Holy cow! The Star-Ledger is pro-Muller

[kenw 293]

Article in the Star-Ledger supporting Mr. Muller's application for a carry permit. I feel like I fell into a parallel dimension.

 

SL Article

[Krdshrk 3,878]

Jim Gearhart on NJ101.5 reported it this morning too.

[Tom-NJ2AS 31]

i almost passed out when i saw it. I actually try to respond to all the articles whenever they appear. It actually brings in some members which is nice.

[kenw 293]

My comment there:

 

As absurd as the requirement to demonstrate a “justifiable need” to exercise a constitutionally protected right is in New Jersey, this particular case is even more ludicrous. If anyone has met the necessary burden to show such a need, Mr. Muller has done so. He is in fear for his life, and for the lives of those around him. Not some imagined peril, but a tangible and real threat that may extend to anyone unfortunate enough to be around him if it should come to pass.

 

This goes back to the irrational and unfounded fear of some imagined catastrophe occurring if the law abiding citizens of New Jersey are allowed to take steps to provide for their own protection. Well, terrible things happen every day. Innocent people are robbed, assaulted, raped and killed. Nobody can prevent that from happening. All we can do is hope that someday, the state will agree that we have the right, and are willing to take the responsibility, to protect and defend ourselves from predators to whom the laws restricting firearms mean nothing. More laws won’t keep criminals from having guns; they’ll just grow the pool of potential victims.

 

NJ may never be a firearms-friendly place to live. It may never embrace the shooting sports, or the community that supports them, but the day will come when the state has to grudgingly recognize its responsibility to protect the rights we have to protect and defend ourselves, our families, and those around us from anyone who would use force to deny us our freedom to peacefully and safely go through our lives.

[Bob B 103]

^^^ Well said Ken.

 

I would like Mr. Muller to get his permit, but, in my opinion, it helps our case that Mr. Muller has been and continues to be denied. It proves the point that government officials cannot be tasked with determining who gets to exercise a due process right based on subjective criteria (justifiable need and public safety, health and welfare). That system is subject to complete failure, as we see here. It is also evidence that strict scrutiny should be used rather than intermediate scrutiny because Mr. Muller's denial can more easily be upheld using the lower standard.

 

I am a bit baffled why he has not been given his permit. If they would, his complaint would become moot and he might lose his standing - SAF would possibly lose their most compelling plaintiff. From a strategic standpoint, the State is now a victim of its own ridiculous case law. Ironic.

[kenw 293]

Thanks. I have rare moments of eloquence.

 

If the state grants Muller his permit, wouldn't they then be opening the door for the next guy with a tangible threat? What about the guy testifying against a gangbanger in court, who is publicly threatened by said banger's friends in the gallery? Or the guy who calls the cops to bust the crack house next door? Each time, the burden of proving "justifiable need" will be slightly diluted. Until simply living in a bad neighborhood will be sufficient, and then the requirement is gone.

 

No. I think the state is willing to live or die based on their decision to deny Muller. I'm concerned that they're confident enough that even if the appeal moves forward, and even if the process is used in the SAF case when it comes before a judge, they believe that they can win with their argument.

 

My real fear is that SCOTUS will deny hearing the case, stating that it would be an abridgement of state's rights to intercede in what is an internal state issue. What happens then?

[n4p226r 105]

We move

[Ray Ray 3,566]

to?

[Jeff 13]

Given that there are at least two other 'justifiable need' lawsuits in the pipeline (NY & MD) I imagine SCOTUS would feel compelled to address it. At least I hope so.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Thanks. I have rare moments of eloquence.

 

If the state grants Muller his permit, wouldn't they then be opening the door for the next guy with a tangible threat? What about the guy testifying against a gangbanger in court, who is publicly threatened by said banger's friends in the gallery? Or the guy who calls the cops to bust the crack house next door? Each time, the burden of proving "justifiable need" will be slightly diluted. Until simply living in a bad neighborhood will be sufficient, and then the requirement is gone.

 

No. I think the state is willing to live or die based on their decision to deny Muller. I'm concerned that they're confident enough that even if the appeal moves forward, and even if the process is used in the SAF case when it comes before a judge, they believe that they can win with their argument.

 

My real fear is that SCOTUS will deny hearing the case, stating that it would be an abridgement of state's rights to intercede in what is an internal state issue. What happens then?

 

The SAF's NJ case isn't the only one seeking to overturn ridiculous Concealed Carry Restrictions. They have cases in California, DC, Illinois, and NY State as well.

 

Don't worry too much about the SAF, they have it planned out to a T. Eventually, at some level, the 2A will prevail, just as it did in DC and in Chicago.

