NJ JUDGE ISSUES PERMIT TO PLAINTIFF IN SAF LAWSUIT

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

BELLEVUE, WA - A New Jersey judge today announced he will issue a gun permit to one of the plaintiffs in a Second Amendment Foundation lawsuit against several New Jersey officials for deprivation of civil rights under color of law, because applicants cannot show a "justifiable need" for a permit.

 

SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb said today this "clearly indicates that our lawsuit is proper, and we are encouraged to press our case to its conclusion."

 

Morris County Superior Court Judge David Ironson announced after a hearing in his courtroom this morning that a permit will be issued to lead plaintiff Jeffrey Muller. His application had languished for six months before Judge Philip Maenza, a defendant in the federal lawsuit, denied the permit without a hearing on the grounds that Muller did not have a "justifiable need." Muller had been kidnapped by members of a motorcycle gang who threatened to kill him, in a case of mistaken identity. Several suspects have been arrested in that case, and Muller's application for a permit had gained support from local and state police.

 

"Finally," Gottlieb said, "one judge has done the right thing, but it took a federal lawsuit to make it happen. Our other plaintiffs are pushing ahead with the lawsuit so we can put an end to this practice once and for all."

 

SAF is joined in the lawsuit by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. and several private citizens whose applications for permits to carry have been denied generally on the grounds that they have not shown a "justifiable need." One of the remaining plaintiffs is a part-time sheriff's deputy, a second carries large amounts of cash in his private business and another is a civilian employee of the FBI in New Jersey who is fearful of attack from a radical Islamic fundamentalist group. They are represented by attorney David D. Jensen.

 

"We're moving forward with this case," Gottlieb stated, "because there are far too many people just like Jeff Muller whose civil rights have been cavalierly denied on the whims of a judge."

 

 

 

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

 

 

 

[ChrisJM981 924]

I wonder if this will hurt our cause. I can see the AG's office saying, "See we give them out when you show a need."

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

I wonder if this will hurt our cause. I can see the AG's office saying, "See we give them out when you show a need."

 

I tend to trust Alan Gottlieb's opinion on this. They intend to forge ahead with the rest of the case. Since the case ultimately challenges the entire concept of "justifiable need", I doubt that this changes the strategy at all. Of course, I am not a lawyer.

[Dewhitewolf 8]

Muller was denied once already, so pushing forward with the case still makes sense. Judge Maenza will no doubt continue arbitrarily refusing carry permits, so we still need a rule of law to take away that power from him and the other judges in this state.

[Dan 177]

Means nothing, if not actually hurts the State.... All this demonstrates is how how basic civil rights in NJ are arbitrarily granted or denied from the bench. Rights aren't supposed to work that way...

[Maksim 1,504]

Means nothing, if not actually hurts the State.... All this demonstrates is how how basic civil rights in NJ are arbitrarily granted or denied from the bench. Rights aren't supposed to work that way...

 

I agree with Dan. Just shows the validity of this case.

[Anselmo 87]

It is a step in the right direction.

[Dozer 0]

Kidnapping is not a justifiable need.

[vjf915 456]

Although we can mostly agree that in the end it will not hurt our case, I still think that NJ will try to make that point. I remember saying I was concerned about this a while ago......that they would issue ONE permit just to turn around and say "See we DO issue permits". Congrats to the guy who was issued the permit. I just hope we don't read about him 3 months from now that he was arrested because a cop didn't know a civilian could carry. And God forbid he ever needs to use it, they will likely try to make an example of him. Yes, it's a step in the right direction. I am incredibly happy that one more soul in this state gets to exercise their rights.....but I do worry what the side-effects will be given that we have such an anti-gun state.

[n4p226r 105]

does it matter at all since both arguments have already been made? does each side get to make another round of arguments against the case or is this just something the courts will have to take as a "factor" in their decision making which is pretty much made up before they even heard the arguments i assume

[BCeagle 12]

Kidnapping is not a justifiable need.

 

You have to apply before you are kidnapped with irrefutable proof you will be kidnapped exactly 90 days from application.

[Dan 177]

You have to apply before you are kidnapped with irrefutable proof you will be kidnapped exactly 90 days from application.

 

lol, thats great. SAF should use that argument against NJ

[LorenzoS 100]

I've posed in another thread that I don't see how this can hurt the case. If anything, it illustrates how dysfunctional the justifiable need requirement is.

 

I'm sure the state will use it as an example of how indeed permits are issued when there is good cause. However, if their notion of a successful process is to require a guy to be: kidnapped, beaten, threatened by a gang, apply for a permit and get denied, appeal and get denied, file a federal lawsuit on constitutional grounds, apply again, get denied, appeal again and finally get approved after 18 months...

 

Then I'd like to hear the state make that argument.

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

I've posed in another thread that I don't see how this can hurt the case. If anything, it illustrates how dysfunctional the justifiable need requirement is.

 

I'm sure the state will use it as an example of how indeed permits are issued when there is good cause. However, if their notion of a successful process is to require a guy to be: kidnapped, beaten, threatened by a gang, apply for a permit and get denied, appeal and get denied, file a federal lawsuit on constitutional grounds, apply again, get denied, appeal again and finally get approved after 18 months...

 

Then I'd like to hear the state make that argument.

 

*INDEED*!!!

[vjf915 456]

I've posed in another thread

Was it the "Chicks with Guns" thread that you posed in?

[Jeff 13]

How much do you want to bet that when his permit comes up for renewal, it's denied? Anyone...

[KpdPipes 388]

The State may very well have stepped on their collective peepee over this....He was denied HOW many tims..then, Suddenly once he's involved as a plaintiff in the SAF lawsuit, "Suddenly' they come to theie senses? Even with the permit issued, SAF STILL has those denials to work with..the final outcome notwithstanding, the State STILL made this poor SOB jump through hoops, told him he life wasnt worth protecting (In essence), and in the end cause him a huge amount of harm.

[vladtepes 1,060]

since he was obviously unjustly denied... can't he sue the state to recoup all those legal fees..

[halbautomatisch 60]

How much do you want to bet that when his permit comes up for renewal, it's denied? Anyone...

That was my thought, under our current system he'll be lucky to get a renewal in two years, after that, probably no chance unless the state is forced to revamp the law.

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

How much do you want to bet that when his permit comes up for renewal, it's denied? Anyone...

 

Bueller... Bueller...???

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

That was my thought, under our current system he'll be lucky to get a renewal in two years, after that, probably no chance unless the state is forced to revamp the law.

 

Our job is to make sure that we *DO*!

[Ray Ray 3,566]

I've posed in another thread that I don't see how this can hurt the case. If anything, it illustrates how dysfunctional the justifiable need requirement is.

 

I'm sure the state will use it as an example of how indeed permits are issued when there is good cause. However, if their notion of a successful process is to require a guy to be: kidnapped, beaten, threatened by a gang, apply for a permit and get denied, appeal and get denied, file a federal lawsuit on constitutional grounds, apply again, get denied, appeal again and finally get approved after 18 months...

 

Then I'd like to hear the state make that argument.

 

Good post, totally agree

[The Dark Knight 11]

This is a smart move by the state and a bad situation for SAF.

 

Muller was the lead plaintiff in the suit. He was the guy with a SERIOUS problem and a real, concrete, already happen, proof of threat from violent criminals who intended to kill him. That's the kind of guy people on the fence side with. That's the kind of guy that gets understood by the newspapers.

 

The others have just as valid a reason as anyone, but purely hypothetical. While Muller needed a gun for something that happened, the others merely need one for something that MAY happen.

 

Not good for SAF.

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

This is a smart move by the state and a bad situation for SAF.

 

Muller was the lead plaintiff in the suit. He was the guy with a SERIOUS problem and a real, concrete, already happen, proof of threat from violent criminals who intended to kill him. That's the kind of guy people on the fence side with. That's the kind of guy that gets understood by the newspapers.

 

The others have just as valid a reason as anyone, but purely hypothetical. While Muller needed a gun for something that happened, the others merely need one for something that MAY happen.

 

Not good for SAF.

 

 

Perhaps it is a smart move by the state, but frankly I think they just saw the handwriting on the wall.

 

Muller's separation from the lawsuit makes it that much more significant as a TRUE Second Amendment challenge. I doubt that anyone (but the state of NJ) would argue that Jeffrey Muller didn't have a "justifiable need". But the point of the case is and should be that self-defense is justifiable need enough, and furthermore that that there is NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution that even supports the "infringement "OF* a REQUIREMENT for a justifiable need clause.

[DS50 1]

I say that everyone in nj who wants to carry should all get together and set a date where we all go apply for a ccw at the same time. Just to show these politics how serious we are.

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

I say that everyone in nj who wants to carry should all get together and set a date where we all go apply for a ccw at the same time. Just to show these politics how serious we are.

 

That idea may have some merit. I would like to run this by a few legal beagles first. We would likely have to be sure that we had the numbers necessary to make the impact. I like the "out of the box" thinking on this. :-)

[vjf915 456]

self-defense is justifiable need enough

+1, I could NOT agree with you more. I shouldn't have to wait until something happens to me to be able to apply, and MAYBE get approved.

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

I say that everyone in nj who wants to carry should all get together and set a date where we all go apply for a ccw at the same time. Just to show these politics how serious we are.

 

Of course part of the problem is, since we would all be from different cities, towns and municipalities, they wouldn't hit the NJSP all at the same time. I guess they would get the idea eventually.

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

+1, I could NOT agree with you more. I shouldn't have to wait until something happens to me to be able to apply, and MAYBE get approved.

 

100% agreed. But that is what the lawsuit is all about. We are looking for a decision that either says that self-defense if justifiable need enough - or better yet, according to the U.S. Constitution, *NO* justifiable need is necessary. We have the fundamental human right to keep and bear arms for legitimate purposes WITHOUT infringements - period!

[DS50 1]

That idea may have some merit. I would like to run this by a few legal beagles first. We would likely have to be sure that we had the numbers necessary to make the impact. I like the "out of the box" thinking on this. :-)

 

i mean seriously. They issue us a permit to buy firearms. Now think about it. your willing to give me the right to defend myself inside of my home but not outdoors. so an individual gets kidnapped and they finally decide to give him a CCW because now he has justifiable cause. lets say for example; My home was broken into and the burglar knocked me upside my head before i could introduce him to a 12 gauge slugger, then he gets away. Do i have justifiable cause now because the burglar may come back and wait for me to come out of my home?? Come on im a combat vet, a defender of freedom, a soldier, a criminal justice major ive passed every police exam ive taken no criminal history at all. Thats enough justifiable cause right there.Let me not get started on the second amendment.