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

[njpilot 671]

Why hasn't it been mentioned, unless it was and I missed it, that it's not only an issue of applying and being denied, but forever having to explain that you were denied and why? If it was just a matter of being denied I guarantee many more people would try. I certainly would.

 

Agreed. I think we should all go apply and get turned down. That would really screw the AGs bs numbers. But Gura did make the point that most people don't bother to apply due to the "justifiable need".

I dont know what the NJSP guy is talking about, but from listening to the orals and reading the supplemental briefs it seems NJ's case is extremely weak. Gura is on top of his game. He is fascinating to listen to. He is sharp, and well informed. The NJ AG was like a pile of mush.

 

I for one think we are going to win.

 

Agree, Gura sounded great. He is a sharp lawyer and knows his stuff. Unlike the idiot incompetent that was representing the State.

 

Although I agree it sounds good for us, I wouldn't put it past these judges to hear a completely correct argument and then go against it so as not to upset the apple cart.

[diamondd817 827]

Agreed. I think we should all go apply and get turned down. That would really screw the AGs bs numbers. But Gura did make the point that most people don't bother to apply due to the "justifiable need".

 

THe one thing I like about these judges is they represent PA and DE.

Agree, Gura sounded great. He is a sharp lawyer and knows his stuff. Unlike the idiot incompetent that was representing the State.

 

Although I agree it sounds good for us, I wouldn't put it past these judges to hear a completely correct argument and then go against it so as not to upset the apple cart.

 

One thing I like about these judges is they represent PA and DE. They seem to be up to speed on ccw laws nationwide and they immediately established that the 2A extendes outside the home. NJ's longstanding defense is that the 2A does not apply outside the home.

[johnp 45]

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.

-----

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.

 

 

Why hasn't it been mentioned, unless it was and I missed it, that it's not only an issue of applying and being denied, but forever having to explain that you were denied and why? If it was just a matter of being denied I guarantee many more people would try. I certainly would.

 

I fail to see the big problem with having to explain the reason for your denial. Say....you move to PA, go to apply for a ccw and IF(big if) the cop asks you if you were denied in the past, all you have to say is you applied and were denied in NJ because a judge said you didn't have a justifiable need to exercise a constitutional right. bs and small talk about NJ's other Draconian laws and I would bet money you will walk out with a license no problem-o; assuming your background check came back clear.

 

If you are worried about having to check some box in the future, read the quote above from ryan_J.

[millsan1 3]

I just read both documents. The State is a shit show, no polite way to say it. She is up against a well prepared opponent and grasps at straws and presents a document that looks like a HS debate team put it together. If the case will be determined based on the oral arguments and these two documents, the State stands no chance.

[gd1147 0]

I just read both documents. The State is a shit show, no polite way to say it. She is up against a well prepared opponent and grasps at straws and presents a document that looks like a HS debate team put it together. If the case will be determined based on the oral arguments and these two documents, the State stands no chance.

 

Could this lack of effort on the states part just be Christie circumventing the legislature by sending in such a weak argument? I seriously doubt it but the thought crossed my mind and made me chuckle so I figured I would share.

[bobblackrifle 28]

Can you provide a link so we can read the docs?

I just read both documents. The State is a shit show, no polite way to say it. She is up against a well prepared opponent and grasps at straws and presents a document that looks like a HS debate team put it together. If the case will be determined based on the oral arguments and these two documents, the State stands no chance.

[RubberBullets 65]

Page 18, post 536

 

Yes, NJ AG submitted. Gura responded.

 

Gura's supplemental brief filed today 3/4/2013.

 

Here are the supplemental briefs for NJ and Gura:

Can you provide a link so we can read the docs?

[Ray Ray 3,566]

I forgot what this thread was all about

[Steve_G 51]

If the case will be determined based on the oral arguments and these two documents, the State stands no chance.

 

That's the big question. if the system works as intended, justifiable need will be gone. 2 of the 3 justices seemed pretty obvious which way they were leaning. It all comes down to the 3rd judge. Will he follow law and reason or his own agenda, whatever that is.

[Steve_G 51]

I forgot what this thread was all about

 

I think it's about if we can carry yet.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

I think it's about if we can carry yet.

 

can we carry yet?

[71ragtopgoat 23]

Gura sounded great. He is a sharp lawyer and knows his stuff. Unlike the idiot incompetent that was representing the State. Although I agree it sounds good for us, I wouldn't put it past these judges to hear a completely correct argument and then go against it so as not to upset the apple cart.

The AAG was just playing dumb. They asked when NJ first passed gun control and she said she did not know. She did this smelling a set up by the judge. She knew full well OC was already banned so admitting that plus the impossible standard we have to CCW would have been match game set. She ducked a bullet on that.

[djg0770 481]

can we carry yet?

 

Not yet, and perhaps not ever.

[n4p226r 105]

That's the big question. if the system works as intended, justifiable need will be gone. 2 of the 3 justices seemed pretty obvious which way they were leaning. It all comes down to the 3rd judge. Will he follow law and reason or his own agenda, whatever that is.

That's the big question. if the system works as intended, justifiable need will be gone. 2 of the 3 justices seemed pretty obvious which way they were leaning. It all comes down to the 3rd judge. Will he follow law and reason or his own agenda, whatever that is.

