71ragtopgoat 23 Posted August 10, 2013 Gura's whole contract with the second amendment society is based on him arguing these cases all the way to the SC. He works at a reduced rate in return the SAF agrees not to switch attorneys if it hits the supreme court. So the way I see it Gura understands he will lose more cases then he wins. His sole intention is to get to argue before the supreme court. That being said he cleaned the AG's clock in the appeal. There was no way I could see them ruling against him. But the panel did just that and in doing so made themselves look foolish. My thoughts are they are political hacks more then protectors of the constitution so it probably does not bother them doing a hatchet job to the law the way it would bother most decent people. But I'm sure they did not sleep well for a few days knowing they threw the laws of this nation under the bus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diamondd817 823 Posted August 10, 2013 Anyone know about my question? When is this case slated to be heard? Looking at the history of the speed of the NJ Supreme Court on hearing cases, I am willing to bet it will be no less than 1yr from now, maybe as much as 2yrs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bzer1 15 Posted August 10, 2013 Gura's whole contract with the second amendment society is based on him arguing these cases all the way to the SC. He works at a reduced rate in return the SAF agrees not to switch attorneys if it hits the supreme court. So the way I see it Gura understands he will lose more cases then he wins. His sole intention is to get to argue before the supreme court. That being said he cleaned the AG's clock in the appeal. There was no way I could see them ruling against him. But the panel did just that and in doing so made themselves look foolish. My thoughts are they are political hacks more then protectors of the constitution so it probably does not bother them doing a hatchet job to the law the way it would bother most decent people. But I'm sure they did not sleep well for a few days knowing they threw the laws of this nation under the bus. I disagree. They didn't lose a second of sleep. These are folks who genuinely believe the ends justify the means. This of course only applies when it's their demented ideology that is winning in the end. That is the corrupt state of politics in New Jersey. The law is a tool of the corrupt, to bend twist and shatter at will. I'm out!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
djg0770 481 Posted August 10, 2013 The law is a tool of the corrupt, to bend twist and shatter at will. I'm out!! +1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryan_j 0 Posted August 10, 2013 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. You know what happened in Illinois, right? They gave them 180 days to comply. They extended it a couple of times but the date which they were allowed to keep the restrictions in place wasn't extended for long. So it was either pass a law or constitutional carry becomes the law. It won't be 10 years but it might be about a year. That is provided we win in the first place. But, for us we already have a system in place so even easier. All that needs to be done is strike justifiable need (court will do that) and everything else remains as-is. You go through the process and the superior court HAS to grant your permit as long as your police chief approves. And your police chief has to approve you if you are of good character and have a clean background. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryan_j 0 Posted August 10, 2013 I disagree. They didn't lose a second of sleep. These are folks who genuinely believe the ends justify the means. This of course only applies when it's their demented ideology that is winning in the end. That is the corrupt state of politics in New Jersey. The law is a tool of the corrupt, to bend twist and shatter at will. I'm out!! This. Aldisert is 93 years old. He is going to expire soon. This is his legacy and I'm sure he's darned proud of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryan_j 0 Posted August 10, 2013 Anyone know about my question? When is this case slated to be heard? Nobody knows. They haven't put it on the calendar yet from what I gather. http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/calendars/sc_appeal.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vini 0 Posted August 10, 2013 Anyone knows the number of NJ residents holding Utah/Florida out of state CCW? I'm sure it's much more than total number of NJ issued CCWs. Wouldn't it be a good argument point? Those people shouldn't have problems signing petition/affidavit or testifying. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Luso 6 Posted August 10, 2013 Tha Anyone knows the number of NJ residents holding Utah/Florida out of state CCW? I'm sure it's much more than total number of NJ issued CCWs. Wouldn't it be a good argument point? Those people shouldn't have problems signing petition/affidavit or testifying. This is a good point. But even more so, we need to get a few thousand people rejected for carry permits, so the ratio of acceptance to rejection becomes completely lopsided. Right now the acceptance rate is through the roof and the statists love to quote that Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vini 0 Posted August 10, 2013 Tha This is a good point. But even more so, we need to get a few thousand people rejected for carry permits, so the ratio of acceptance to rejection becomes completely lopsided. Right now the acceptance rate is through the roof and the statists love to quote that Last time I heard, NJ2AS asked people to be ready, but don't submit applications. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
