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

[NicePants 58]

as well as:

 

a citizen of Camden

a citizen of Paterson

a citizen of Newark

 

Whoopee!

 

...Actually, it's a bit boring here.

[BigHayden 77]

NJ anti-gun Democrats have a very LARGE problem if the "justifiable need" section is pulled out. There is NO other firewall to keep people from carrying. The rest of the law is relatively unobjectionable if the permit is "shall-issue" and the judge's discretion as to what and where is pulled - both of which can be done by a judge (and ought to be) without destroying the law. NJ anti-gun Democrats would therefore have to pass new laws to clamp down. Better hope this goes through while Christie is still Governor and he's still got national ambitions for 2016 or 2020...

 

Fixed that for you.

[ianargent 7]

Fixed that for you.

 

Thanks - I meant the NJ government, and the anti-gun forces therein. Your correction is appreciated; though there's plenty of bipartisan freedom-haters in the state legislature.

 

It's a great thing for Free NJ that there are no additional firewalls.

[Z71 4]

it would be great if a favorable decision included ,a judge shall no longer be the administer of permits...it should begin and end at the local pd just like how other gun permits are issued....can you imagine how long the wait would be, if say 1 thousand folks looking for a ccw in monmouth cnty suddenly go to one judge tasked with issueing permits ....or they could make it simple and just show any needed paper work to a clerk and get a permit,kinda like going to the DMV..get in get out....no appointment....

[I saw nothing 3]

it would be great if a favorable decision included ,a judge shall no longer be the administer of permits...it should begin and end at the local pd just like how other gun permits are issued....can you imagine how long the wait would be, if say 1 thousand folks looking for a ccw in monmouth cnty suddenly go to one judge tasked with issueing permits ....or they could make it simple and just show any needed paper work to a clerk and get a permit,kinda like going to the DMV..get in get out....no appointment....

 

....If NJ becomes a "Shall issue state" (HUGE IF), then this would probably be the outcome....bureaucracy and red tape. Sure NJ is "Gun Friendly", sure they are abiding by the Constitution...Here is how it would go: "It is really crowded here in NJ and budgets are tight..just hold on 6-18 months for your CCW NJ approved carry after your 6-18 month wait for training and 3 months for the check to clear... "

[ianargent 7]

That kind of bureaucratic delay would be plating with fire, particularly as the law specifies a time limit. Judges may have absolute immunity, but the cops only have qualified immunity.

[Melgamatic 66]

NJ anti-gun Democrats

 

A bunch of the Democrats may be anti-gun, but our asshat Republican governor has done more damage to the 2A in NJ than the past 2 Democrat governors were able to manage. Preventing the CMP from shipping antique rifles to accredited marksman in NJ is a step beyond what even the most ridiculously anti-gun states like Mass and Cal have been able to accomplish.

[YankeeFan 49]

A bunch of the Democrats may be anti-gun, but our asshat Republican governor has done more damage to the 2A in NJ than the past 2 Democrat governors were able to manage. Preventing the CMP from shipping antique rifles to accredited marksman in NJ is a step beyond what even the most ridiculously anti-gun states like Mass and Cal have been able to accomplish.

 

+1

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

A bunch of the Democrats may be anti-gun, but our asshat Republican governor has done more damage to the 2A in NJ than the past 2 Democrat governors were able to manage. Preventing the CMP from shipping antique rifles to accredited marksman in NJ is a step beyond what even the most ridiculously anti-gun states like Mass and Cal have been able to accomplish.

 

This nonsense again? Corzine and his crew were more anti 2A than Christie will ever be.

[mikeyboyeee 66]

It's probably also an exciting time to be:

 

a citizen of Egypt/Libya/Greece/etc.

a resident of Wisconsin

a Somali pirate

 

 

And don't forget a great time to be shopping for a "Rabbit" after my link to many of them yesterday

[BigHayden 77]

Thanks - I meant the NJ government, and the anti-gun forces therein. Your correction is appreciated; though there's plenty of bipartisan freedom-haters in the state legislature.

 

It's a great thing for Free NJ that there are no additional firewalls.

 

Yeah, and I would argue that those individuals are Democrats with "R"s next to their name.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Hopefully soon, we can knock down the AWB... that to me is more of an issue than concealed carry would be (I really don't see myself carrying often).

