msokad 3 Posted August 14, 2013 Did anyone else happen to see this today? How does that fit into the national model for FIDs. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/08/all_nj_drivers_will_be_allowed_to_renews_license_by_mail.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fawkesguy 57 Posted August 14, 2013 Only a handful of states require something as unconstitutional as an FID, so I don't see a "national model". I hope there's never anything like that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
222 3 Posted August 14, 2013 Should FID and DL be combined, this would serve as yet another legal argument to strike down the law as unconstitutional. DLs without FID can renew by mail, whereas DLs with FID must go through a convoluted process and be deprived of options. The law's principal effect is to identify a subset... and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality... Thus finding the law as a violation of 14th equal protection... Whether Christie signs or not, it is at worst a setback, not a defeat. We have much more cards to play... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,895 Posted August 14, 2013 SOB i just waited 2 hours last week to renew.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fawkesguy 57 Posted August 14, 2013 Should FID and DL be combined, this would serve as yet another legal argument to strike down the law as unconstitutional. DLs without FID can renew by mail, whereas DLs with FID must go through a convoluted process and be deprived of options. The law's principal effect is to identify a subset... and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality... Thus finding the law as a violation of 14th equal protection... Whether Christie signs or not, it is at worst a setback, not a defeat. We have much more cards to play... Interesting, but really, the existence of FID's is unconstitutional way before we even talk about combining it with a driver's license. It is a permit to exercise a constitutionally protected right. NJ law states that everyone is prohibited from possessing a firearm unless you are exempted from the prohibition (by obtaining an FID). It's total insanity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
222 3 Posted August 14, 2013 Interesting, but really, the existence of FID's is unconstitutional way before we even talk about combining it with a driver's license. It is a permit to exercise a constitutionally protected right. NJ law states that everyone is prohibited from possessing a firearm unless you are exempted from the prohibition (by obtaining an FID). It's total insanity. Legal arguments are carefully crafted to convince the court that the shortest path between the case and common and case law is following the path of your argument, through a short series of findings of law, to an opinion in your favor. While I don't find fault with your argument, I humbly suggest it is a larger leap to find FID unconstitutional, a bridge further than most judiciaries would be willing to traverse. It is a sermon you can preach to the choir, but may not be as convincing for the ambivalent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fawkesguy 57 Posted August 14, 2013 Legal arguments are carefully crafted to convince the court that the shortest path between the case and common and case law is following the path of your argument, through a short series of findings of law, to an opinion in your favor. While I don't find fault with your argument, I humbly suggest it is a larger leap to find FID unconstitutional, a bridge further than most judiciaries would be willing to traverse. It is a sermon you can preach to the choir, but may not be as convincing for the ambivalent. Oh believe me, I have no expectation that it will ever change for the better or go away. It's just an observation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
222 3 Posted August 14, 2013 Oh believe me, I have no expectation that it will ever change for the better or go away. It's just an observation. Yeah I am not optimistic on that either. Not that it hasn't been tried. In July 31 decision on Drake v. Filko before the Federal 3rd district appeals, S2F and ANJRPC tried the prior restraint argument as applied to the justifiable need provision of NJ CCW. Prior restraint is a 1st Amendment standard that is analogous to your argument: government cannot regulate fundamental rights prior to the exercising of that right. The 2 judges in the majority explicitly discounted applying prior restraint upon 2A, and even the 3rd dissenting judge declined to apply prior restraint, but did so in his footnote. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
djg0770 481 Posted August 14, 2013 FID and DL will not be combined in NJ as it would eliminate a potential additional revenue stream and governmental department. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,895 Posted August 14, 2013 How did we go from 6 points of verify your existence to... register online? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,895 Posted August 15, 2013 question regarding sweeneys bill, if it was signed... would the DMV even be able to handle it? since he already signed the bill making our information private, and the DMV is not run by the state? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryan_j 0 Posted August 15, 2013 I don't mind a firearm ID card, as long as it's called "permit to carry a firearm." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted August 15, 2013 By mail? What happens when all the scary brown people with towels on their heads use drivers licenses to blow up Christmas? I am tweeting Bloomdouche so he can put a stop to this! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
djg0770 481 Posted August 15, 2013 Sweeneys bill is for an endorsement on driver's license OR a photo FID. I've said it before. I doubt they're giving this to the MVC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
average joe 5 Posted August 15, 2013 So, it they put your FID on your DL, what happens to the person who loses his/her license for DUI ? Do they loose their FID as well? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
siderman 1,138 Posted August 15, 2013 How did we go from 6 points of verify your existence to... register online? Its only for old farts like me born before 12/01/64. We get the 6 pnt thing every 8 yrs. Apparently we' re not as threatening as you young'uns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryan_j 0 Posted August 15, 2013 FID and DL will not be combined in NJ as it would eliminate a potential additional revenue stream and governmental department. They must really like that extra 5 bucks per FID! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryan_j 0 Posted August 15, 2013 Its only for old farts like me born before 12/01/64. We get the 6 pnt thing every 8 yrs. Apparently we' re not as threatening as you young'uns Not really, I heard now it's going to be for everybody. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,259 Posted August 15, 2013 Legal arguments are carefully crafted to convince the court that the shortest path between the case and common and case law is following the path of your argument, through a short series of findings of law, to an opinion in your favor. While I don't find fault with your argument, I humbly suggest it is a larger leap to find FID unconstitutional, a bridge further than most judiciaries would be willing to traverse. It is a sermon you can preach to the choir, but may not be as convincing for the ambivalent. I mostly agree. There is the distinct possibility to argue a compelling state interest even under intermediate scrutiny. However, I suspect you could get a ruling on charging for it as there is court precedent about much smaller sums than we pay being an undue burden. Heck, you might even be able to get the 30 days or whatever we feel like ruling reversed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,895 Posted August 15, 2013 the last 2 times i had to renew my license i had to use 6 points of ID.. which as was my old license and my FPID. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryan_j 0 Posted August 15, 2013 Last time I think I used my old DL, a property tax bill and my social security card. My wife used the prop tax bill, her NJ DL and her work ID since she's a ny city employee. Next time (February 2014) I think I will show my FID. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
222 3 Posted August 15, 2013 I mostly agree. There is the distinct possibility to argue a compelling state interest even under intermediate scrutiny. However, I suspect you could get a ruling on charging for it as there is court precedent about much smaller sums than we pay being an undue burden. Heck, you might even be able to get the 30 days or whatever we feel like ruling reversed. I think it is worth a shot. The 30-day FID issue is an unfortunate example of why picking the right plaintiff / appellant is so important. In the matter of anthony dubov, he is so disliked people crawled out of the woodwork to screw him over, and dislike for him led to case law against us all. With the right plaintiff, and under the right circumstances, we could chip away at the FID. If the FID gets ratcheted up to 4-year renewal and tied to the DL, 'undue burden' becomes much more compelling. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryan_j 0 Posted August 15, 2013 Yeah I am not optimistic on that either. Not that it hasn't been tried. In July 31 decision on Drake v. Filko before the Federal 3rd district appeals, S2F and ANJRPC tried the prior restraint argument as applied to the justifiable need provision of NJ CCW. Prior restraint is a 1st Amendment standard that is analogous to your argument: government cannot regulate fundamental rights prior to the exercising of that right. The 2 judges in the majority explicitly discounted applying prior restraint upon 2A, and even the 3rd dissenting judge declined to apply prior restraint, but did so in his footnote. Drake v Filko was judicial activism. Hardiman's dissent basically ripped it to shreds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites