Pantano vs NJ or CCW is coming... sorta maybe not quite

[lunker 274]

I wish Gura were taking the case, and not Nappen. We want professional advocacy, not showboating. And is it impolitic for me to think a lawyer that specializes in arcane NJ Gun Laws might like things the way they are? 

[ryan_j 0]

I wish Gura were taking the case, and not Nappen. We want professional advocacy, not showboating. And is it impolitic for me to think a lawyer that specializes in arcane NJ Gun Laws might like things the way they are? 

 

Gura... is he licensed to practice in NJ before the NJ courts?

 

I'm not so sure Gura would be the right choice, given all his recent losses. 

[lunker 274]

Gura... is he licensed to practice in NJ before the NJ courts?

 

I'm not so sure Gura would be the right choice, given all his recent losses.

From what I have read, his losses had more to do with Liberal judges than the quality of his lawyering. There are a lot of non New Jerseyans that don't have a high opinion of Nappen. Here, it seems like he is all we have.

[Vlad G 345]

A lawyer doesn't win every case, specially when the courts are biased.  Gura knows his stuff as he as proven at the SC.

[ChrisJM981 924]

I wish Gura were taking the case, and not Nappen. We want professional advocacy, not showboating. And is it impolitic for me to think a lawyer that specializes in arcane NJ Gun Laws might like things the way they are? 

If he wins he would get to write a new book about CCW laws in NJ. Hopefully that's incentive enough.

[notmetoo 41]

bad post

[ryan_j 0]

If he wins he would get to write a new book about CCW laws in NJ. Hopefully that's incentive enough.

Lmao and I would buy it, and even get a signed copy!!! I'm sure anthony would have a big book signing at the range.

[ryan_j 0]

A lawyer doesn't win every case, specially when the courts are biased. Gura knows his stuff as he as proven at the SC.

Very true. I'm not saying he is a bad lawyer just that these losses may work against him.

[ryan_j 0]

So I was wrong about one thing. The SCOTUS may hear an appeal from the state supreme court if it pertains to a constitutional matter. So this could be one avenue to SCOTUS.

[mipafox 438]

 

Lmao and I would buy it, and even get a signed copy!!! I'm sure anthony would have a big book signing at the range.

 

 

I'll be in line behind you at the book signing

[Jeff 13]

My guess is the NJ Supreme Court will only tangentially reference Heller and McDonald, if only to state that they don't apply because they did not establish the right to carry outside the home.  Conversely, they will reference the recent 3rd Circuit court ruling ad nauseum, which justified its conclusion by referencing previous NJ Supreme Court rulings, and the massive legal circle jerk will continue.

 

The only hope is if SCOTUS takes up the cause.  I assume an appeal was generated for Mueller.

[Arbelest 29]

I'm probably not the first to mention it but I think it would be a heck of a lot easier to change the wording of the law to remove the justifiable need clause.

[ryan_j 0]

My guess is the NJ Supreme Court will only tangentially reference Heller and McDonald, if only to state that they don't apply because they did not establish the right to carry outside the home. Conversely, they will reference the recent 3rd Circuit court ruling ad nauseum, which justified its conclusion by referencing previous NJ Supreme Court rulings, and the massive legal circle jerk will continue.

 

The only hope is if SCOTUS takes up the cause. I assume an appeal was generated for Mueller.

I believe Gura said they would pursue an en banc hearing (for drake v filko) then petition for cert at SCOTUS.

[Erik 0]

I wish Gura were taking the case, and not Nappen. We want professional advocacy, not showboating. And is it impolitic for me to think a lawyer that specializes in arcane NJ Gun Laws might like things the way they are?

Not familiar with Gura, but I'd be happier if Nappen had a mouthpiece. He knows the law, but he is the wrong person to try it in front of a judge. He's not quick on his feet and really not good at arguing his case out loud.

[njpilot 671]

Not familiar with Gura, but I'd be happier if Nappen had a mouthpiece. He knows the law, but he is the wrong person to try it in front of a judge. He's not quick on his feet and really not good at arguing his case out loud.

Gura was lead counsel in both Heller and MacDonald.

 

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

[Erik 0]

Ok. I like him.

[halbautomatisch 60]

Gura was lead counsel in both Heller and MacDonald.

 

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

Gura is the man!

[ryan_j 0]

Gura makes good arguments. He's very intelligent. I hope he doesn't get too discouraged by the recent losses. 

[djg0770 481]

Gura makes good arguments. He's very intelligent. I hope he doesn't get too discouraged by the recent losses.

IMO these losses are bs. They're not because he argued the case poorly but because the judges are legislating from the bench. He cannot overcome politics.

