NJ Responds in Right to carry lawsuit

[stever 16]

Sooooo.. does this mean the AG and the police will have to turn in their weapons everyday at the end of their shifts? Public safety you know..

[vjf915 456]

Self defense is a God-given right and a "justifiable need" in its own right - no further justification is needed.

This should be all that is needed. I never plan on having a house fire, but I still have a fire extinguisher just in case. I never plan on getting into a car accident, but I wear my seat belt just in case. I never plan on my house being burglarized, but I always keep my doors locked just in case. I don't think that the government will ever spy on me, but I wear tin foil hats just in case

[BigHayden 77]

I personally love this quote .... That is a pretty lame argument,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “Considering that there are more than 6.2 million law-abiding citizens licensed to carry in 48 states, and that many of these people have either intervened in, or prevented crimes by their mere presence, New Jersey’s position on this issue simply defies common sense.” :thsmiley_deadhorse:

 

This statement is the ONE thing that I can't stand about Alan Gottlieb... NJ is one of the 48 states he talks about! So is MD, NY, CA and HI. He lumps the "may issue" states with the "shall issue" states as a talking point to justify concealed carry. Clearly he knows the difference between the two (that's why they're running this lawsuit and the on in MD and NY), but he's got to stop parroting that. He should be talking about 42 states that trust their citizens, not 48.

[Bob B 103]

While the outrage expressed here is understandable, you really need to put this in perspective. This was simply their answer to our request for a summary judgement. Now, come on folks, this is New Jersey afterall, you really didn't expect the opposition just to lay down and say, "OK, you got us." This is really pre-round 1, but what it does is gives us a glimpse as to how they are going to defend their position against our lawsuit. It shows us, to continue with the boxing metaphor, if they are going to lead with the left or their right (OK, OK, it's NJ - you know it's going to be the left).

 

It appears their defense hinges on the fact that Heller decision said that it does not preclude regulation. They are saying that the regulations in NJ, as currently written and enforced, are reasonable within the context of Heller. That regulation - and this is what the whole case will hinge on, in my humble opinion, is a justifiable need. The problem with that argument is that they discount self-defense as a justifiable need. They want a specific threat before they would even consider granting a carry license (and if you look at the history of the plaintiffs in this case, it is plain to see that even a specific threat usually is met with denial). The fault with that logic is that if I knew where or when evil was going to befall me, I just wouldn't go there. It is the unknown threats we may face in our everyday lives that create a justifiable need for self-defense: The nutcase shooter in AZ, the active shooter at a shopping mall, the gang violence you may get caught up in in any of our urban - and more and more lately, suburban communities. Self defense is a God-given right and a "justifiable need" in its own right - no further justification is needed.

 

So now that we've circled around the ring and felt each other out, it's time for the real fight to begin. This fight, in this court is only round one. Given NJ's tenacity to stick with antiquated, unlawful justifications, it would not surprise me to see us lose this first round. But, just like any good fighter, I'd expect to see us pick ourselves up off the canvas and get back into the fight, all the way to the supreme court if that is what is needed. Our time is now, Gnashing of teeth and woebegone wailing is a thing of the past. This time we carry the fight to them, asking, "What part of 'Shall not be infringed'" don't you understand?

 

Hang in there folks, we have a long road ahead of us.

 

JMHO

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

Bingo! Good ananysis, Bob.

 

NJ's "justifiable need" is the equivilant of outlawing possession of a life preserver until you are already in the water, and of course, at that point, it's at home, or locked in your trunk.

 

I'm encouraged by the AG's response. It is so flawed, I'm sure that was what SAF was hoping for.

[Dan 177]

Bingo! Good ananysis, Bob.

 

NJ's "justifiable need" is the equivilant of outlawing possession of a life preserver until you are already in the water, and of course, at that point, it's at home, or locked in your trunk.

 

I'm encouraged by the AG's response. It is so flawed, I'm sure that was what SAF was hoping for.

 

Flawed indeed. I agree, I think this is what they were pushing for, SAF knew that NJ had no other foot to stand on than the slop they put forth in their dismissal request. They played right into their hands. You have to draw them out before smacking them down!

[mikeyboyeee 66]

Won't happen. America already peaked. Time for the fall of Rome.

 

 

Unfortunately, you are correct sir.

[limaxray 4]

I honestly feel this is the least compelling filing from the anti-2A side I've read yet (not that any of them have been particularly compelling). The level of blatant dishonesty and complete miss-the-bus-ism is laughable.

 

My favorite part is the repeated reference to 19th century court decisions upholding bans on concealed carry - without providing the context that such bans were only allowed because open carry was permitted. The best part about it is these very same cases were addressed in SAF's filing.

 

On that same token, they repeatedly reference concealed carry specifically, when, as SAF has made very clear, this is about carry in general.

 

Oh, and I laughed out loud when they claimed a rational basis standard of review was warranted. This was clearly dismissed under Heller/McDonald. Please guys, stop smoking crack when writing this stuff - I know it's popular down there in Trenton.

