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

[quikz 34]

Lets play 'Predictor'...

 

I 'predict':

 

The Fed. Judge dismisses case > Goes to SCOTUS > SAF wins victory narrowly > NJ forced to re-vamp 'Justifiable Need' > NJ CCW will be heavily regulated & fee'd up > Lautenmummy gona have a FIT!!!

 

Anyone feel free to chime in, have a pool going and order some wings.

[Z71 4]

I'll take a stab at the worst possible outcome....but prey for the opposite...

judge sides with defendants -takes 3 yrs to move fwd on appeals- scotus refuses to hear case stating it lacks merit and its a state regulatory issue,-the AG feels a sudden surge of power and nj gun laws get drastically worse,

[ianargent 7]

SCOTUS, as constituted, isn't going to leave this case on NJ's side. NJ's brief willfully ignored what the decisions said about "keep and bear".

[YankeeFan 49]

I predict I'll probably move to a CCW friendly state before this is resolved here

[Cavalier1979 0]

I predict I'll probably move to a CCW friendly state before this is resolved here

 

 

I have been thinking the same thing.. I am just tired of all of the BS in NJ all together. I moved here in 2001 going to college in NJ and stayed. Think its time to move back to TN.

[NJCK 5]

In the years living in the State, one thing is abundantly clear to me. NJ government knows how to muddy waters and tie anything up for unbelieveable periods at a cost of the taxpayers money! I have to deal with the NJ governmental agencies on nearly a daily basis, and not a single one of them could be described as having educated, logical, or even efficient people! It also really bothers me knowing that my taxes, and my fellow gun owners' taxes, in part, are being used for NJ's defense of this - the very regulations we feel ridiculous as legitimate gun owners complying and bending to every demand placed upon us so that we can own our firearms! I came from a State where my handgun purchases were completed within 2 hours, as many as I liked; had sensible CCW; and, had castle doctrine! NJ would rather me jump from a second story window than defend myself and my loved ones with a firearm, for which I am very adept at using!

[vjf915 456]

The pill that's hard for me to swallow is that most of us are funding BOTH sides of the argument

[tommy3rd 132]

The pill that's hard for me to swallow is that most of us are funding BOTH sides of the argument

Not only are you funding it, it's also not going your way!

[Live_Free_orDie 1]

I predict...In 3 years, I will be moving out of one of the most corrupt and highly taxed States in the Country (have to wait until I retire). I have a FL non-resident CCW and all I had to do was send my App w/a check, fingerprint card, passport photo, and my DD-214. In this State you have to prove you've been murdered three times before they'll give you a CCW and that's only if you know a Democrap Judge or Politician.

 

BTW the way I read the AG's ludicrous first argument...the State is responsible for our safety...doesn't that open them up to lawsuits if the Police fail to protect, like they failed in the Petit murders in Connecticut?

 

Also I fully agree with a past post, the last response from the AG, although not much better, was written by someone else.

[BCeagle 12]

I predict...In 3 years, I will be moving out of one of the most corrupt and highly taxed States in the Country (have to wait until I retire). I have a FL non-resident CCW and all I had to do was send my App w/a check, fingerprint card, passport photo, and my DD-214. In this State you have to prove you've been murdered three times before they'll give you a CCW and that's only if you know a Democrap Judge or Politician.

 

BTW the way I read the AG's ludicrous first argument...the State is responsible for our safety...doesn't that open them up to lawsuits if the Police fail to protect, like they failed in the Petit murders in Connecticut?[/b]

 

Also I fully agree with a past post, the last response from the AG, although not much better, was written by someone else.

 

 

Good point and typical liberal BS. We are responsible for ourselves, the only thing a cop can get their in time for is drawing a chalk outline around us. I respect my local cops they respond quickly (Except when applying for FIDs) but there is no way the response time would be anything close to useful unless I was having them over for dinner.

[Fawkesguy 57]

.......the State is responsible for our safety...doesn't that open them up to lawsuits if the Police fail to protect, like they failed in the Petit murders in Connecticut?....

