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

[Naleman 0]

Agreed on all points. But the above is why the old, "Don't even try to get your NJ carry permit it's hopeless" is really not helpful and could actually hurt SAF's argument. More of us should be going out to apply and appealing the inevitable denial, not less.

 

Agreed, accept that its been flat out explained to us.. "Not going to happen" What reason do we have to try then?

[Wile E Coyote 0]

Agreed, accept that its been flat out explained to us.. "Not going to happen" What reason do we have to try then?

 

Because it skews the percentages in favor of the state's position. Many more people want a permit to carry in this state than have applied for it, but in court they don't just take your word. The proof lies in the number of denials not how many people you say want to carry. I don't know the actual numbers but if the only people who apply are the ones who know they'll get a permit, the issuance rate would be 100%. If everyone applied, knowing they didn't have a snowballs chance in hell, yes they would be denied. However now they are on record as being denied the right to carry based on whatever factor the state wanted to cite and the issuance rate would plummet to the point where it would be an accurate representation of how restrictive the state's "justifiable need" clause is.

[Vlad G 345]

Guru needs the # of permits submitted vs the # of permits approved.

 

He really doesn't, his answer is very good. It doesn't matter how many were denied vs how many applied, what it matter is that the specific plaintiffs were denied. It matters that the rights of specific individuals were denied, it doesn't matter if 10 people can exercise their rights if 1 can not.

[Vlad G 345]

After listening to the whole thing, I'd say the court is slightly in our favor, but I've learned to never guess what courts will do.

[ryan_j 0]

What are the effects of a denial of the CCW permit on any future applications for PtP or FID cards?

 

I know you have to check the box, but are people actually being denied because they checked the box?

 

What I'm saying is that more people would be inclined to apply if we could be reasonably assured that if turned down for a license to carry that we won't be turned down for FID or PtP.

 

I would apply, even if I'm sure to be denied, if all it results in is that I have to check the box but doesn't actually harm my future ability to get purchase permits or FID card. And you know what? If enough people would get together and apply I think I wouldn't worry about this either.

 

In fact when I eventually plan to exit this state, if the status quo still stands I might to apply for a license to carry first, because I'm sure I won't need a NJ FID ever again... just on principle.

[robot_hell 72]

You have to check the box for the rest of your life no matter which state you are in. I wouldnt like explaining why I was denied if my only explanation was "I lived in NJ."

[Fawkesguy 57]

You have to check the box for the rest of your life no matter which state you are in. I wouldnt like explaining why I was denied if my only explanation was "I lived in NJ."

 

That is exactly why I'd never attempt it.

[ryan_j 0]

You have to check the box for the rest of your life no matter which state you are in. I wouldnt like explaining why I was denied if my only explanation was "I lived in NJ."

 

I checked a few states and I don't see any boxes that ask you if you were ever denied.

 

States I checked were UT, FL, AZ, VA.

 

The only state I've seen this in was NJ.

 

As a bonus I checked NYC as well. They only ask if you have applied for one, not if you were denied.

 

I'm not saying that some state may ask but the sampling of permit forms from popular states seems to indicate that they don't.

[BigHayden 77]

I checked a few states and I don't see any boxes that ask you if you were ever denied.

 

States I checked were UT, FL, AZ, VA.

 

The only state I've seen this in was NJ.

 

As a bonus I checked NYC as well. They only ask if you have applied for one, not if you were denied.

 

I'm not saying that some state may ask but the sampling of permit forms from popular states seems to indicate that they don't.

 

Isn't that question on the 4473, or no?

 

ETA: No, I just looked at the 4473 form and didn't see that question on there either... Must be the FPID/HPP form I'm thinking of.

[ryan_j 0]

I looked at a few others including Illinois, Nevada (Las Vegas MPD), Texas and California.

 

The only one I've found asking "were you denied before" was California, but bear in mind they also require a psychological exam before you can get a CCW. And I doubt someone disgusted with NJ firearm laws is moving to California.

[Fawkesguy 57]

Guess I was mistaken then. So we're all going down to our local PD's and asking for a CCW application?