 

And of course, as others have pointed out, their overall logic is clearly flawed and irrational. Of course, I can see the court ruling to dismiss on some equally absurd claim. With any luck, we'll see the definition of 'to bear' on the docket for the next term of the SCOTUS.

[KpdPipes 388]

see you guys in PA... :mellow:

Nops, Sorry Vald..arent YOU the one insisiting that Christie isnt Anti-gun??? Read the quotes from his HAND PICKED ATTORNEY GENERAL about how SHE thinks you shouldnt be allowed to protect yourself...

[EchoMirage 137]

Won't happen. America already peaked. Time for the fall of Rome.

 

we can only hope. ive said before, the ONLY way to ever change this rotten, corrupt government we have now is a complete and total purge. let the country fall, level out, then rebuild again, this time keeping the constitution in mind. maybe it will finally be a government OF the people, FOR the people and BY the people this time.

[halbautomatisch 60]

It truly is amazing...amazingly retarded how liberals think.

Liberalism is a mental illness.

[gunnyr 17]

Nops, Sorry Vald..arent YOU the one insisiting that Christie isnt Anti-gun??? Read the quotes from his HAND PICKED ATTORNEY GENERAL about how SHE thinks you shouldnt be allowed to protect yourself...

 

Vlad, this is a much lighter version of Christie but it clearly shows his gun (or anti-gun) mentality. Maybe he's changed his mind but nothing he's done or said has convinced me of that,

[halbautomatisch 60]

Vlad, this is a much lighter version of Christie but it clearly shows his gun (or anti-gun) mentality. Maybe he's changed his mind but nothing he's done or said has convinced me of that,

I don't know what to make of that flier, Merkt is a gun collector and I thought an NRA member, and a supporter of CC.

[njJoniGuy 2,131]

Vlad, this is a much lighter version of Christie but it clearly shows his gun (or anti-gun) mentality. Maybe he's changed his mind but nothing he's done or said has convinced me of that,

No, Christie hasn't changed

And she's a Dem AG, so did you expect better??

[Nick S 2]

While this is a bit off topic. I am still trying to grasp why Christie appointed a DEMOCRATIC AG??? I know he's not a conservative republican and leans more towards being moderate but come on man! I know you have a Democratic State Senate but try and level the playing field by at least appointing a Republican AG.

 

Ok I apologize for the rant. I agree we have a long way to go in the fight for a NJ CCW law. The lame arguements that the AG puts forth will eventually help IF AND ONLY IF the courts do not get all touchy feely on the citizens of NJ.

[njpilot 671]

While this is a bit off topic. I am still trying to grasp why Christie appointed a DEMOCRATIC AG??? I know he's not a conservative republican and leans more towards being moderate but come on man! I know you have a Democratic State Senate but try and level the playing field by at least appointing a Republican AG.

 

Ok I apologize for the rant. I agree we have a long way to go in the fight for a NJ CCW law. The lame arguements that the AG puts forth will eventually help IF AND ONLY IF the courts do not get all touchy feely on the citizens of NJ.

 

Not just a democrat AG, but an extremely liberal, anti-gun, anti-cop democrat.

[Babaganoosh 192]

Not just a democrat AG, but an extremely liberal, anti-gun, anti-cop democrat.

 

and a woman...

 

Im not personally anti woman but in my experience most women are anti gun. Unless they have grown up somewhere where people aren't ignorant to firearms in general.

[matty 810]

Not just a democrat AG, but an extremely liberal, anti-gun, anti-cop democrat.

 

 

I suspect it was part of the complicated deal that put Sweeney in the drivers seat in the state leg, Codey out to pasture and Oliver in charge of the senate (ineffectual). South NJ Dems wanted their turn in looting the treasury (Norcross, etc.) And Christie needed some leverage in the NJ Legislature or absolutely zero would get done. Case in point is the near abandonment of Xanadu and OTOH a 'rescue plan' for AC. P. Dow continues the long line lately AGs that somehow cannot find a corrupt pol in NJ but can prosecute lawful gun owners, ticket scalpers, cops and non snow cleaner offers.

[Nick S 2]

Matty thanks for the reply. I have been living out of state since Christie got elected so I wasn't sure what was going on or what he might have been thinking. What you say makes sense to me. It just seems more logical that he'd have put someone in the AG's seat that's more in line with HIS political views...although from what I'm seeing she just may be that

[cubflyer50 1]

I can't understand the logic where the state feels that it is more likely an innocent bystander would be harmed than someone would be able to protect themselves with a firearm....I don't think that most rapes, muggings, assaults, murders, etc. happen in crowded areas..usually when the victim is alone...and an 'accidental discharg' This is very unlikely and almost impossible with todays holsters...and who is going to draw their firearm unless they have the 'justifiable need'?? The state doesn't get the fact that all the plaintiff's wanted a permit for was 'defense of self and family' which is clearly our constitutional right!!!