 

 

Nope. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

[BRaptor 68]

Lets play 'Predictor'...

 

I 'predict':

 

The Fed. Judge dismisses case > Goes to SCOTUS > SAF wins victory narrowly > NJ forced to re-vamp 'Justifiable Need' > NJ CCW will be heavily regulated & fee'd up > Lautenmummy gona have a FIT!!!

 

Anyone feel free to chime in, have a pool going and order some wings.

 

Cliff's Notes: SCOTUS will find NJ CCW laws unconstitutional 5-4 with Thomas writing a separate opinion talking about P&I and Stevens be a hypocrite and say the P&I clause is dead.

 

Explanation:

 

Based on the MacDonald and Heller decisions and what each justice said and how they voted, I'm worried that SCOTUS is going to start using terms like "reasonble restrictions" or "reasonable regulations." I say this, because the majority in MacDonald only held that the 2A applied to the states through the 14A.

 

The remaining plurality opinion (Justice Thomas didn't sign on) went on to say that states may impose reasonable restrictions on 2A rights. Justice Thomas wrote to say that he wants this incorporated under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14A, which means restrictions should be viewed under strict scrutiny.

 

So, in the negotiations that go on in SCOTUS for an opinion, there will be another 5-(4)-4 opinion where the majority holds NJ's CCW laws unconstitutional, but SCOTUS isn't able to provide particularly useful guidance as to what is a constitutional restriction. The plurality will hold that the NJ restriction isn't "reasonable" (in which they will take a less-than-deferential view under "rational review") and Thomas will say we're not talking "reason," and he'll give his own review standard (at least intermediate scrutiny). The thing I'm uncertain about, though, is whether Thomas will call for the P&I clause to apply, again. Thomas is a huge proponent of stare decisis (he beleives he is bound by prior SCOTUS decisions), but he also believes in the US Const. on its own. So, I'm interested to see how Thomas votes/writes.

 

Stevens will chastize Thomas for speaking about the P&I clause. Stevens will say that the P&I clause died with the Slaughter House Cases back in 1872. However, Stevens was the chucklehead that wrote the majority opinion in the 1999 Saenz v. Roe where it was held that the right to move between the states was incorporated into the P&I clause (THE FIRST TIME THE P&I CLAUSE WAS USED IN A MAJORITY OPINION TO DECLARE A RIGHT IN OVER 150 YEARS!!!). So, I look forward to Stevens being a coplete hypocrite.

[Z71 4]

I agree stevens is bad news,,as noted by scalia's writings...if they argued P & I that could force nj to decide not to allow retired leo's to carry because they would be considered a seperate class of citizen vs joe smo..seeing as how P & i applies to all as citizens of the US,,kinda like the perks of being a US citizen if you get my meaning....although in stevens dissent he touched on how ccw bans to some extent have been upheld as constitutional but he backs that up by saying a number of states have carry in thier state constitution so to him ccw is a state issue...scalia opined that stevens tends to judge on ethico-political and moral philosophy and I fear the judge decideing this case may think this way..atleast we know the our lawmakers do......thats my uneducated take...

[Live_Free_orDie 1]

Nope. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

 

 

I know that was the ruling...but Ms. Paula apparently sees it different (like everything else in her response), so maybe someone should sue the State, and use her words against her.

[Live_Free_orDie 1]

Good point and typical liberal BS. We are responsible for ourselves, the only thing a cop can get their in time for is drawing a chalk outline around us. I respect my local cops they respond quickly (Except when applying for FIDs) but there is no way the response time would be anything close to useful unless I was having them over for dinner.

 

I respect cops too and they respond as quickly as humanly possible, but they can't be everywhere, except on the GSP or Turnpike. :-) BTW, I told one of the town cops...if you get a report my Alarm is goin' off, just bring a body bag....

[ktm525xcatv 5]

In this case where would equal protection come into play?

Like how cops cary openly and cc off the job and retired.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

Will i become less of a human/Law Abiding Citizen on my move from NV to NJ?

