should we be able to sue them for not protecting us. I understand we can't sue the police department, but what about the state?

[DevsAdvocate 112]

wasn't the lack of definition of justifiable need also an issue brought on by this case? even if justifiable need was constitutional, shouldn't it be easily defined? or is this a simple case of judges know best and we'll let them all have their own opinion

 

This is the part of the opinion I'm more interested in reading about... the case isn't simply "does the 2A extend outside the home?", but also "what is the definition of a justifiable need?". That's usually the metric that decides whether you are getting a permit or not... But no one will know if their need is justified until a judge randomly determines if it is. I think when this hits SCOTUS (and I really hope it's a 'when' and not an 'if'), it will be decided that this ambiguous qualification goes far beyond what is considered a "reasonable regulation" of the 2A and will be found unconstitutional. NJ will (hopefully) be forced to re-do it's CCW permitting scheme.

 

Sad thing is: even if we do win, it's not over. NJ is worse than Illinois in it's creation and enforcement of inane firearms regulation. They will probably allow CCW with a $500 fee, and utterly confusing training requirements designed to make the whole thing a PITA to accomplish. Then another lawsuit, etc.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Please, to all, can we start a new thread about this and keep this one for news about this case being we probably have over a thousand people getting notifications then there are updates in this thread.