NJ JUDGE ISSUES PERMIT TO PLAINTIFF IN SAF LAWSUIT

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

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.

 

Ah... but I think you miss the point. If you were the little old lady from Pasadena you should STILL be entitled to keep and *BEAR* arms according to the Second Amendment to the Constitution. I am certainly not against a training requirement to carry. In my opinion that is just as important to the safety of the "bearer" as it is to the safety of "the public". But you shouldn't have to be a combat vet or a certified marksman to have the ability to defend yourself.

[DS50 1]

Ah... but I think you miss the point. If you were the little old lady from Pasadena you should STILL be entitled to keep and *BEAR* arms according to the Second Amendment to the Constitution. I am certainly not against a training requirement to carry. In my opinion that is just as important to the safety of the "bearer" as it is to the safety of "the public". But you shouldn't have to be a combat vet or a certified marksman to have the ability to defend yourself.

 

I agree with you 100% , im just giving an example of the types of individuals who seeks a CCW. when having normal conversations with individuals in the military they always mention how they cant get a CCw, but some civilians dont even know what a CCW is and are unaware that this is a may issue state. i wish i had millions laying around because i would use it all on fixing this issue were facing as law abiding citizens.

[DS50 1]

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.

 

Thats the idea. Then we can take it to the white house

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

I agree with you 100% , im just giving an example of the types of individuals who seeks a CCW. when having normal conversations with individuals in the military they always mention how they cant get a CCw, but some civilians dont even know what a CCW is and are unaware that this is a may issue state. i wish i had millions laying around because i would use it all on fixing this issue were facing as law abiding citizens.

 

Amen, my brother!

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

 

Thats the idea. Then we can take it to the white house

 

Probably the Supreme Court first, but yeah - it needs to be pushed.

[The Dark Knight 11]

Who the fugg negs me every time I make a realistic post?

 

Not that I give a damn, but some of you guys need a little reality check. Being positive is nice, but don't shoot the damn messenger for posting the sad truth that you don't want to hear.

 

SAFs case has been weakened as a result of this. Big time. You will notice that in McDonald v. Chicago Mr. McDonald had his home broken into and been threatened by criminals prior to the lawsuit. He demonstrated a threat that has already come to fruition, not one that comes from his imagination.

 

Yes, it can happen to anyone, but "I was kidnapped by a violent motorcycle gang, dragged cross country to be executed and survived only because I escaped" has an impact that "well I carry a lot of money for work, and I'm kinda worried something may happen one day"

 

If you think that the NJ legislature, and the judges and NJSP, who all work in collusion to deny you of your right to carry a gun are stupid, you have another thing coming. Go ahead, keep making yourself feel better by assuming your opponents are fools. You will find that you are sorely mistaken.

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

Who the fugg negs me every time I make a realistic post?

 

Not that I give a damn, but some of you guys need a little reality check. Being positive is nice, but don't shoot the damn messenger for posting the sad truth that you don't want to hear.

 

SAFs case has been weakened as a result of this. Big time. You will notice that in McDonald v. Chicago Mr. McDonald had his home broken into and been threatened by criminals prior to the lawsuit. He demonstrated a threat that has already come to fruition, not one that comes from his imagination.

 

Yes, it can happen to anyone, but "I was kidnapped by a violent motorcycle gang, dragged cross country to be executed and survived only because I escaped" has an impact that "well I carry a lot of money for work, and I'm kinda worried something may happen one day"

 

If you think that the NJ legislature, and the judges and NJSP, who all work in collusion to deny you of your right to carry a gun are stupid, you have another thing coming. Go ahead, keep making yourself feel better by assuming your opponents are fools. You will find that you are sorely mistaken.

 

 

I have no idea who is voting you down. But I think the point is being missed. Either we work together to make sure we change the way we are treated here in NJ, or we will fail. So, let's get on board.

 

 

[vjf915 456]

Who the fugg negs me every time I make a realistic post?

 

Not that I give a damn, but some of you guys need a little reality check. Being positive is nice, but don't shoot the damn messenger for posting the sad truth that you don't want to hear.

You only have one post in this thread, and right now it's neutral (0). Maybe someone gave you a +1 to offset it, I dunno. But it sure does look like you give a damn. People don't -1 because they don't like that you posted something "real", they'll do it if you post something inflammatory or something they just downright disagree with on a very deep level. I don't think that giving you a -1 means someone needs a "reality check". I think you need a "reality check" for overreacting just because someone disagreed with you.

[djg0770 481]

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.

 

 

I don't completely agree. Many could (and should) argue that the reason the "government" relented was JUST BECAUSE Mr. Muller had excellent standing in this particular lawsuit. LorenzoS previously said

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...

 

Do you think that's reasonable action on the part of the "government"??

 

I'm not sure that it hurts SAF as much as we might otherwise think.

[Downr@nge 22]

No, the state blundered on this one thinking they were taking the wind out of the SAF's sails by getting rid of their star witness. However, I seriously doubt Mr Mueller wont act as a character witness moving forward. NJ was probably thinking they'd get reamed by the judges for their wishy washyness but the end result would be in their favor. If this is the case, that's very short sighted of them. I feel, and IANAL, NJ ultimately weakened their case by issuing the permit. NJ will try to say "this man should have been issued the permit the first time but a few judges practicing their own form of political justice from the bench caused all these problems. We've since reprimanded them and we are currently vetting the other applicants properly."

 

This will leave NJs case wide open for the SAF to make fools out of em. Issuing the permits does NOT make the underlying problem go away.