[ryan_j 0]

http://www.njsp.org/info/pdf/firearms/sp-642.pdf

[phoenix_iii 0]

Guess I was mistaken then. So we're all going down to our local PD's and asking for a CCW application?

 

Right after this court case (though I am sure it will be appealed by either side regardless of outcome... so after that court case).

[Fawkesguy 57]

http://www.njsp.org/...arms/sp-642.pdf

 

Oooh, that's convenient. :-)

 

Right after this court case (though I am sure it will be appealed by either side regardless of outcome... so after that court case).

 

I'm assuming it'll all go to the Supreme Court. Hopefully we won't have any new justices by then.

[PDM 91]

Holeee crap. In the first 2 minutes of argument the 3rd circuit explicitly acknowledged that the 2A applies outside the home. The woman from the NJ AG office is a total, top to bottom moron. She started witht he proposition that the 2A doesn't apply outside the home. One of the justices challenged her on that and she folded without as much as an argument and said, yes, it does!!! She then got thoroughly reamed on her public safety argument -- love how the justice brought up Vermont. Then the 1928 law comes up and she was clueless. She was completely overmatched and is a bumbling idiot.

 

I agree that it would have been good for Gura to put something into the records showing that no one -- no one other than retired LEOs and connected politicians -- can get a permit. I don't know why he did that. And I never understood why they didn't introduce an equal protection argument. Even if it is a losing argument, it gets the bad facts re disparate treatment of citizens regarding a fundamental right before the court. I'm not too concerned about it however. The justices grilled Gura -- rightfully so -- but I am cautiously optimistic. The argument could have gone much, much worse for our side.

[BigHayden 77]

For those who listened to these oral arguments... Have you listened to the oral arguments in some of Gura's other cases? (Heller, McDonald, Woollard) In each of those cases, the opposing council was better prepared and we still prevailed. Gura has faced many justices who have grilled him mercilessly and he always keeps his cool and really knows his stuff. I'm honoured to have met the man in person and got to shake his hand. He is truly a gifted attorney.

 

The short, short version of NJ's argument is, "We are the government, so we're right". That seems to be about it. She was woefully unprepared and her arguments were just incoherent. And every time she said "neead" I wanted to stab myself in the ear with an ice pick. Is it too much to ask that the representative of the state be able to speak clearly?

 

I'm optimistic as well, but we may not be victorious until the SCOTUS weighs in.

[TIGL 0]

So if the court rules against the state, is it guaranteed that they will appeal? My immediate reaction is yes but as I think about it, depending on how harsh the ruling is it might not be worth taking it to scotus and risk a more robust opinion. Particularly given that the odds of the high court ruling in NJ's are slim to none, assuming the makeup doesn't change in the meantime.

[NicePants 58]

So if the court rules against the state, is it guaranteed that they will appeal? My immediate reaction is yes but as I think about it, depending on how harsh the ruling is it might not be worth taking it to scotus and risk a more robust opinion. Particularly given that the odds of the high court ruling in NJ's are slim to none, assuming the makeup doesn't change in the meantime.

 

I honestly don't know. Part of me feels that NJ will appeal out of spite, but if it goes up to SCOTUS and they decide that suddenly a lot of these so called "reasonable restrictions" are unconstitutional, then NJ's position is screwed.

[ChrisJM981 924]

I honestly don't know. Part of me feels that NJ will appeal out of spite, but if it goes up to SCOTUS and they decide that suddenly a lot of these so called "reasonable restrictions" are unconstitutional, then NJ's position is screwed.

If the State loses, their only recourse is to petition the Supreme Court to take up the case?

[PDM 91]

I believe that the complaint seeks to have the statute completely invalidated, in which case if the 3rd cir rules in our favor the statute would basically be rendered a nullity and it would be legal to carry with no permit whatsoever. I am guessing that the court would stay its order for a period of time, as happened in Illinois, to leave the current law in place and give NJ time to come up with something that satisfies the court's ruling. One option would be for NJ to keep all of the aspects of the statute the same, but change the justifiable need to include any expressed desire to defend oneself outside the home, or something like that. Or they could try to play games and narrow the definition (as one of the judges suggested could have been Gura's approach) of justifiable need without going all the way to shall issue.