[PDM 91]

Hopefully soon, we can knock down the AWB... that to me is more of an issue than concealed carry would be (I really don't see myself carrying often).

 

I think you'll be waiting quite a while. In a nutshell, the NJ CCW statute is subject to challenge because it effectively shuts the door on any possibility of exercising 2A rights outside the home. The AWB, on the other hand, while undoubtedly stupid, doesn't prevent one from owning a semiautomatic rifle. You just can't own one with more than one of the "evil" features. Try arguing that a Colt match target is any less effective for self-defense or sporting purposes than an unadulterated A. In fact, the very arguments we use to show that the AWB is stoopid (all the banned features are effectively cosmetic) are exactly the same arguments the state can use to argue that it doesn't violate the 2A because it constitutes "reasonable regulation" (according to the state) and not a ban. I don't see the AWB falling to a legal challenge any time in the forseeable future.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

I think you'll be waiting quite a while. In a nutshell, the NJ CCW statute is subject to challenge because it effectively shuts the door on any possibility of exercising 2A rights outside the home. The AWB, on the other hand, while undoubtedly stupid, doesn't prevent one from owning a semiautomatic rifle. You just can't own one with more than one of the "evil" features. Try arguing that a Colt match target is any less effective for self-defense or sporting purposes than an unadulterated A. In fact, the very arguments we use to show that the AWB is stoopid (all the banned features are effectively cosmetic) are exactly the same arguments the state can use to argue that it doesn't violate the 2A because it constitutes "reasonable regulation" (according to the state) and not a ban. I don't see the AWB falling to a legal challenge any time in the forseeable future.

 

It goes both ways... If you show that the AWB doesn't justifiably make rifles safer for the people, or improves public safety, you can easily make the case that they are infringements on the rights of the people.

 

Hell, one can even make an argument that a suppressor is not only a safety device, but a vital one required in the use of a firearm.

[Dan 177]

I think you'll be waiting quite a while. In a nutshell, the NJ CCW statute is subject to challenge because it effectively shuts the door on any possibility of exercising 2A rights outside the home. The AWB, on the other hand, while undoubtedly stupid, doesn't prevent one from owning a semiautomatic rifle. You just can't own one with more than one of the "evil" features. Try arguing that a Colt match target is any less effective for self-defense or sporting purposes than an unadulterated A. In fact, the very arguments we use to show that the AWB is stoopid (all the banned features are effectively cosmetic) are exactly the same arguments the state can use to argue that it doesn't violate the 2A because it constitutes "reasonable regulation" (according to the state) and not a ban. I don't see the AWB falling to a legal challenge any time in the forseeable future.

 

I think it is unconsitutional. It sets up frivolous and confusing rules and regulations without any other basis than to attempt to hinder my ability to purchase arms for my self protection, thus denying my 2a Rights. I'm not even getting into 8th amendment cruel and unusual punishment for possessing what NJ considers an "assault weapon". I mean 10 years in prison for having a stock on your gun that can move a few inches back and forth?

 

I keep saying, this is the new battlefront for gun rights... "reasonable regulation". Who judges what is "reasonable". Unchallenged, the anti-gun rights groups will push to expand on the AWB until we can only have single shot bolt actions.

[PDM 91]

I think it is unconsitutional. It sets up frivolous and confusing rules and regulations without any other basis than to attempt to hinder my ability to purchase arms for my self protection, thus denying my 2a Rights. I'm not even getting into 8th amendment cruel and unusual punishment for possessing what NJ considers an "assault weapon". I mean 10 years in prison for having a stock on your gun that can move a few inches back and forth?

 

I keep saying, this is the new battlefront for gun rights... "reasonable regulation". Who judges what is "reasonable". Unchallenged, the anti-gun rights groups will push to expand on the AWB until we can only have single shot bolt actions.

 

Look, I think the AWB is ridiculous and doesn't improve public safety one iota. The state will argue otherwise. Perhaps, IF the court applies a strict scrutiny test, a constitutional challenge might succeed. I truly hope that would be the case. I'm just being realistic. I think a challenge of the AWB will be one of the last legal challenges brought, and if we don't win on CCW, you can forget any hope of challenging the AWB in court. It's just a harder case to make.