[The Dark Knight 11]

My real fear is that SCOTUS will deny hearing the case, stating that it would be an abridgement of state's rights to intercede in what is an internal state issue. What happens then?

 

I consider it the typical conservative's worst nightmare - state's rights and gun rights going head to head in court and to have one, the other must be eroded.

 

This is why I believe the concept of "state's rights" has been a failure from the get-go. From disgusting examples like slavery and later Jim Crow, to less egregious ones like second amendment infringements, it has nothing but a track record of abuse spanning three centuries.

[LorenzoS 100]

I'm pleasantly surprised to see this opinion form the Star-Ledger's editorial board, but it just goes to show how completely unreasonably the state's 'justifiable need' requirement is. The good news here is that it is starting to become obvious even to anti-gun people that we have a prohibition, not a regulation.

 

Having to convince a judge that you deserve to carry a firearm when the judge already believes no civilians should ever be permitted to carry a firearm cannot possibly meet any reasonable person's definition of due process. So even though that's just fine with radical anti-gun groups, I think we do have a chance with reasonable, moderate thinkers who happen to be more on the anti- side.

[kenw 293]

I'm pleasantly surprised to see this opinion form the Star-Ledger's editorial board, but it just goes to show how completely unreasonably the state's 'justifiable need' requirement is. The good news here is that it is starting to become obvious even to anti-gun people that we have a prohibition, not a regulation.

 

Having to convince a judge that you deserve to carry a firearm when the judge already believes no civilians should ever be permitted to carry a firearm cannot possibly meet any reasonable person's definition of due process. So even though that's just fine with radical anti-gun groups, I think we do have a chance with reasonable, moderate thinkers who happen to be more on the anti- side.

I shouldn't have to point out that the ultimate goal of "anti-gun people" is precisely that... a complete and total prohibition. They're not interested in fair regulation, or reasonable due process, or "sporting uses for firearms". They want nothing less than the complete eradication of firearms, the sooner the better, forever.

[Bob B 103]

If the state grants Muller his permit, wouldn't they then be opening the door for the next guy with a tangible threat? What about the guy testifying against a gangbanger in court, who is publicly threatened by said banger's friends in the gallery? Or the guy who calls the cops to bust the crack house next door? Each time, the burden of proving "justifiable need" will be slightly diluted. Until simply living in a bad neighborhood will be sufficient, and then the requirement is gone.

I'm not convinced of that, because, with the contingent of liberal justices in NJ who are able to justify anything, they will deny all subsequent permits on the grounds that they do not clear the bar set by Muller. Easy, breezy, lemon squeezy.

 

No. I think the state is willing to live or die based on their decision to deny Muller. I'm concerned that they're confident enough that even if the appeal moves forward, and even if the process is used in the SAF case when it comes before a judge, they believe that they can win with their argument.

Whether it is belief or hope, that is certainly the course they have chosen. And let's remember that "they" means Governor Chris Christie and AG Paula Dow. Since there is no statute which excludes self-defense from justifiable need, a simple Executive Order and a change to the Administrative Code could "rewrite" the law. An example of this tactic is Executive Order 47. Governor Christie rewrote the exemptions to OPRA (Open Public Records Act) with an executive order, to be followed by a change to the Administrative Code. No bills, no legislature, just - stroke of the pen, law of the land. Christie deserves no slack when it comes to not having de facto shall issue in NJ. His continuing deflection of the question to the legislature is nothing more than an "escape hatch." He could change it tomorrow if he had the inclination.

 

My real fear is that SCOTUS will deny hearing the case, stating that it would be an abridgement of state's rights to intercede in what is an internal state issue. What happens then?

If the NY, MD and NJ cases all fail, we lose. SCOTUS doesn't like to hear cases where the District Courts are ruling consistently.

If the NY, MD and NJ cases all win, we win. Again, SCOTUS won't grant certiorari.

If it is split, we go to SCOTUS. SCOTUS generally will hear a case where different District Courts have ruled differently in order to establish a standard, as long as there is a clearly defined, very narrow question to be answered, like, "what level of scrutiny should be applied to laws and regulations limiting the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense."

[LorenzoS 100]

I shouldn't have to point out that the ultimate goal of "anti-gun people" is precisely that... a complete and total prohibition. They're not interested in fair regulation, or reasonable due process, or "sporting uses for firearms". They want nothing less than the complete eradication of firearms, the sooner the better, forever.

 

Absolutely agree, which is why I distinguished "anti-gun" groups from reasonable people who happen to be on the anti side right now. I honestly think there are reasonable people whose anti gun opinions are based on the misinformation and prejudice we have here in the Northeast. These are the types we should try to focus our attention on with thoughtful respectful dialogue.