[tuktuk 16]

Sorry it's a lil off the topic but I dont get this one >>>>

"a civilian employee of the FBI in New Jersey who is fearful of attack from a radical Islamic fundamentalist group." ??? Anybody knows if there was a specific threat made against him/ her ?

[Old School 611]

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.

 

+1 Agreed!

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

No, the state blundered on this one thinking they were taking the wind out of the SAF's sails by getting rid of their star witness. However, I seriously doubt Mr Mueller wont act as a character witness moving forward. NJ was probably thinking they'd get reamed by the judges for their wishy washyness but the end result would be in their favor. If this is the case, that's very short sighted of them. I feel, and IANAL, NJ ultimately weakened their case by issuing the permit. NJ will try to say "this man should have been issued the permit the first time but a few judges practicing their own form of political justice from the bench caused all these problems. We've since reprimanded them and we are currently vetting the other applicants properly."

 

This will leave NJs case wide open for the SAF to make fools out of em. Issuing the permits does NOT make the underlying problem go away.

 

I tend to agree. I think once the suit was initiated WITH Jeffrey Muller as a plaintiff, the state was in trouble no matter WHAT they did.

[Steve_G 51]

Obviously just trying to weaken the SAF case. Let's see what they say in 2 years when he goes for renewal. "The state believes enough time has passed and your life is no longer in danger, renewal denied".

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

.

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

+1 Agreed!

 

a big YEP!

[PDM 91]

I don't see that the removal of Muller as plaintiff weakens the case. The judge assigned to the case is certainly not stupid. He will know when and why Muller was removed as a plaintiff. Chances are the judge is predisposed to rule in favor of the state no matter what. If he is unbiased, which I would find surprising but not out of the question, he might very well consider the granting of a permit to Mr. Muller, after an appeal, to support the plaintiffs' argument that the NJ statute gives undue discretion to Judges and police, and that it is arbitrary and capricious as applied. In addition, the remaining plaintiffs are pretty compelling as well. This case is not about one or two people who were denied permits and the judge knows it.

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

I don't see that the removal of Muller as plaintiff weakens the case. The judge assigned to the case is certainly not stupid. He will know when and why Muller was removed as a plaintiff. Chances are the judge is predisposed to rule in favor of the state no matter what. If he is unbiased, which I would find surprising but not out of the question, he might very well consider the granting of a permit to Mr. Muller, after an appeal, to support the plaintiffs' argument that the NJ statute gives undue discretion to Judges and police, and that it is arbitrary and capricious as applied. In addition, the remaining plaintiffs are pretty compelling as well. This case is not about one or two people who were denied permits and the judge knows it.

 

It will be an "interesting" and "bumpy" ride. And it won't be the last, but THANK NATURE it is finally here. This suit has been a long time in coming. Certainly, if the judge rules AGAINST the plaintiffs' we will have a rallying point like never before. I am pretty sure we (the responsible gun owners of NJ) will be able to rally an impressive number of people to the statehouse steps. You can be sure that the NJ2AS and ANJRPC will be there in force. I am guessing that most of the people here in NJGF will be right beside us (if not in FRONT of us). So, be prepared. I know I will be.

[Anselmo 87]

I don't see that the removal of Muller as plaintiff weakens the case. The judge assigned to the case is certainly not stupid. He will know when and why Muller was removed as a plaintiff. Chances are the judge is predisposed to rule in favor of the state no matter what. If he is unbiased, which I would find surprising but not out of the question, he might very well consider the granting of a permit to Mr. Muller, after an appeal, to support the plaintiffs' argument that the NJ statute gives undue discretion to Judges and police, and that it is arbitrary and capricious as applied. In addition, the remaining plaintiffs are pretty compelling as well. This case is not about one or two people who were denied permits and the judge knows it.

 

One of the issues Dark Knight mentioned was collusion. I would hope that is not the case but now that a justifiable need has been met, the state needs to define what justifiable need means in order to comply with their own law. SAF is going to go even further and challenge the justifiable need clause. But, first things first.

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

One of the issues Dark Knight mentioned was collusion. I would hope that is not the case but now that a justifiable need has been met, the state needs to define what justifiable need means in order to comply with their own law. SAF is going to go even further and challenge the justifiable need clause. But, first things first.

 

Definitely! We didn't get THIS messed up over night. It will no doubt take a lot of hard work to fix things. Again - be prepared. BTW there is a GOOD bit of truth to the saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". We need to keep making noise until things start running smoothly. One thing that we have to keep in mind though is Alan Gura's admonition. You can't just go off half-cocked. RKBA legislation has to be planned and coordinated, otherwise we could wind up with some REALLY bad precedents.

[vjf915 456]

I am guessing that most of the people here in NJGF will be right beside us (if not in FRONT of us). So, be prepared. I know I will be.

I know that I sure as hell will be....

[mipafox 438]

I know that I sure as hell will be....

 

Best of luck to you, both. Give 'em Hell you two!

[quikz 34]

Yet another "trick" legal maneuver re. this issue by our very own courts. High Place Corruption at its finest.

[KpdPipes 388]

Definitely! We didn't get THIS messed up over night. It will no doubt take a lot of hard work to fix things. Again - be prepared. BTW there is a GOOD bit of truth to the saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". We need to keep making noise until things start running smoothly. One thing that we have to keep in mind though is Alan Gura's admonition. You can't just go off half-cocked. RKBA legislation has to be planned and coordinated, otherwise we could wind up with some REALLY bad precedents.

Way too many people seem to always miss that particular aspect of Alan's speeches.