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

[Soju 153]

Ok. So your fear is that if you ever leave NJ and apply for a ccw in another state there will be some box that asks if you've ever been denied a permit to carry.

 

If you read through this thread at least 20 states were researched and it doesn't ask on their ccw application if you were ever denied a permit to carry.

 

Straight from the NH Pistol/Revolver License

 

If you answer Yes to any of the following questions, you must provide complete details on an attached sheet of paper.

 

Have you been denied a license to carry in this or any other state?

 

Whether or not it will have a negative impact on the approval, I have no idea. But that box is indeed there.

[djg0770 481]

Whether or not it will have a negative impact on the approval, I have no idea. But that box is indeed there.

 

"I was denied in NJ because they don't understand the concept LIVE FREE."

[johnp 45]

If someone who regularly speaks with Frank from NJ2AS, could ask his opinion on this we really have nothing to lose.

 

Maybe Frank could speak with Alan Gura and ask if he thought it was a good idea or not.

 

Possibly someone could write up a generic "justifiable need" letter, highlighting Heller & McDonald, and some of the points Mr. Gura made during the recent hearing.

 

We all submit a well written factual letter and see what happens.

 

Worst case scenario, when you fill out the form for pistol permits you have to answer yes to question #24 and simply say that NJ doesn't recognize the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution or decisions made by the SCOTUS.

 

Best case scenario you have to start shopping for holsters.

[johnp 45]

Whether or not it will have a negative impact on the approval, I have no idea. But that box is indeed there.

 

How could it have any negative impact on approval?

 

Being denied because you are a felon, wife beater, or drug addict is not the same as some judge saying you have no justifiable need to exercise a constitutional right.

[Soju 153]

How could it have any negative impact on approval?

 

Being denied because you are a felon, wife beater, or drug addict is not the same as some judge saying you have no justifiable need to exercise a constitutional right.

 

How could it? If you use logic, it couldn't. But you are assuming everyone uses logic. Logic usually plays little part in those who are agenda driven.

 

Furthermore, how come anyone has to ask for permission in order to exercise a constitutional right in the first place? Things don't work how they should. If they did there wouldn't be applications nor questions like that...

 

I also was just stating that your implication that that question isn't asked on other states applications was factual not accurate.

[johnp 45]

How could it? If you use logic, it couldn't. But you are assuming everyone uses logic. Logic usually plays little part in those who are agenda driven.

 

Furthermore, how come anyone has to ask for permission in order to exercise a constitutional right in the first place? Things don't work how they should. If they did there wouldn't be applications nor questions like that...

 

I also was just stating that your implication that that question isn't asked on other states applications was factual not accurate.

 

Seeing as how NH is shall issue and the Live Free or Die state, I doubt anyone who has an actual agenda has the power to enforce it.

 

My implication was of the 20 or so states that were researched they didn't ask if you were ever denied a ccw. I never said that no state asks that question.

[ryan_j 0]

Straight from the NH Pistol/Revolver License

 

 

 

Whether or not it will have a negative impact on the approval, I have no idea. But that box is indeed there.

 

Won't have a negative effect I think.

 

The reason would be that NJ denied based on lack of justifiable need. Free states like NH don't have a justifiable need statute so you are not a prohibited person. You'd have to check the annoying box every time but it doesn't seem like you'll be denied. They may even feel sorry for you!

[Live_Free_orDie 1]

Really 94% non-leo approved!

Wonder what my chances are? I retired from the USCG September 2012...was a qual'd Boarding Officer for 24 yrs. I fall under LEOSA H.R.218 (yes CG is LE and LEOSA does apply). Not that I neeade the NJ CCW, but to be on the safe side...I shot the required NJ course of fire, submitted the proper Ret. LEO CCW paperwork along with the two types of payment back in late October. It's March...and I ain't heard jack! No approval or denial. I'm going to have to re-qual next month if this takes any longer.

[PDM 91]

What is the NJ qualification course like?

[Wile E Coyote 0]

Really 94% non-leo approved!

Wonder what my chances are? I retired from the USCG September 2012...was a qual'd Boarding Officer for 24 yrs. I fall under LEOSA H.R.218 (yes CG is LE and LEOSA does apply). Not that I neeade the NJ CCW, but to be on the safe side...I shot the required NJ course of fire, submitted the proper Ret. LEO CCW paperwork along with the two types of payment back in late October. It's March...and I ain't heard jack! No approval or denial. I'm going to have to re-qual next month if this takes any longer.

