Update on Right to Carry appeals case, Almeida Vs. Sussex Co.

[Ramup422 18]

We are now entering phase 2 of this #2A campaign for NJ permits to carry gun “rights”. My case is scheduled for the 19th of this month to be heard at Sussex Co. Superior Court. Although I have hired the law firm of @Evannappen, I am confident that Richard Gilbert will present a very good argument on my behalf. Of course there is a 50/50 chance of us prevailing, but I am a realist and I place my odds more at 95/5. The low odds are not because of my case and arguments, but because that is just how NJ rolls on this issue.

 

We have 2 other good cases pending on this issue in NJ, one is in NJ, and the other one waiting may be heard by SCOTUS. Even though these two other pending cases are strong, they do not have a police reported, documented death threat like it does for my case. For this is the reason why this case must continue to move forward. We must prove that in NJ, regardless if you have a profession that involves large amounts of cash and you fear of becoming a victim to an armed robber, if you are a good, law abiding citizen in NJ that wants a handgun for everyday defense of your life or a loved one, or if you are a person like me that has a documented credible death and robbery threat against you, in NJ you are not afforded your 2A right to defend yourself with a handgun outside of your home.

 

We must continue litigation against the unjust “Justifiable Need” Admin code in NJ, regardless of how many cases are pending and of the outcome of my case on the 19th, this campaign must continue fighting for us all in NJ and that is my plan.
Without your support, this may not be possible to continue moving forward and we will allow NJ’s unjust laws to prevail. Please help me fund this litigation so that we all have a chance of winning here.

 

Even though I am a NRA Life Endowment member and a member of many more gun rights groups like SAF, GOA, NAGR, I have not received any financial support from these groups for this case, this can also be said for other NJ 2nd amendment rights groups in NJ that have not stepped forward and endorsed or supported this campaign for our gun rights.

 

I have received financial donations and or verbal support from great Americans like you and other professional establishments like @GunforHire @Anthony colandro, I am completely independent in this campaign for now and I am relying on your support in helping this campaign move to the next phase 3

 

If you donate $100.00 or more, I will send you a free one day guest pass to Woodland Park at gun for hire shooting range.

RISE UP AND FIGHT WITH ME, or get out of my way because we are growing stronger each day!

Thank you all that have and will continue to support this battle, Albert Almeida battling for NJ CCW 2A Rights and Liberties

Please visit me at: http://www.gofundme.com/Fighting-for-NJ-CCW

[fumanchu182 23]

I just donated on my behalf, please keep fighting the good fight for our citizens and every gun owner in NJ.

[Ramup422 18]

Thank you my friend..I will fight till I no longer have a heart beat (I have a healthy heart, so I intend to fight for a long time).

 

I just donated on my behalf, please keep fighting the good fight for our citizens and every gun owner in NJ.

[anactivegrenade 25]

Posted your gofundme URL on the r/guns page of Reddit.

[ryan_j 0]

Check out the ridiculousness from the Sussex County prosecutor. You can bet they made sure and imported antis up here to deny permits (the prosecutor was appointed by Jon Corzine). 

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/228328695/In-the-Matter-of-Israel-Albert-Almeida-Permit-to-Carry-a-Handgun-Prosecutor-Statement-and-Response

 

Among other things, they are telling him to close down his business if he gets threats from street thugs. 

[jrfly3006 42]

Boy they didn't waste time in using the Drake cert denial...

[Vlad G 345]

Wow. We really live in a strange place.

[redwings9 5]

This is sad on so many levels, try to do things the right way and you get treated like a domestic terrorist. The country is going to hell in a hand basket and NJ leads the way. Good luck I hope you prevail.

[siderman 1,137]

I'm afraid the Drake denial is going to be SOP for now on in justifying our ccw denials. Just another point of reference for the state goons.

[ryan_j 0]

I'm afraid the Drake denial is going to be SOP for now on in justifying our ccw denials. Just another point of reference for the state goons.

Don't you know it. Until something else comes down like Peruta they will copy and paste.