[joejaxx 38]

A bunch of the Democrats may be anti-gun, but our asshat Republican governor has done more damage to the 2A in NJ than the past 2 Democrat governors were able to manage. Preventing the CMP from shipping antique rifles to accredited marksman in NJ is a step beyond what even the most ridiculously anti-gun states like Mass and Cal have been able to accomplish.

 

People keep bringing this up but the funny thing is that was never legal in the first place.

 

From (Federal Law) 36 U.S.C. § 40732(B)(2):

 

§ 40732. Sale of firearms and supplies

 

(2) Except as provided in section 40733 of this title, sales under this subsection are subject to applicable United States, State, and local law. In addition to any other requirement, the corporation shall establish procedures to obtain a criminal records check of the individual with United States Government and State law enforcement agencies.

 

State Law says: You cannot ship a firearm to NJ for transfer without being or going through a New Jersey licensed gun dealer.

 

From N.J.S.A 2C:39-9:

 

d.Weapons. Any person who manufactures, causes to be manufactured, transports, ships, sells or disposes of any weapon, including gravity knives, switchblade knives, ballistic knives, daggers, dirks, stilettos, billies, blackjacks, metal knuckles, sandclubs, slingshots, cesti or similar leather bands studded with metal filings, or, except as otherwise provided in subsection i. of this section, in the case of firearms if he is not licensed or registered to do so as provided in chapter 58, is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree. [...]

 

i.Transporting firearms into this State for an unlawful sale or transfer. Any person who knowingly transports, ships or otherwise brings into this State any firearm for the purpose of unlawfully selling, transferring, giving, assigning or otherwise disposing of that firearm to another individual is guilty of a crime of the second degree. The temporary transfer of a firearm while hunting or target shooting, the transfer of any firearm that uses air or carbon dioxide to expel a projectile, or the transfer of an antique firearm shall not constitute a violation of this subsection.

 

And a M1 Garand does not match the definition of an antique firearm either. From N.J.S.A 2C:39-1:

 

a."Antique firearm" means any rifle or shotgun and "antique cannon" means a destructive device defined in paragraph (3) of subsection c. of this section, if the rifle, shotgun or destructive device, as the case may be, is incapable of being fired or discharged, or which does not fire fixed ammunition, regardless of date of manufacture, or was manufactured before 1898 for which cartridge ammunition is not commercially available, and is possessed as a curiosity or ornament or for its historical significance or value.

 

People are lucky they are not being charged with violating 2C:39-9, 2C:58-2 and other provisions lol

[usnmars 136]

But the thing with CCW is that when it passes give it a couple of months max and someone will do something stupid. You and I both know it. Many people will be carrying just for the "cool" factor. Then when someone goes to challenge the AWB, permits, ect the state legislators will say "we gave them CCW and look what happened." Thus pretty much shutting down any other chances of gun reform. CCW is going too big too fast, we need to show that if they change other smaller laws such as permits, we are a responsible enough group not to have anything happen and show by example that we are responsible enough to go after the larger issues.

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

People keep bringing this up but the funny thing is that was never legal in the first place.

 

From (Federal Law) 36 U.S.C. § 40732(B)(2):

 

 

 

State Law says: You cannot ship a firearm to NJ for transfer without being or going through a New Jersey licensed gun dealer.

 

From N.J.S.A 2C:39-9:

 

 

 

 

 

And a M1 Garand does not match the definition of an antique firearm either. From N.J.S.A 2C:39-1:

 

 

 

People are lucky they are not being charged with violating 2C:39-9, 2C:58-2 and other provisions lol

 

 

Thanks for the research, maybe we'll stop hearing about this.

 

:thsmiley_deadhorse:

[BigHayden 77]

But the thing with CCW is that when it passes give it a couple of months max and someone will do something stupid. You and I both know it. Many people will be carrying just for the "cool" factor. Then when someone goes to challenge the AWB, permits, ect the state legislators will say "we gave them CCW and look what happened." Thus pretty much shutting down any other chances of gun reform. CCW is going too big too fast, we need to show that if they change other smaller laws such as permits, we are a responsible enough group not to have anything happen and show by example that we are responsible enough to go after the larger issues.

