Jump to content
msokad

N.J. drivers to be allowed to renew licenses by mail

Recommended Posts

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...