 

does it matter what the 3rd judge thinks? if we get 2-1 do we win the appeal or does it have to be unanimous? or are you assuming it's 1-1 with the guy that barely talked the tie breaker? if thats the case i 100% agree and just read your post incorrectly

[Live_Free_orDie 1]

If based on the valid and logical arguments from Gura...we win. If based on Judges not wanting to upset the apple cart...NJ wins. My gut...the Judges do not upset the apple cart. Sorry..logic never ever seems to win.

[Rysdad 5]

This court is not a New Jersey court.

 

They will find, correctly, in our favor and will stay the ruling for 3 to 6 months for New Jersey to craft suitable carry law within guidelines set forth by the court.

 

Then the appeals come in.

 

See ya in 2 years.

[RubberBullets 65]

If based on the valid and logical arguments from Gura...we win. If based on Judges not wanting to upset the apple cart...NJ wins. My gut...the Judges do not upset the apple cart. Sorry..logic never ever seems to win.

 

I would share a pessimistic viewpoint regarding tackling the oppressive nj laws...until I saw what has happened in Illinois. Im still weary but the findings of the fed court for Illinois gives me hope. Now how nj gets around the court order is another story.

[Vlad G 345]

This court is not a New Jersey court.

 

They will find, correctly, in our favor and will stay the ruling for 3 to 6 months for New Jersey to craft suitable carry law within guidelines set forth by the court.

 

Then the appeals come in.

 

See ya in 2 years.

 

Well it depends if they want to to an enbanc hearing. Look what happened in Illinois, where they just said "Nope, do what we said". I don't think the CC is anymore conservative then ours.

[NorthernYankee 94]

I would share a pessimistic viewpoint regarding tackling the oppressive nj laws...until I saw what has happened in Illinois. Im still weary but the findings of the fed court for Illinois gives me hope. Now how nj gets around the court order is another story.

 

There is a difference compared to Illinois, here in the People's Republic we "can" obtain a permit if all of the stars align. In Illinois CCW was banned and the court ruled that they must allow carry, but it may end up like our laws regarding this.

 

IMO I am more optimistic about the ruling in Maryland whereas they found that Justifiable Need was not a valid requirement for bearing arms.

 

No matter what SCOTUS will have to take this up one of these years, there are too many conflicting ruling in different courts and the will eventually have to make a determination.

[ryan_j 0]

Wonder if the fact that nobody replies and that they have such a small denial rate will hurt

 

So if they approve 94% of permits, that means that if I apply for one I have a 94% chance of approval?

[NorthernYankee 94]

So if they approve 94% of permits, that means that if I apply for one I have a 94% chance of approval?

 

Did hell freeze over?

[ryan_j 0]

Did hell freeze over?

 

In the brief filed the deputy AG said that 94% of permits by non-LEO applicants were approved.

[damm834 0]

 

In the brief filed the deputy AG said that 94% of permits by non-LEO applicants were approved.

Remember.. armed security does not fall into LEO and they do get approved and I think thats what they mean when they say 90% of non-LEO..

[gd1147 0]

Remember.. armed security does not fall into LEO and they do get approved and I think thats what they mean when they say 90% of non-LEO..

 

Correct, but they are restricted permits allowing them to only carry while on the job. In addition when they are no longer employed as a armed guard they have to hand in their permits.

[RubberBullets 65]

 

Correct, but they are restricted permits allowing them to only carry while on the job. In addition when they are no longer employed as a armed guard they have to hand in their permits.

 

Yes but that doesnt have to be included in the twisted data they have furnished to suit the state's neeaads.

[damm834 0]

In another note when you guys think we will receive a YEI-NEI decision form the courts whether we can carry or not..

[DevsAdvocate 112]

In another note when you guys think we will receive a YEI-NEI decision form the courts whether we can carry or not..

 

You mean 'yay' or 'nay'?

[NorthernYankee 94]

 

In the brief filed the deputy AG said that 94% of permits by non-LEO applicants were approved.

 

Yes 94% of applicants were approved...but unless you are Retired LEO or "Connected" hell will need to freeze over.

[raz-0 1,259]

That's because most of us are not encumbered by a condescending and hypocritical liberal ideology that is so concerned with “protecting” people they can’t understand when they are shackling the freedoms afforded those people to protect themselves.

 

Hey I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and say it is because we are simply not trying to believe the imaginary. Justifiable need is arbitrary. Gura is being polite. But when you can take the same guy with the same situation, the same evidence, and two different judges come up with two different decisions, you ahve a problem with your standard or with a judge. When you can sit down with the definition, find many, many situations that seem to meet it having a working knowledge of the language and a dictionary available, and you find the answer is always no, then the issue is that the practice is in opposition to the law, or the law is broken and allows for this activity.

 

 

The state's brief is full of the same make believe stuff. You can tell a good convincing lie, but you have to have something to work with. No, there is no record that anyone ever considered the existence of an actual hazard or tried to measure an improvement. But common sense says it was necessary and it must have worked. They say NJ's permitting standard is objective. In face of evidence to the contrary. IT basically boils down to well DUUUHHHH, of course I'm right, and since we threaten to disqualify you form firearms ownership to prevent you form even asking, we have a 94% approval rating for applicants.

[bobblackrifle 28]

Gura's statisical refrence to only"one hundreth of one percent of the States adult non LEO population" having a permit to carry is compelling. There is in effect no right to carry in this State. It will be difficult for the judges's to ignore that, with no statistical #'s to suport the AG's position.