 

 

Gee, this sounds an awful lot like the "There'll be blood in the streets! Shootouts over parking spaces! Gun fights over everything!" nonsense that anti's are always predicting that never happens. Oh, and the whole, someone will do something stupid, is NJ's entire legal argument. So if you truly believe that, then you believe that NJ has the "duty" to protect us from ourselves and the justifiable need portion of the law is reasonable.

 

And you're equally gullible if you believe that our state legislators are going to be a part of positive gun reform in NJ without a federal court order. They already believe you're an accident/murderer just waiting for something to set you off...

[Ray Ray 3,566]

But the thing with CCW is that when it passes give it a couple of months max and someone will do something stupid. You and I both know it. Many people will be carrying just for the "cool" factor. Then when someone goes to challenge the AWB, permits, ect the state legislators will say "we gave them CCW and look what happened." Thus pretty much shutting down any other chances of gun reform. CCW is going too big too fast, we need to show that if they change other smaller laws such as permits, we are a responsible enough group not to have anything happen and show by example that we are responsible enough to go after the larger issues.

 

What? Eric, come on bro your better than that. I don't even understand this post as it is something Bloomberg or Chuck U Shumer would write. I understand you hate the permit process but protecting my family OUTSIDE my home is vital to me.

[usnmars 136]

I am not against CCW in any way. I am just saying go after the smaller stuff first. Once CCW passes and something happens it pretty much closes the door to any future reform. They will use that one isolated incident to demonize NJ firearms owners. It would definitely be used against us and greatly impinge any efforts to change our draconian laws.

[NJ Warlord 1]

NJ won't change any firearm laws favorably for gun owners unless they are forced kicking and screaming by the fed.

 

Stupid things may happen, but its been the same in every case were carry laws were instituted. No random shootouts over parking spaces or the last sample at Costco .

[Ray Ray 3,566]

I am not against CCW in any way. I am just saying go after the smaller stuff first. Once CCW passes and something happens it pretty much closes the door to any future reform. They will use that one isolated incident to demonize NJ firearms owners. It would definitely be used against us and greatly impinge any efforts to change our draconian laws.

 

I understand what your saying, but your already making something happened that hasn't happened. I'm talking about some goof ball effing it up for the rest of us. You know if they pass CC that there is going to be stipulations and requirements. Training, qualifying, and registration of said gun will be forced upon us. Some will say for good reason, though so I can't hate them for that. Just look at what cops and retired LEO's go threw just to carry. Only a certain caliber and action for cops on the job, and for retired ones they can only carry certain guns. With those restrictions it'll keep concealed carry to the trained, ready, and focused individuals.

[BigHayden 77]

I understand what your saying, but your already making something happened that hasn't happened. I'm talking about some goof ball effing it up for the rest of us. You know if they pass CC that there is going to be stipulations and requirements. Training, qualifying, and registration of said gun will be forced upon us. Some will say for good reason, though so I can't hate them for that. Just look at what cops and retired LEO's go threw just to carry. Only a certain caliber and action for cops on the job, and for retired ones they can only carry certain guns. With those restrictions it'll keep concealed carry to the trained, ready, and focused individuals.

 

Yet in PA, where they have none of those silly restrictions, it's still only trained, read, and focused individuals carrying.

[ianargent 7]

This was the part I was saying is a good thing for gun owners if the SAF suit passes. As it stands, the permit laws for NJ are middle-of-the-road as fas as restrictions, except that the judge has his say and can only issue for "justifiable need." If that is struck down, and NJ is forced to issue permits; the Federal judge just has to stricke down that clause, leaving the rest intact. It's not Constitutional Carry, but it's better than, say, MA or MD; arguably better than DE. No restrictions as to place except "on the grounds of an educational institution", for example.

 

The legislature would have ot pass BRAND NEW laws restricting carry, in the face of a Governor who has merely ruled out running for President in 2012.

 

The federal judge doesnt' have to say that "your CCW law is entirely unconstitutional, toss it and start again" to comply with McDonald, all he has to do is say "the jusitifable need clause is unconstitutional, it's gone," or, "Self-defense is a justifiable need." It would probably be necessary to toss discretion about time/place/manner and weapon carried as exist under the current law, but I can see a judge striking that as well. All the federal judge has to do is erase about 2 sentences from 2C:58

 

Namely, 2C:58-4c "...and has a justifiable need to carry a handgun," likewise the same caluse in 2C:58-4d, and "The court may at its discretion issue a limited-type permit which would restrict the applicant as to the types of handguns he may carry and where and for what purposes such handguns may be carried" must be struck.

 

I would prefer that {The chief police offier] shall also determine and record a complete description of each handgun the applicant intends to carry." be struck from 2C:58-4c as pointless, but other states have the same requirement.

 

I'm cautiously optimistic here. Take an eraser to those lines and enforce the time limits (must issue within 30/60 days) and we're no worse than any other state that requires specifying carry weapon and taking a training course.

 

I'm not thrilled by the "3 reputable persons/good moral behavior" clause, but PA has the second (it's how Philly lifts the permits of people they don't like).

 

It's a journey of a thousand miles to get to Contitutional Carry in NJ, lets start with single steps.

[tommy3rd 132]

I am not against CCW in any way. I am just saying go after the smaller stuff first. Once CCW passes and something happens it pretty much closes the door to any future reform.

that really applies to anything gun related. mag capacity restrictions, repeal of ban list, hollow points, FIDs...something happens it pretty much closes the door to future reform.

They really need to throw it all out and start from scratch.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

that really applies to anything gun related. mag capacity restrictions, repeal of ban list, hollow points, FIDs...something happens it pretty much closes the door to future reform.

They really need to throw it all out and start from scratch.

Good post Tommy, thanks.

[Dan 177]

But the thing with CCW is that when it passes give it a couple of months max and someone will do something stupid. You and I both know it. Many people will be carrying just for the "cool" factor. Then when someone goes to challenge the AWB, permits, ect the state legislators will say "we gave them CCW and look what happened." Thus pretty much shutting down any other chances of gun reform. CCW is going too big too fast, we need to show that if they change other smaller laws such as permits, we are a responsible enough group not to have anything happen and show by example that we are responsible enough to go after the larger issues.

 

I agree and disagree for a few reasons.

 

Here's where I disagree:

Law abiding citizens are not to be treated like a classroom of schoolchildren " if one of you throws a block, I take all the blocks away". If someone abuses CCW, they alone are punished, not me or others who follow the laws and are responsible.

 

State legislators will not "give us" the priveledge of carry concealed or not, it was a recognized right before the consitution, then written into it, and finally recognized for what it is. The whole premise of public safety balancing for gun control is no longer a valid argument when it comes to 2A. They cannot use that as a defense for denying non prohibited persons 2A rights.

 

Where I agree:

What they can do is enact "reasonable regulation" on the exercise of our rights, and that is where the real danger is. So I agree with you here. If a future licensed NJ CCW person commits a gun crime, the anti-gunners will use that as an example of sorts in the defense of AWB. Not that there is any legal connection, they will simply spew forth the typical rhetoric that they always do. The fact is no matter how long it takes to get CCW or carry of any sorts in this state, they will always be waiting to pounce on any misuse situation. They don't play by any rules like, " gee they did have CCW for 5 years this is the first time it happened, we'll just keep quiet on it". I highly doubt that!

[DevsAdvocate 112]

I agree and disagree for a few reasons.

 

Here's where I disagree:

Law abiding citizens are not to be treated like a classroom of schoolchildren " if one of you throws a block, I take all the blocks away". If someone abuses CCW, they alone are punished, not me or others who follow the laws and are responsible.

 

State legislators will not "give us" the priveledge of carry concealed or not, it was a recognized right before the consitution, then written into it, and finally recognized for what it is. The whole premise of public safety balancing for gun control is no longer a valid argument when it comes to 2A. They cannot use that as a defense for denying non prohibited persons 2A rights.

 

Where I agree:

What they can do is enact "reasonable regulation" on the exercise of our rights, and that is where the real danger is. So I agree with you here. If a future licensed NJ CCW person commits a gun crime, the anti-gunners will use that as an example of sorts in the defense of AWB. Not that there is any legal connection, they will simply spew forth the typical rhetoric that they always do. The fact is no matter how long it takes to get CCW or carry of any sorts in this state, they will always be waiting to pounce on any misuse situation. They don't play by any rules like, " gee they did have CCW for 5 years this is the first time it happened, we'll just keep quiet on it". I highly doubt that!

 

Who cares what the legislators say... all that matters is what the court thinks.