[kenw 293]

I'm going to try to ask this without sounding snarky, but if I fail, I apologize...

 

I'm not convinced of that, because, with the contingent of liberal justices in NJ who are able to justify anything, they will deny all subsequent permits on the grounds that they do not clear the bar set by Muller. Easy, breezy, lemon squeezy.

Exactly what would the bar be?

 

Pet food store owner?

Kidnapped to Missouri?

Case of mistaken identity?

58 years old?

Other?

 

Or would it be...

A tangible, demonstrable threat that may be realized some time in the future, in an undetermined location, in a method as yet undetermined, that may or may not extend beyond the individual in question and include innocent bystanders and otherwise uninvolved parties?

 

If it's the first set, NJ will never issue another permit.

 

If it's the second, anyone who ever testified against a gang member, took out a restraining order against a violent spouse, etc. will be issued a permit.

[kenw 293]

Absolutely agree, which is why I distinguished "anti-gun" groups from reasonable people who happen to be on the anti side right now. I honestly think there are reasonable people whose anti gun opinions are based on the misinformation and prejudice we have here in the Northeast. These are the types we should try to focus our attention on with thoughtful respectful dialogue.

As a community, this is our greatest failure, and the antis greatest success. We have no voice to the middle. We have no viable strategy to reach out to the fence-sitters. And, we have no visible presence outside of our own little groups and cliques. The antis have local, statewide and national strategies to move their agendas forward. Nationally, they have the media, the government, the Bradys, and a growing puddle of blood to enthusiastically dance in. They are on the offensive. NJ has Bryan, Bryan has the media.

 

Sadly, we remain on the defensive, and we have dick.

[Bob B 103]

^^^

 

Not to worry, no snarkyness detected.

 

I think the bar would be "defined" in the subsequent cases where the judges will come up with some convoluted way of interpreting the Muller decision (the appeal, not the SAF case).

 

For example, State v. Pelleteri, "knowingly in possession of an assault firearm" does not mean that you have to know it is an assault firearm, it only means that you must know that you possess it, regardless of what it is.

 

Example #2, Adler v. Livak, The issuing authority must approve the application within 30 days unless good cause exists for a denial, but, "good cause" to deny a permit exists if the investigation has not been completed yet, and, just because good cause exists, the issuing authority does not have to deny the permit as soon as the 30 day limit is up. The 30 day limit states "unless good cause exists" which it does, but there is no language compelling the issuing authority to deny the permit at that point. Therefore, the issuing authority may wait until the investigation is complete, at which point, if there are no disqualifying factors present, good cause "evaporates" and the permit is to be issued.

 

These, of course, are absolute perversions of the law. I am convinced that they would find a way to use Muller as an unachievable standard.

 

I'm straying from my original point, however, which was only that if Muller does not meet the "justifiable need" standard, then that is evidence that subjective standards as they apply to regulating a due process right, don't work and that is like a compass needle pointing toward strict scrutiny.

[kenw 293]

"Perversions of the law" is a phrase that makes my eyes bleed.

 

Thanks, Bob, for the clarification. I'm further convinced that laws aren't written for plain folk to just understand and abide by, they're written specifically for clever lawyers to find loopholes in and ways around.

[LorenzoS 100]

As a community, this is our greatest failure, and the antis greatest success. We have no voice to the middle. We have no viable strategy to reach out to the fence-sitters. And, we have no visible presence outside of our own little groups and cliques. The antis have local, statewide and national strategies to move their agendas forward. Nationally, they have the media, the government, the Bradys, and a growing puddle of blood to enthusiastically dance in. They are on the offensive. NJ has Bryan, Bryan has the media.

 

Sadly, we remain on the defensive, and we have dick.

 

Again, I agree. Not every person who owns a firearm is a gun nut, paranoid, or a psycho. Similarly not every person who believes in 'reasonable restrictions' is a libtard, sheeple, or a communist. Insults and antagonistic rhetoric and name-calling only reinforces the negative perception rather than giving them reason to consider perhaps they are wrong.

[Bob B 103]

"Perversions of the law" is a phrase that makes my eyes bleed.

 

Thanks, Bob, for the clarification. I'm further convinced that laws aren't written for plain folk to just understand and abide by, they're written specifically for clever lawyers to find loopholes in and ways around.

 

Agreed.

[Anselmo 87]

Again, I agree. Not every person who owns a firearm is a gun nut, paranoid, or a psycho. Similarly not every person who believes in 'reasonable restrictions' is a libtard, sheeple, or a communist. Insults and antagonistic rhetoric and name-calling only reinforces the negative perception rather than giving them reason to consider perhaps they are wrong.

 

Agreed.

[djg0770 481]

to?

 

one of 45 (plus or minus) other states..