[djg0770 481]

In this State you have to prove you've been murdered three times before they'll give you a CCW and that's only if you know OWN a Democrap Judge or Politician.

 

 

Fixed that for you

[PDM 91]

In this case where would equal protection come into play?

Like how cops cary openly and cc off the job and retired.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

Will i become less of a human/Law Abiding Citizen on my move from NV to NJ?

 

Forget the equal protection argument. I think it should have been made, but apprently plaintiff's counsel in the SAF lawsuit didn't think of it or wasn't interested in making it. If it hasn't gotten made by now it will never be made.

[Recon Racoon 49]

Are there any updates regarding the court case? I thought that NJ was supposed to have a response filed by now, but I haven't seen anything here.

[BigHayden 77]

Are there any updates regarding the court case? I thought that NJ was supposed to have a response filed by now, but I haven't seen anything here.

 

Page 11, post #206 has NJ's latest reply. There was at least a page of discussion of the content after that post. That will be the last volley at this level; it's in the judge's hands now. Ruling is expected by September. Appeals are expected to follow.

[ianargent 7]

Random thought - DC is resisting the Heller attorney's claims for attorney's fees and the judge just dealt DC a (minor) blow in that case; and Chicago is being blatantly stupid about the fees for McDonald. If either of those fine organizations are forced to cough up for high fee awards; wonder if the Guv will shut down an appeal by NJ on the grounds of cost...

 

(For all of that, I predict a loss for freedom at this level and an appeal by the pro-freedom forces).

[DevsAdvocate 112]

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/judge_denies_handgun_permit_fo.html

 

NJ.com has an article about this today.

[ktm525xcatv 5]

I just joined SAF yesterday!

Went for the $150 lifetime.

Is that guy in the SAF lawsuit?

[n4p226r 105]

Yes. He is. As is the first judge listed as a defendant I believe

[n4p226r 105]

Might be a stupid question. But why can't we come up with the list of every current ccw holder and what their justifiable need was. How would you obtain that info? I'm sure we'll see some lame reasons compared to these

[vjf915 456]

Because if I had a CCW permit, I wouldn't want my name released publicly....so I'm not going to try to throw someone else under that bus. That being said, I would have to imagine that none of them have a justifiable need, and just know the right people.

[Recon Racoon 49]

I know I'm late to the party but the last NJ Brief that they put out skips over huge sections of prior cases and glances over important sections of Supreme Court cases. Its almost like if they don't mention it, or see it, or do anything about it then it magically disappears. And if I were the judge hearing this, then I would be concerned over the lack of recognition about the cases cited. I don't see this going over well for New Jersey, but its their court system and they pay for the judges so some BS may happen.

 

As for requesting the information about CCW holders in NJ you could pull the same stunt the NY Times(?) did to get the list of CCW holders in NY. The names and addresses were redacted, but all you would need is a list of people who apply, and those that received them and you can show that 'Justifiable Need' extends to your check book and not any form personal protection.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Because if I had a CCW permit, I wouldn't want my name released publicly....so I'm not going to try to throw someone else under that bus. That being said, I would have to imagine that none of them have a justifiable need, and just know the right people.

 

I wouldn't go as far and say none, I can imagine a few special task squad folks, ie; Drug, OC and the like may have a need for protection against retaliation of a person from their past just to name a few. I bet if we though about it we could come up a pretty good list of folks.

 

Note, neither of this discounts the need for the State to recognize our Constitutional Rights that are being ignored.

 

Harry

[Live_Free_orDie 1]

Fixed that for you

In this State you have to prove you've been murdered three times before they'll give you a CCW and that's only if you know OWN a Democrap Judge or Politician. Thanks...that's what I meant to say.

[Live_Free_orDie 1]

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/judge_denies_handgun_permit_fo.html

 

NJ.com has an article about this today.

This State sucks!!! What makes law abiding citizens in bordering States like Pennsylvania and Delaware any different than the law abiding citizens of NJ?