[Luso 6]

When do we know that the proceedings for this case may actually begin? Is there an understanding of this yet?

[reloaderguy 30]

From what I have read, his losses had more to do with Liberal judges than the quality of his lawyering. There are a lot of non New Jerseyans that don't have a high opinion of Nappen. Here, it seems like he is all we have.

Has nothing to do with liberal judges. They are arguing the wrong points!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They should be arguing the "militia" clause in the state constitution. Until they wake up and argue that piont there will be no chance for CCW in NJ! Period!

[voyager9 3,434]

They should be arguing the "militia" clause in the state constitution.

The what?

[CMJeepster 2,778]

They should be arguing the "militia" clause in the state constitution.

I'd rather them argue the first paragraph of it:

 

"

ARTICLE I - RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES

1.  All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness."

[reloaderguy 30]

I'd rather them argue the first paragraph of it:

 

"

ARTICLE I - RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES

1.  All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness."

 

Partly right.

 

As an unalienable right “being necessary to the security of a free State” the People must preserve the Militia, and all able bodied men must do their duty in the service of the nation, and freedom.

Bearing in mind the historical record, the fact of law, and the obvious operations of those groups, and individuals intent on destroying the Constitution, and more recent evidence that in order to maintain a free state the whole of the People must be involved and active in the Militia, I make this application.

This application is made under Title 38A: 1-2 Composition of Militia; “

[reloaderguy 30]

The what?

 

You must be an attorney with that comment.

 

Militia Is Not A Bad Word August 2, 2013 | 2nd Amendment, Civil Liberties, Constitution, General, Militia, Sovereignty

I formulated the letter below, intended for the governor of my state, but it applies to all with the proper statutes substituted for that of the applicable state. You may be part of the active core, 17 – 45, or you may be in that group beyond the age of immediate mandatory service. However, as the Acts were written, we are all responsible to keep, and maintain a functioning firearm for any and all emergencies.

Let’s step back some time to United States v Miller 307 U.S. 174 “The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.” Our most recent memory of the court citing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as related to the Second Amendment.

There is a reason for the Second beyond the individuals right, for it is not as simple as saying that I must be allowed self-defense. My duty is not only to myself and family, but also to the community at large and the state to which I hold allegiance, and the state in turn holds its duty to you by protecting your right.

In Cruikshank v United States 92 U.S. 542. “There is in our political system a government of each of the several States, and a Government of the United States. Each is distinct from the others, and has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect.” Notice that the court did not say, that the government should license or regulate a right, but that “it must protect”.

Cruikshank goes on “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.” And reiterates that “Sovereignty, for the protection of the rights of life and personal liberty within the respective States, rests alone with the States.”

It is our responsibility to hold each body of government to its duty to its citizens, and we do that in the lawful form of the Militia.

For several years now, I have been asking the various pro-Second organizations as to why they would not use the Militia, a lawful entity, as the proper argument to set before the court. The answers are inane, and lacking in any knowledge as to the actual law under which this nation operates.

So, my friends, I have composed this letter to be addressed to the various legislators and executives in my state, but make no mistake, the need to revitalize the Militia is ever pressing. While it would take an act of the legislator to revitalize the Militia, someone must start the ball rolling, and that someone is you and I.

For your reference my readers: (http://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2009/title-38a/section-38a-1/)

Governor:

The Militia is the greater part of the rule of law, the People’s teeth in enforcing the law, an integral part of this Republic, and an absolute, irrefutable mandate to the states.

Militia is not a bad word. It does not represent racism, or radicalism. It does not represent a threat to the rule of law.

The Militia is mentioned no less than five times in the Constitution, and The Bill of Rights.

Article 1, Section 8

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

Article 2, Section 2

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;”

Amendment 2

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Militia also appears as it should by law, and historical fact, in the New Jersey Constitution.

Article 1, Clause 5, Rights and Privileges

“No person shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil or military right, nor be discriminated against in the exercise of any civil or military right, nor be segregated in the militia or in the public schools, because of religious principles, race, color, ancestry or national origin.”

Article 1, Clause 8, Rights and Privileges

“No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense, unless on the presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases of impeachment, or in cases now prosecuted without indictment, or arising in the army or navy or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger.”

Article 1, Clause 13, Rights and Privileges

“No person shall be imprisoned for debt in any action, or on any judgment founded upon contract, unless in cases of fraud; nor shall any person be imprisoned for a militia fine in time of peace.”

Article 1, Section III, Clause 1

“Provision for organizing, inducting, training, arming, disciplining and regulating a militia shall be made by law, which shall conform to applicable standards established for the armed forces of the United States.”

Article 1, Section III, Clause 2

“The Governor shall nominate and appoint all general and flag officers of the militia, with the advice and consent of the Senate. All other commissioned officers of the militia shall be appointed and commissioned by the Governor according to law.”

Article 9, Section III

“Upon the taking effect of this Constitution all officers of the militia shall retain their commissions subject to the provisions of Article V, Section III.”

Both the US Constitution, and the New Jersey Constitution, Title 38A, make it clear that there is, and must be a Militia. The Second Amendment establishes that a “well regulated Militia”, is the primary tool for the “security of a free state”, and unalienable.

The state or any person wishing to diminish, or cripple the People’s ability to maintain the rule of law may do so by simply petitioning a legislature that benefits from having no superior authority with which to contend other than a court system that has conspired to reduce, license, or regulate away all rights.

The Militia has been demonized by hate groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, The Brady Campaign, and government agents who hate, HATE, with a passion the idea of liberty, and a free People’s right, and duty to “alter or abolish” *** “any form of government” when it “becomes destructive” of its mandate to protect the individuals rights.

Some would claim that the Second Amendment only applies to the Militia and that the Militia no longer exists and has been replaced by the National Guard. That is nonsense and contradicts the rule of law under Article 5, and also Article 1, Section 8 “reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

Others would have us believe that the government may, from time to time, infringe on the rights of the People for some pretend security, supposed benefit, or compelling interest. No such authority exists to alter the rights of the People.

By instituting the Second Amendment the Founders made the People’s ability to foil tyranny with certainly equal, or better force of arms an ineradicable, and indisputable function of liberty. To that end government may not disband the Militia because it is not only a duty, but also an unalienable right designed to keep this nation free from usurpers, and tyrants.

As an unalienable right “being necessary to the security of a free State” the People must preserve the Militia, and all able bodied men must do their duty in the service of the nation, and freedom.

Bearing in mind the historical record, the fact of law, and the obvious operations of those groups, and individuals intent on destroying the Constitution, and more recent evidence that in order to maintain a free state the whole of the People must be involved and active in the Militia, I make this application.

This application is made under Title 38A: 1-2 Composition of Militia; “such other persons as may upon their own application be enlisted or commissioned therein in accordance with federal or State law and regulations.”

Please notify me within 10 days of receipt of this application where I may report for instruction, drill, assignment, duty, and rank that befits a veteran of the United States Armed Forces prescribing to the Rule of Law.

‘Nick’

[voyager9 3,434]

You must be an attorney with that comment.

 

*sigh*.  No, I just didn't understand what the militia clause was or how it would relate in this case.  

It seems tenuous at best. Even if it's a law that the state must preserve the militia the fact is it hasn't.. and absent that, and the ability to 'call up' citizens it would be a weak argument for 2A rights in general and CCW specifically.    "We don't have a way to call you up, so if something were to happen and we needed everyone to defend themselves, you'd probably have time to go home and get your firearms".. unless I'm missing something.. which is why I asked the question.

 

It seems a stronger challenge to show that 'justifiable need' conflicts directly with:

1.  All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness."

 

I don't have to justify my need to carry.. I have an unalienable right to defend life, protect property and obtain safety.  Unfortunately that's the same approach that's been tried before and hasn't gotten much traction.

[reloaderguy 30]

*sigh*.  No, I just didn't understand what the militia clause was or how it would relate in this case.  

It seems tenuous at best. Even if it's a law that the state must preserve the militia the fact is it hasn't.. and absent that, and the ability to 'call up' citizens it would be a weak argument for 2A rights in general and CCW specifically.    "We don't have a way to call you up, so if something were to happen and we needed everyone to defend themselves, you'd probably have time to go home and get your firearms".. unless I'm missing something.. which is why I asked the question.

 

It seems a stronger challenge to show that 'justifiable need' conflicts directly with:

 

I don't have to justify my need to carry.. I have an unalienable right to defend life, protect property and obtain safety.  Unfortunately that's the same approach that's been tried before and hasn't gotten much traction.

Well unfortunately If it was that easy using those quotes from the constitution then every case would be won. But just standing before a judge saying that will not win the case!

[voyager9 3,434]

Well unfortunately If it was that easy using those quotes from the constitution then every case would be won. But just standing before a judge saying that will not win the case!

Just send in the girl from the Dunken Donuts vid..

[Luso 6]

Anyone know about my question? When is this case slated to be heard?

[Stonecoldchavez 92]

If it even gets to the US Supreme Court and IF they rule in our favor, I will bet the farm that the NJ politicians will do everything they can to delay changing anything to allow CCW, just like in Ilinois where they have stalled it. NJ State Police will take years to get a CCW system up and running. You watch.