 

IIRC, if you apply for a NJ CCW and don't hear back one way or the other in 30 or 60 days it's supposed to be automatically approved. I can't seem to find the statute right now though.

[wooly bugger 1]

If Frank says the word, I'll apply, denial box or not.

[djg0770 481]

IIRC, if you apply for a NJ CCW and don't hear back one way or the other in 30 or 60 days it's supposed to be automatically approved. I can't seem to find the statute right now though.

 

It's 60 days and there's precedent where the court has ignored that rule of law.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

If Frank says the word, I'll apply, denial box or not.

 

as will I, interesting idea

[Live_Free_orDie 1]

What is the NJ qualification course like?

Nothing any of you couldn't do. It was the typical basic course of fire. Holstered and timed from abt 15yds into 3yds with reloading. Both strong and weak hand...w/night time sorta.

As a matter of fact, even though I felt intimidated by the LE around me I kept it tight with my Kimber. A shooter next to me said he didn't know the CG could shoot. His target looked like he use a 12ga w/ 00 and he still passed. Lol

[Pythagoras 2]

 

 

It's 60 days and there's precedent where the court has ignored that rule of law.

 

They can ignore the laws that make sense, while we have to follow the laws that don't.....how is that fair?

 

What the hell is wrong with this state? I grew up thinking NJ was part of America where people are free. So much for liberty. *smh*

[PDM 91]

I am fully prepared to apply and be denied if it is part of a larger campaign. I've already discussed the idea with a few gun owning friends in my town and they are behind the idea and would also apply. I think it will put additional pressure on the state if we get a large number of people to apply,although I am under no illusion it will make a difference without a favorable ruling in the courts.

 

I am actually looking forward to the opportunity to have a discussion with the Chief of Police in my town on this issue. When he smirks and says "don't bother" I'll ask him why one of our town council members was granted a permit and tell him that I'm no longe willing to remain silent while my rights are infringed. If it's just me applying he wouldn't care less. If 10 or 20 other people start apply he'll have to take notice.

[Naleman 0]

I am fully prepared to apply and be denied if it is part of a larger campaign. I've already discussed the idea with a few gun owning friends in my town and they are behind the idea and would also apply. I think it will put additional pressure on the state if we get a large number of people to apply,although I am under no illusion it will make a difference without a favorable ruling in the courts.

 

I am actually looking forward to the opportunity to have a discussion with the Chief of Police in my town on this issue. When he smirks and says "don't bother" I'll ask him why one of our town council members was granted a permit and tell him that I'm no longe willing to remain silent while my rights are infringed. If it's just me applying he wouldn't care less. If 10 or 20 other people start apply he'll have to take notice.

 

We should ask the SAF id this would help

 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[Rysdad 5]

I emailed The President of the NJ2AS and received a response. The content is below.

 

 

Dear Sir,

There has been a thread on-going in the NJgunforums about the possibility of members of the forum applying for concealed carry permits from the state of New Jersey as a group. The thought is that if many of us are refused permits it may help to prove that the state is indeed giving de-facto denials on permits. What are your thoughts on this matter? It appears many 2a supporters are looking for guidance before any action is taken.

I look forward to hearing your opinion on this issue.

Please respond to my personal e-mail address below.

Have a great day!

V/R

 

 

Hi Richard,

 

As with most things in life, "timing is everything". Personally, I think it would be a mistake for people to take this approach at this time. There are already some very good legal options being explored at high levels throughout the Nation that "could" lead to a successful resolution to the question of "Constitutional Carry". I don't see that kind of a demonstration as useful AT THIS MOMENT. That could certainly change. We are obviously keeping a close eye of the progress of several of these lawsuits.

 

The state of New Jersey is currently being run by a conspiracy between the three branches of NJ Government. I believe that such a move would be fruitless. Why - because it relies upon the statute that requires the police department to "act" within a certain period of time in the processing of these applications. What I believe will happen if they are pressed in this manner is that they will get a judge to rule that the suggested time period need not be strictly adhered to for one reason or another. They have already accomplished this "awkward" feat of “time management” with the infamous case of Adler v. Livak <http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1456634.html> wherein the judge ruled (effectively) that 30 days doesn't REALLY mean 30 days in the processing of FID's and Purchase Permits.