plode 0 Posted August 10, 2013 Anyone knows the number of NJ residents holding Utah/Florida out of state CCW? I'm sure it's much more than total number of NJ issued CCWs. Wouldn't it be a good argument point? Those people shouldn't have problems signing petition/affidavit or testifying. I'm not sure of the laws FL/Utah have pertaining to releasing info about CCW permit holders, but you can try filing an OPRA request through FL and Utah for the number of NJ residents holding FL and or Utah non-resident CCW permits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryan_j 0 Posted August 10, 2013 I doubt they'll disclose it. Florida put the dept of ag in charge of gun permits for precisely that reason. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vini 0 Posted August 11, 2013 I doubt a lot of people with out of state CCW wound't be members of NRA, NJ2AS & ANJRPC. If needed, those organisations could ask their members for that information. Would take time, but possible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted August 11, 2013 I doubt a lot of people with out of state CCW wound't be members of NRA, NJ2AS & ANJRPC. Almost all gun owners and most licensed carriers are not members of any of those organizations, including NRA. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cemeterys Gun Blob 165 Posted August 11, 2013 Just a guess: The NJ Supreme Court has not revisited justifiable need since the Heller decision came down. They want to reaffirm their prior holdings, which were rendered when there was no US Supreme Court case clearly holding that the 2A grants an individual right. The NJ Supreme Court wants to make clear that Heller doesn't change anything in NJ and we are still all screwed. +1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
revenger 472 Posted August 11, 2013 What is really needed to get our point across is to know the number of ordinary citizens who have a NJ CCW and know what they put down for "justifiable need" to get theirs approved. Than we need to ask what were the exact events that made their justifiable need more than anyone else's. This information will of course be impossible to get. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Luso 6 Posted August 11, 2013 Last time I heard, NJ2AS asked people to be ready, but don't submit applications. Well it is time to do it. There is absolutely no upside to sitting on the sideline and allowing it to stay the way it is. If the state is going to defend its stance on justifiable need, we can't sit by while a 99.9% acceptance rate continues. We need to make it clear that nj is an aristocracy and that non connected citizens do not have the right to defend themselves. People need to think radically: are we going to change this at the ballot box? Good luck with that with Newark, Camden, and Paterson driving our elections. Are you going to do it in the courts? It's possible, but still unlikely. Hell, when they don't have the votes they just stop midway through roll call and move to another committee. That's how brazen they are, and that's how lowly they think of us and our pleas. We have to think more like statists, community organizers, and agitators. We can't talk substance -ie debate the constitutionality of things- it's a losing argument that falls on deaf ears (have fun trying a logical discussion with Weinberg, for those who haven't tried it. It's the biggest test of patience ever experienced, and remarkable that these are the brains that have legislative power over us) Instead, we first get thousands of people rejected. Manufacture outrage. Now you can attack the classism of justifiable need. No longer is there a 99% acceptance rate. Now the state has to accept and defend judges that are quite literally saying that your life (the rejected applicant) is less valuable than his life (a celebrity, a brink's employee). That is the real story. Get thousands of black applicants from Camden rejected. New there is a protest about how there is a virtual holocaust going on in Camden with violent crime, and our RACIST judges are perfectly ok with letting BLACK people continue to get slaughtered, because THEY decided their lives weren't valuable enough to protect with a gun. See the difference here?? No debates, no intellectual discussions, no ironic revolutionary war outfits --- when the enemy can not be persuaded with logic, your only resort is to use their tactics against them. We've tried lobbying our represtantitves. They don't care, because they know your vote can't hurt them. They can't be persuaded. The courts are corrupt. Instead, lets make them answer for being racist, sexist, anti-gay people who want to protect celebrities and security guards who protect the celebrity's money, but don't think the black citizen in Newark is worth saving. Get news coverage for a rally of 5000 black citizens in Camden calling these politicians out BY NAME at a protest for being racist for not giving them carry rights, and I guarantee the narrative changes Stop playing the game their way! There is a reason why they want us to, because its a losing battle for us . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sof 0 Posted August 11, 2013 You will never get a CCW law passed in this state that will amount to a meaningful change in the current unavailability because the majority of the voters in NJ are scared to death of the idea of CCW whether they understand it or not. Face it, they picture the Wild West complete with daily shoot outs and quick draw face offs in the streets like on some television show, or rage incidents with the added factor of handguns. If you care to admit it, there are people out there who have owners permits and should not be allowed CCW, people who would be fine with it except for that one thing that "really sets me off" on the wrong day, and there are people who would misjudge when to resort to deadly force. One wrongful shooting death would negate any change (rightly or wrongly?_ you decide). Until you can come up with a CCW qualifying system that alleviates the publics' fears and weeds out carriers who are safe most of the time vs. all of the time, you have no chance of reasonable CCW laws even for people with legitimate needs. I'm not smart enough to figure out how to do it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryan_j 0 Posted August 12, 2013 You will never get a CCW law passed in this state that will amount to a meaningful change in the current unavailability because the majority of the voters in NJ are scared to death of the idea of CCW whether they understand it or not. Face it, they picture the Wild West complete with daily shoot outs and quick draw face offs in the streets like on some television show, or rage incidents with the added factor of handguns. If you care to admit it, there are people out there who have owners permits and should not be allowed CCW, people who would be fine with it except for that one thing that "really sets me off" on the wrong day, and there are people who would misjudge when to resort to deadly force. One wrongful shooting death would negate any change (rightly or wrongly?_ you decide). Until you can come up with a CCW qualifying system that alleviates the publics' fears and weeds out carriers who are safe most of the time vs. all of the time, you have no chance of reasonable CCW laws even for people with legitimate needs. I'm not smart enough to figure out how to do it. Funny how this doesn't happen in other states. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PDM 91 Posted August 12, 2013 So has anyone seen any update from NJ2AS on this? If people are going to apply it will have a much bigger impact if it's 1000+ people statewide. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Luso 6 Posted August 12, 2013 It's imperative. you need to get a slew of rejections. It empowers the judicial case and eliminates their defense From there, you can then play off the other "social justice" angles. But more truthfully, all tactical and political angles aside, this is about one human being's life being valued above another. Pure and simple. The masses are free to be slaughtered, and the select elite few can be protected. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
plode 0 Posted August 12, 2013 It's imperative. you need to get a slew of rejections. It empowers the judicial case and eliminates their defense Not to mention if everyone suddenly goes and applies for a permit, it shows there is a demand for CCW in NJ. If we get denied(which we certainly will), we jump on the wagon like Pantano challenging justifiable need as a large class action suit against the state. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryan_j 0 Posted August 12, 2013 Not sure what the NJ2AS plan is but you should ping Frank about it if you're serious. The problem last I heard is that he couldn't verify whether a denial would have any negative effect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Luso 6 Posted August 12, 2013 The only effect is you may have to divulge on other applications in the future or in other states that you were once rejected, but once you explain it was due to "lack of justifiable need" it shouldn't realistically pose a problem Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Glock guy 1,125 Posted August 12, 2013 Well it is time to do it. There is absolutely no upside to sitting on the sideline and allowing it to stay the way it is. If the state is going to defend its stance on justifiable need, we can't sit by while a 99.9% acceptance rate continues. We need to make it clear that nj is an aristocracy and that non connected citizens do not have the right to defend themselves. People need to think radically: are we going to change this at the ballot box? Good luck with that with Newark, Camden, and Paterson driving our elections. Are you going to do it in the courts? It's possible, but still unlikely. Hell, when they don't have the votes they just stop midway through roll call and move to another committee. That's how brazen they are, and that's how lowly they think of us and our pleas. We have to think more like statists, community organizers, and agitators. We can't talk substance -ie debate the constitutionality of things- it's a losing argument that falls on deaf ears (have fun trying a logical discussion with Weinberg, for those who haven't tried it. It's the biggest test of patience ever experienced, and remarkable that these are the brains that have legislative power over us) Instead, we first get thousands of people rejected. Manufacture outrage. Now you can attack the classism of justifiable need. No longer is there a 99% acceptance rate. Now the state has to accept and defend judges that are quite literally saying that your life (the rejected applicant) is less valuable than his life (a celebrity, a brink's employee). That is the real story. Get thousands of black applicants from Camden rejected. New there is a