[Pythagoras 2]

The bullspit in that brief stinks to High Heaven.

[DTtuner 21]

Disgusting.

[Princetonian58 53]

The bullspit in that brief stinks to High Heaven.

Agreed. However, having some experience as an attorney, the fact that the opposition was assigned to a newbie AP and the arguments were that simplistic and illogical just emphasizes the great confidence that the SCPO has in winning this case. Let's face it, if the local chief and/or prosecutor opposes, no CCW for you.

[jtd771 18]

I thought the Chief of Police could only deny the permit based on the applicant not being qualified to have the firearm whereas the judge was the one to determine justifiable need.  

[revenger 473]

The state not only violates the U.S. Constitution 2nd amendment,  The County prosecutor now violates the NJ state constitution with the statement about changing jobs,  How the hell does one "pursue" happiness if you have to pursue it according to someone else's ideas.

[fslater 62]

I may be way off base and taking crazy here, but doesn't the state constitution say you have the right to defend yourself? Given the fact that numerous attack/aggression crime is committed with a deadly weapon, isn't the state violating its own constitution merrily by not having shall issue to a non criminal citizen vs justifiable need. Has any case ever followed that argument? Or revisited the no duty to protect ruling as justification in itself to carry?

[CMJeepster 2,777]

Laws & logic are invalid here in the PRNJ.

[ryan_j 0]

I may be way off base and taking crazy here, but doesn't the state constitution say you have the right to defend yourself? Given the fact that numerous attack/aggression crime is committed with a deadly weapon, isn't the state violating its own constitution merrily by not having shall issue to a non criminal citizen vs justifiable need. Has any case ever followed that argument? Or revisited the no duty to protect ruling as justification in itself to carry?

 

NJ routinely violates its own laws and state constitution. 

[fslater 62]

This is common knowledge, the discussting part is when its taken to court, a NJ judge will take a straight forward  blatant violation and dismiss it on rediculass  grounds........ Take the 30 day compliancy ....... The judge hears it and instead of ruling change the law or abide buy it, he rules it can be broke in the name of public safety... That would even be acceptable it were isolated incidents, but as every body know is very rare for that statute to be not violated. I'm thinking the fix would be to run every 2A violation to federal court to bring to light what goes on here in NJ, But that cost big $$$ to follow thru with, and the organizations like the NRA that could do it have pretty much abandon NJ as a lost cause

[revenger 473]

"NJ routinely violates its own laws and state constitution."   We will observe a classic example of this on the 25th of this month,  This is the day a judge will decide on the lawsuit on the pension payment.    When Christie signed into law the "Pension Reform Law" it made clear that all future payments shall be made,  Now for the last 4 years his treasurer has continually screwed the figures and cooked the books in an attempt to make the governor look competent  and now the very politician who signed the law now wishes to break it.   one of three things can happen,  the judge will allow him to break the law,  the judge will uphold the law Or being this is NJ  the judge will come up with such a convoluted ruling that no one on planet earth will be able to figure it out for at least the next 3 years. 

[ryan_j 0]

SAF and others have been supporting such lawsuits in every state. Some have even been won. But so far after McDonald no straight 2A cases have come to the Supreme Court. Right now the lower courts are petty much ignoring Heller and McDonald.

[jackandjill 683]

Curious. What does it cost (approx) to bring case up to SCOTUS ?  500 K, 1 mil ? more ?

What does a straight 2A case look like ? 

[ryan_j 0]

Curious. What does it cost (approx) to bring case up to SCOTUS ?  500 K, 1 mil ? more ?

What does a straight 2A case look like ? 

 

Not that much. Probably less than 100k, depending on the attorney. Obviously if you hire someone like Paul Clement it is going to be much more. However if you have a case worth pursuing, SAF and/or NRA might pick it up and help you with attorney's fees. 