[71ragtopgoat 23]

Oddly we still dont know the requirements to get a CCW in this state. So they cant really narrow it. Its a state secret I remember this being upheld last year.(no Link)

I think the odds are slim to none of us winning this case. Suing for gun rights in NJ is like suing the devil and having the trial held in hell. But it is a step we must take.

[muzzelloader69 9]

is there another court date? what was the outcome so far?

[TK421 2]

Oddly we still dont know the requirements to get a CCW in this state. So they cant really narrow it. Its a state secret I remember this being upheld last year.(no Link)

I think the odds are slim to none of us winning this case. Suing for gun rights in NJ is like suing the devil and having the trial held in hell. But it is a step we must take.

 

This is your life experience in New Jersey speaking. Once you break free from the district court there is more mainstream support for gun rights. New Jersey is on the extreme end of the scale and the laws so enacted can only look more draconian the further you get from New Jersey. Bottom line is all of these cases being fought in the district courts right now will be appealed by either side that loses. SAF will take the best chance it has to the SCOTUS whether that is ours or not remains to be seen but between the 9th, 7th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd and 1st Gura will surely have a number of great cases to choose from.

[millsan1 3]

I just listened to the whole painful thing.

 

Good lord was that woman unprepared.

 

Even gooder lord, that elderly judge didnt even understand the plaintiff's argument.

 

And did anyone else hear, when the state was referring to long standing law, she referenced the ban on firearms in England from before we were colonized? Seriously? You are referencing laws, from another country, that were put in place to keep the peasants subserviant and led to an exodus to this country as your argument for long standing tradition?

 

Plaintiff: No need to prove a right.

 

State: Yeah you do, because guns are bad and we have thought so for a long time.

 

Holy cow.

[PDM 91]

And that gives me some hope Milsan. These are circuit court judges, more than a notch above NJ state court judges and even the district court yahoo judge who heard this case below. They care about the law, are smart and pay attention to the lawyers that are arguing in front of them. They may have their preconceived notions and personal likes/dislikes, but they care about the law. Just look at Judge Posener in the 7th circuit, who is certaily no gun rights advocate, who wrote the opinion striking down the Illinois law. The woeful argument made by the State of NJ will have a real negative impact on the state's case.

[Jeff 13]

So when is a decision expected?

[Vlad G 345]

So when is a decision expected?

 

It can take many months. Note that there are at least 10 extra days they gave the AG to submit more information that the court asked for.

[ianargent 7]

Note that NJ is not in the situation of IL, we have a carry permit law. This suit just seeks to strike down the "may issue" part of it. If that happens, the rest of the law will remain in force (including the qualification requirements.) Theoretically, no further legislation would be required to comply with an order similar to that of the 7th Circuit or that of the Maryland District Court. Which would leave carry permits I the same place as permits to purchase or FPID, I suppose (remember, those are nominally shall-issue by state law already.) The big question is whether NJ would appeal a ruling similar to the one handed down by the 7th Circuit or not.

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

[BigHayden 77]

The big question is whether NJ would appeal a ruling similar to the one handed down by the 7th Circuit or not.

 

I don't believe there's any question at all. Both sides will be prepared to appeal if they lose. The 3rd Circuit will not be the final word in this matter. The big question will be if SCOTUS will grant cert in this case or one of the others...

[71ragtopgoat 23]

The AG was totally unprepared. One of the judges was even so shocked he thought he had to tell her what brief the send after the hearing to support her argument. It was funny. She had no clue NJ was open carry once nor when NJ started to institute carry laws or what they were at the time. Just have to love political appointees. Christie was a prosecutor and appointed this lady. She has to be someone's relative.LOL

IL and NJ are the same IL banned ccw outright. NJ was smarter they worded it and made the rules so impossible it's a defacto ban.