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

[ryan_j 0]

Bear in mind this is what we're dealing with in the NJ supreme court.  

 

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/08/12/gov-chris-christie-nominates-latino-to-state-supreme-court/

 

It's not that the guy is Latino, but it's that Christie had to cave to the Democrats who still control the legislature and have been blocking his other judicial appointments.

 

And by the way nobody knows whether this guy is R or D. I suspect he is RINO just like Christie. 

[johnoutdoors 10]

And by the way nobody knows whether this guy is R or D. I suspect he is RINO just like Christie. 

He was appointed by McGreevy if that gives you any indication.

[njpilot 671]

He was appointed by McGreevy if that gives you any indication.

It says right in the article:

 

"Christie said Monday that he was nominating Camden County Judge Faustino Fernandez-Vina, a Cuban-born Republican who was confirmed unanimously by the Senate for the Superior Court."

 

 

Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/08/12/gov-chris-christie-nominates-latino-to-state-supreme-court/#ixzz2bzt9zZE9

[ryan_j 0]

Yeah but varying sources claim he's a republican. I think he'll be a liberal but having escaped communism in Cuba he may not be.

[njpilot 671]

Yeah but varying sources claim he's a republican. I think he'll be a liberal but having escaped communism in Cuba he may not be.

I'm not saying he's not a liberal Rino, I really don't know, just answering the R or D question.

[johnoutdoors 10]

I'm not saying he's not a liberal Rino, I really don't know, just answering the R or D question.

My point was that the letter at the end doesn't really matter, its just a letter.  Any one of us could declare or change affiliation at any time. The important part is his ideology. I don't think McGreevy would pick a right wing conservative, maybe not even a middle of the road logical thinker like we all hope he turns out to be.

[anactivegrenade 25]

I haven't done my research on him, but man, almost every Cuban I know is a raging Reagan-conservative.. fingers crossed!!!

[Vini 0]

I haven't done my research on him, but man, almost every Cuban I know is a raging Reagan-conservative.. fingers crossed!!!

 

That's how socialism turns people. 

Once a good man with right views gets to ''enjoy" this kind of life, B-52s over the Moscow sounds like a good deal. Even if you live in Moscow. 

 

Old tale about socialists from West Germany visiting East Germany with a kid. 

After a while kid asked parents: "if socialism is what you believe is best way to live, why everyone around is poor and restrooms don't have toilet paper?". 

[ryan_j 0]

All I can say is... wow!

 

http://www.evannappen.com/nappen-law-firm-files-second-amendment-brief-with-nj-supreme-court.html

[n4p226r 105]

Please elaborate

[Vlad G 345]

Please elaborate

 

Read the filling. Basically Nappen points out that all guns are always illegal in NJ unless you can prove they aren't which flies in the face of Heller and McDonald. Basically he points out that our laws are completely broken, and he does it for the purpose of throwing out the "justifiable need" wording. 

 

He is of course correct, but I find his argument a bit contorted . 

[lunker 274]

That argument lends itself to fixing our handgun exemptions problem without ever giving us the right to carry. He is addressing the main issue by attacking the underlying one. I am not a lawyer, so it is just my cynical/realistic thoughts on his argument taking into account the retarded state we live in.

[intercooler 41]

why doesn't ANYONE use the 14th amendment in conjunction with these suits? I don't get how the left uses it for EVERYTHING...no one thinks about it in the other rights contexts

[lunker 274]

why doesn't ANYONE use the 14th amendment in conjunction with these suits? I don't get how the left uses it for EVERYTHING...no one thinks about it in the other rights contexts

It might be because the Supreme Court didn't use the 14th amendment in its Heller and McDonald decisions. I do believe that Clarence Thomas used it in a concurring opinion.

[n4p226r 105]

I'm not totally through the case but it's always hard for me to read because I always agree with our side so I can't really find faults. It is a more interesting way to fight the law than I could come up with. Hopefully it works although I don't have a lot of hope. Seems it would be a better argument for the Supreme Court though

[voyager9 3,434]

Did the NJSC agree to hear the case or was this just the filing?

[Norseman 2]

So protecting money could be justifiable need but protecting myself and my family just won't qualify? How much cash do my kids need to be carrying before I can defend their lives with a firearm?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Ain't that the truth? Just ridiculous.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ryan_j 0]

Did the NJSC agree to hear the case or was this just the filing?

 

 

NJSC has granted certiorari and this is the brief of the appellants. Orals haven't been scheduled yet.

[ryan_j 0]

It might be because the Supreme Court didn't use the 14th amendment in its Heller and McDonald decisions. I do believe that Clarence Thomas used it in a concurring opinion.

They used due process in the 14th in McDonald to incorporate Heller to the states. The concurring opinion used due process of the 14th to do the same.

[lunker 274]

They used due process in the 14th in McDonald to incorporate Heller to the states. The concurring opinion used due process of the 14th to do the same.