 

We already have enough BAD case law in New Jersey. I would need to investigate this approach further with a qualified legal consultant before I would endorse it. Having said that, everyone over at NJGF is a free individual capable of making their own decisions. I just hope that they are willing to take this information under advisement before proceeding. “Information is power”. The more qualified information one can obtain about this approach BEFORE one engages in it, the better. I feel that there may be other avenues to explore first, but I would never rule out *ANY* non-violent approach to improving the condition of law-abiding gun owners.

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Richard, yyyyyy

Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 9:36 AM

To: [email protected]

Subject: Permit to carry applications

[Bob B 103]

I'm not sure if Frank fully understood what was being asked. I will talk to him about it.

 

I don't think what you are suggesting is necessary at this point, because of timing. The Piszczatoski case is about to be decided at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. It appears to me, after listening to the oral arguments that the Court is going to rule that the 2A exists outside of the home and that Intermediate Scrutiny will apply. That being the case, the Court will have to decide if the "Justifiable Need" clause is a close fit with the objective of public safety. SAF has been asked by the court to provide historical information regarding the numbers of carry permits that have been issued in NJ in order to allow the Court to make that determination. We believe that they (SAF) are going to be able to get the historical information.

 

Having said that, I think that SAF should at least be made aware that there is a group of people willing to apply and be denied if it will help. I'll let Frank know and he can pass that on.

 

I, for one, am appreciative that there are so many here that are willing to step up. The word honor comes to mind and you guys have it.

[Rysdad 5]

I spoke at length this afternoon to Mr. Fiamingo. He informed me that he will be taking this idea to Alan Gura to see what he thinks of the idea. I am sure he will let me/us know if anything comes of it.

 

He also was very happy to know that there are many out there that would take it on the proverbial chin to help the cause.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

I'm ready when you guys are.

[johnp 45]

I'm curious to hear back from Mr. Gura. Unless he explicitly says don't do it.

 

I say we all submit the same well written justifiable need letter. And we all submit our paperwork within the same week.

[Bob B 103]

If Gura does say to do it, I'm fairly certain that he would want the justification letter to simply state "self-defense" or perhapse "defense of self and family" since that is the right that was declared in Heller and incorporated against the States in McDonald. Anything more would just provide a possible avenue to deny on a technicality.

[TK421 2]

If Gura does say to do it, I'm fairly certain that he would want the justification letter to simply state "self-defense" or perhapse "defense of self and family" since that is the right that was declared in Heller and incorporated against the States in McDonald. Anything more would just provide a possible avenue to deny on a technicality.

 

If he says yes he should provide the boiler plate everyone should use to ensure he gets what he wants.

[ryan_j 0]

When I first suggested this (as I'm sure others have too) I didn't mean that we should do it right, right now. Frank is 100% correct that timing is everything. It would be foolish to do it right now, get denied and then it would have no use. It should be done with proper timing.

 

My idea is that if that somehow the 94% "approval" rate comes into play and is successfully used to bolster the state's position is when we should be ready to act. Of course, Mr. Gura's word is what we should rely on. He is the expert. I would absolutely be interested to do this with his help. Think of it, if we are successful, we would have helped to rewrite history!

[Rysdad 5]

One thing that Mr. Fiamingo did say was that pretty much everyone in the process, courts, lawyers and all parties involved, were all aware that the 94% thing was not real. I think he felt an action on our part may just lead to more bad law before all these court cases settle out.

I agree that if Gura says to do it... I will take the next morning off to go apply.

[Ian S 22]

If Gura does say to do it, I'm fairly certain that he would want the justification letter to simply state "self-defense" or perhapse "defense of self and family" since that is the right that was declared in Heller and incorporated against the States in McDonald. Anything more would just provide a possible avenue to deny on a technicality.

 

If you're taking suggestions, when I had a LTCF in Massachusetts, the reason for issuing license was noted as "for all lawful purposes". No deniable technicality there.

[ryan_j 0]

I asked that very question when he got it. Under current rules, you know his renewal will be denied.

 

Pretty much. They gave him a permit for him to go away. In 2 years when this case is dead and buried they don't need him having a permit anymore.

[ryan_j 0]

If you're taking suggestions, when I had a LTCF in Massachusetts, the reason for issuing license was noted as "for all lawful purposes". No deniable technicality there.

 

It's the same in other states like Connecticut, so yes, that would be good.

[muzzelloader69 9]

let us no when we can start a sign up sheet , lets get names on a list now.