 

A "straight 2A case" is a case involving the application of the 2nd amendment. There have been a few "gun" cases but they haven't been 2A cases. For example - US v Castleman - while it involved Castleman's status as a prohibited person for owning a gun, it was purely about the statute, not about the right to keep and bear arms. There was another case - US v Abramski, which is about straw purchases. Again, while it is a "gun" case it is not a 2A case because it only concerns the statute, not the constitutionality of the action. In fact it has more to do with regulation of interstate commerce than guns. 

 

Apart from those there haven't been any "gun" cases at SCOTUS since McDonald in 2010.

 

Ok, looks like I was wrong about the first point.

 

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/how-much-does-big-supreme-court-case-gay-marriage-cost

[jackandjill 683]

Not that much. Probably less than 100k, depending on the attorney. Obviously if you hire someone like Paul Clement it is going to be much more. However if you have a case worth pursuing, SAF and/or NRA might pick it up and help you with attorney's fees. 

 

A "straight 2A case" is a case involving the application of the 2nd amendment. There have been a few "gun" cases but they haven't been 2A cases. For example - US v Castleman - while it involved Castleman's status as a prohibited person for owning a gun, it was purely about the statute, not about the right to keep and bear arms. There was another case - US v Abramski, which is about straw purchases. Again, while it is a "gun" case it is not a 2A case because it only concerns the statute, not the constitutionality of the action. In fact it has more to do with regulation of interstate commerce than guns. 

 

Apart from those there haven't been any "gun" cases at SCOTUS since McDonald in 2010.

 

Ok, looks like I was wrong about the first point.

 

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/how-much-does-big-supreme-court-case-gay-marriage-cost

 

Could it then be argued that there will never be a "straight" 2A case from NJ ? It appears that NJ played very well with its laws. One can keep and one could bear arms according to NJ laws. So no straight denial of 2A rights.   If someone did manage to get to SCOTUS, could it be argued that NJ (technically) allows carry of long arms with just FPID and no additional permits ?   Even if someone from a ' no issue" state bring the case to SCOTUS and win,  it may not affect NJ laws in any form or content because, technically, we are allowed to carry. 

 

In my limited knowledge, I cannot see a straight NJ case getting to SCOTUS and winning nor do I see any decisions from any other state challenging current NJ laws.

[illy 1]

Speaking of Abramski v. US, orals were in January. Any idea when SCOTUS will issue its opinion?

[ryan_j 0]

Speaking of Abramski v. US, orals were in January. Any idea when SCOTUS will issue its opinion?

 

Should be soon. Maybe tomorrow. Maybe monday. Maybe in the coming weeks. The last batch of big opinions typically come out at the end of the term.

 

Abramski and Hobby Lobby are two that I know of offhand that should be coming out soon. 

[ryan_j 0]

Could it then be argued that there will never be a "straight" 2A case from NJ ? It appears that NJ played very well with its laws. One can keep and one could bear arms according to NJ laws. So no straight denial of 2A rights.   If someone did manage to get to SCOTUS, could it be argued that NJ (technically) allows carry of long arms with just FPID and no additional permits ?   Even if someone from a ' no issue" state bring the case to SCOTUS and win,  it may not affect NJ laws in any form or content because, technically, we are allowed to carry. 

 

In my limited knowledge, I cannot see a straight NJ case getting to SCOTUS and winning nor do I see any decisions from any other state challenging current NJ laws.

 

 

2A will be questioned without a doubt for a NJ case. 

 

Yes, NJ did play very well, but so did California. California does the same thing except they call their discretionary issue "good cause" and we call ours "justifiable need." The Peruta decision goes in depth as to why they can't do what they did. They can regulate the right but not destroy it. They used to allow carry of unloaded handguns but when they killed that, I believe that is what caused Peruta to be ruled the way it was. 

[n4p226r 105]

i guess cops in sussex county shouldn't carry guns either.  since they are working there voluntarily

[ryan_j 0]

Almeida had his hearing today and was denied. The judge said:

 

Find another job, or hire a security firm, and gun in the hand of a good guy will only escalate the situation and make you more of a target.

 

Probably expected but it shows that even with threats justifiable need is a myth. 

[springfieldxds 0]

what is his job and what was the threat he received