 

 

You are correct. My mistake. Clarence Thomas tried to incorporate using the Privileges & Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment, which would have effectively prevented states from regulating the right. The majority decision made use of the Due Process clause, which was a less radical interpretation (but not as good for us either). 

[Vlad G 345]

That's because privileges and immunities is pretty much dead, and has been so since Slaughter-House.

[galapoola 102]

I've been aware of the "handgun possession illegal" and then "except in these circumstances" but never knew that we were under a guilty until proven innocent scheme. Well I kinda new it but the way Nappen describes it in his brief, at any time the authorities could storm troop your home. Technically that may be the case which begs the question why then does the NJSP approve your purchase through an FFL dealer without a carry (he calls it a possess) permit? It may be that this thing is always hanging over our heads and we just didn't really know? If you read the statute there is a good character clause somewhere in there for the issuance of a NJ Firearm Purchase ID card. I wonder if the state and towns decided that no one is of a good enough character that they could just shut down firearm purchases by collecting all our cards. NJ has a nasty tradition of crafting laws that give huge leeway to the police/prosecutors/courts at our expense. I'm still reading the brief, it's kind of mind blowing that a technical reading of the statute means what Nappen is presenting.

[gleninjersey 2,141]

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.

The majority of voters don't want to pay higher taxes, year after year but still do. The reasonable answer to their unreasonable question/laws has already been answered. There are many more states that permit CC and NONE of them have deteriorated into "the old west". The only cities that have "blood running in the streets" because of guns are the cities where CC is restricted because all the WRONG people are walking around with guns.

 

Think about it. Is a robber/car jacker/thug playing the KO "game" going to think twice about engaging in their illicit activity if there is a higher chance that their intended victim (or those in the immediate area) may be armed? Are people going go engage in more or less road rage if they know that the person they about to "lose it on" may be carrying?

 

More law abiding citizens carrying equals less crime and less violence.

[ryan_j 0]

Here's something I thought about today, that Evan may have touched on in the brief.

 

I do not see any exemption in 2C:39-6 for transporting any firearm to a FFL, or anywhere for that matter, for purposes of sale or disposition. There is ONLY an exemption from place of purchase to home and from home to FFL for purpose of repair.  

 

Yet it is routinely done.

 

Correct? 

[ryan_j 0]

Ryan, is this what your referring to?  That you may only carry *from* the place of purchase to your home, not to your place of purchase?  This is interesting.  So technically, you're not allowed to take a gun to an FFL to sell it?  It seems crazy, but maybe it's technically illegal if it's not a "place of repair". 

 

 

39-6.e "Nothing in subsections b., c. and d. of N.J.S.2C:39-5 shall be construed to prevent a person keeping or carrying about his place of business, residence, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, any firearm, or from carrying the same, in the manner specified in subsection g. of this section, from any place of purchase to his residence or place of business, between his dwelling and his place of business, between one place of business or residence and another when moving, or between his dwelling or place of business and place where such firearms are repaired, for the purpose of repair.  For the purposes of this section, a place of business shall be deemed to be a fixed location."

 

That's exactly what I'm talking about. You can only buy a gun and carry it home. You can't take it back unless it's being repaired, unless you have a carry permit. 

[ChrisJM981 924]

Isn't the judge just going to point to this and dismiss the case?:

 

 

 

 

39-6.e "Nothing in subsections b., c. and d. of N.J.S.2C:39-5 shall be construed to prevent a person keeping or carrying about his place of business, residence, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, any firearm, or from carrying the same,

[Vlad G 345]

Thats why I think his argument is contorted. His position is the 39-6.e is an exemption and there is still a resumption of guilt until you prove it applies to you. I don't see it. Maybe there is some legal contortion going on here that Nappen understands and I don't but I don't the the NJ courts are going to go along with that.

[ryan_j 0]

Isn't the judge just going to point to this and dismiss the case?:

They won't because they still have to explain justifiable need and how it survives scrutiny under Heller.

 

Evan was on GFH radio this week explaining the case and other things.

 

Evan may not view the NJSC as the final stop for this case. The USSC is next.

[Vlad G 345]

If I was an anti-court, I'd say that's not an exception, that is a recognition of your rights under Heller and McDonald as we see them. Then on the justifiable need they can say that only really applies to carry which so far SCOTUS hasn't said anything about so its fine by NJSC.

 

The thing about going to SCOTUS is that there is already a case heading there and this one is weaker then that one, to my mind.

[Newtonian 453]

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.

I disagree. All you should logically need to show is the EVERYBODY outside of certain classes (cops, prosecutors, politically connected) is turned down. Those are statistics enough. There is also ample evidence from out of state that CC is safe. And finally, a minor constitutional point, that NJ law begins by nullifying the second amendment, then creates exemptions. I'm sure the latter point has been upheld though.