protest about how there is a virtual holocaust going on in Camden with violent crime, and our RACIST judges are perfectly ok with letting BLACK people continue to get slaughtered, because THEY decided their lives weren't valuable enough to protect with a gun. See the difference here?? No debates, no intellectual discussions, no ironic revolutionary war outfits --- when the enemy can not be persuaded with logic, your only resort is to use their tactics against them. We've tried lobbying our represtantitves. They don't care, because they know your vote can't hurt them. They can't be persuaded. The courts are corrupt. Instead, lets make them answer for being racist, sexist, anti-gay people who want to protect celebrities and security guards who protect the celebrity's money, but don't think the black citizen in Newark is worth saving. Get news coverage for a rally of 5000 black citizens in Camden calling these politicians out BY NAME at a protest for being racist for not giving them carry rights, and I guarantee the narrative changes Stop playing the game their way! There is a reason why they want us to, because its a losing battle for us . I like that! We would have to analyze the potential downside of playing hardball with them, but since nothing else has worked, something like that could well be worth a try. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Luso 6 Posted August 12, 2013 There is no downside. 1000 black citizens calling a white state rep (weinberg for example) a racist for denying their "civil rights". The news cameras have no choice but to follow, by their own faulty, social-justice-loving logic. That is the beauty of it, when the proper channels fail, you use their own tactics against them, and because they subscribe to that philosophy, they have to listen. Right now the state is in a great position to say "hey, nobody is asking for permits and getting denied, so we see no reason to change the system". The first step is to take that away form them, MAKE THEM SAY NO. put it on the record, put it in the courts - make the state take the position of saying "you 5000 people's lives are not worth protecting, but these 1000 brink's employees can protect the "rich's" money"..you can even make it class warfare on top of racial warfare. 5000 people ask for carry permits and get rejected, and the game starts to change. then you go after the social angles like race, but start with square one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PDM 91 Posted August 12, 2013 If you really are in the mood to be outraged, watch this video clip of Michael Wildes, former Englewood Mayor, from 1 year ago speaking about the Trayvon Martin case and why concealed carry laws should be curtailed and how horrible stand your ground laws are. He has a NJ carry permit and has acknowledged that in a public letter to the editor supporting Weinberg's smart gun efforts. THIS is what needs to be addressed. This shameless hypocrisy is almost beyond belief. He is special. He can be trusted. He gets rights that the ordinary unwashed masses shouldn't be allowed to have. And it's not about background checks or training or any other "sensible" measure because, as we know, us "ordinary" folks can't enjoy the same "privilege" (his term) he has no matter how many background checks we go through or how much training we have. If he ever runs for public office he needs to be publicly confronted about his hypocrisy. Actually, I hope the NJ2AS or other organization puts together a media campaign to expose people like Wildes -- I would gladly contribute to it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXV30-WkYv0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted August 12, 2013 You will never get a CCW law passed in this state that will amount to a meaningful change in the current unavailability because the majority of the voters in NJ are scared to death of the idea of CCW whether they understand it or not. Face it, they picture the Wild West complete with daily shoot outs and quick draw face offs in the streets like on some television show, or rage incidents with the added factor of handguns. If you care to admit it, there are people out there who have owners permits and should not be allowed CCW, people who would be fine with it except for that one thing that "really sets me off" on the wrong day, and there are people who would misjudge when to resort to deadly force. Which is why CC causes no problems in 47 states. What "they" are scared to death of is not the problem, what YOU think is the problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sof 0 Posted August 13, 2013 Which is why CC causes no problems in 47 states. What "they" are scared to death of is not the problem, what YOU think is the problem. I thought it over after reading this and while I see your point, I have to disagree. If you really want to make CCW happen, what "they" are afraid of is 100% the problem because if you cannot provide reasonable answers to reasonable questions, all the clever alternative measures in the world won't cut it. The powers that be don't want this to happen, and if the majority of voters actually don't favor new carry laws, it won't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigHayden 77 Posted August 13, 2013 The powers that be don't want this to happen, and if the majority of voters actually don't favor new carry laws, it won't. Tell that to the majority in the Jim Crow South who didn't want coloreds drinking from their whites only water fountains... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites