The man behind NJ's Supreme Court gun case: Mark Di Ionno

[Nucrunner 75]

Good article from the Star Ledger

 

 

 

 

The man behind NJ's Supreme Court gun case: Mark Di Ionno

 

 

 

Mark Di Ionno/Star-Ledger Columnist

John Drake got his juvenile hunting license when he was 10, and had to go almost no farther than his backyard to hunt with his father and grandfather. The view from the back of his Fredon Township home is of the state’s 2,000-acre Whittingham wildlife preserve.

 

Drake belongs to two ranges, holds every conceivable gun safety certification, and has been authorized to carry a handgun in Florida and Utah, which gives him reciprocal rights in 36 other states. New Jersey isn’t one of them, so two years ago he applied for a state permit.

 

This began a legal journey that ended Monday, when the Supreme Court refused to hear Drake’s challenge to the state law that restricts residents from carrying guns in public without a justifiable need.

 

"People have been so supportive," Drake said at his home the day after the ruling. "I almost think I let them down."

 

But there is more to John Drake than guns.

 

"I think people were surprised to find I wasn’t a Jesse James type, or some kind of nut job," said Drake, who was backed by several Second Amendment advocate groups. "And that I’m quite reasonable."

 

Drake is the kind of guy often described as a pillar of the community. He lives in the same house he grew up in, and has been married to the same woman for 34 years. He is a director of Sussex County Economic Development Partnership. He is a commissioner with the county utilities authority, and on the state’s labor mediation board. He’s on or has been on the boards of the county United Way, Chamber of Commerce and Newton Hospital.

 

"If you name it, I’ve been on it," he said.

 

He was a Sprint executive for 34 years and owns several businesses, including a cigar store.

 

There are no guns displayed in the living areas of his home, or any signs or slogans about guns or gun rights. He has two signs that say: "This house is protected by the Good Lord and a gun. You might meet them both if you come in unwelcomed." One is in the garage, the other faces the backyard.

 

"I’ve only had them two weeks. They were a present from a friend. He’ll probably want them back now that we lost the case."

 

He also believes there is plenty of room for "reasonable" compromise on gun issues.

 

"That is the answer," he said. "But right now we have people who hate guns and want no guns, and people who want no restrictions on buying weapons or ammunition. The solutions lie somewhere in the middle."

 

Drake does not believe guns or ammunition should be sold to anyone who doesn’t hold a firearms identification, and believes background checks — criminal and mental health — and safety certification should be prerequisites.

 

"I know it’s a pain, but it’s a worthwhile pain," he said.

 

That said, he also believes people like him — "law-abiding citizens" — should be allowed to carry guns in every state, including New Jersey, without having to "justify their constitutional right."

 

Drake was asking for the right-to-carry permit because he has a business that installs, repairs and loads ATMs, and he often carries large sums of cash. He has about 30 machines in convenience stores, bars and bodegas, and more than a few are in rough areas. One night after filling a machine in a go-go bar in Newark’s Ironbound, he was followed out by two men. He evaded them, but it got him thinking.

 

"The truth is, I’m not worried about getting robbed because it’s only money," he said. "I worry about what happens when (the criminal) doesn’t want to leave any witnesses."

 

He was denied the permit because he did "not detail an urgent necessity for self-protection as evidenced by prior specific threats or previous attacks demonstrating a special danger to your life," according to a letter from the state. "Generalized fears for personal safety are inadequate, and a need to protect property does not alone suffice."

 

"They are essentially saying something awful has to happen to you before you can defend yourself," Drake said.

 

But as Drake went through the process of denial after denial, he began to think the issue was less about guns and more about the Constitution.

 

"It’s like when you get an illness, then you learn as much about it as the doctor," he said. "I think that should be the underlying message of all this: It’s not all about guns, it’s about the abridgement of the Constitution."

 

FOLLOW THE STAR-LEDGER: TWITTER • FACEBOOK • GOOGLE+

[PK90 3,573]

He also believes there is plenty of room for "reasonable" compromise on gun issues.

I don't

 

Drake does not believe guns or ammunition should be sold to anyone who doesn’t hold a firearms identification

So, he does not believe in the Second Amendment.

[HBecwithFn7 296]

I don't

 

>>Drake does not believe guns or ammunition should be sold to anyone who doesn’t hold a firearms identification

 

So, he does not believe in the Second Amendment.

 

I wonder if that was Drake speaking directly, or the Star Ledger speaking "on his behalf." Notice it was not called by its proper name ("Firearms Purchaser Identification Card").  I'm thinking Mr. Drake would not make such a mistake.

 

Therefore, I don't completely trust this article...

[maintenanceguy 510]

Yeah, I do not trust the Star Ledger.  They may have twisted a lot of what he had to say to fit their agenda.

[wooly bugger 1]

Yeah, I do not trust the Star Ledger.  They may have twisted a lot of what he had to say to fit their agenda.

This is a case where their twisting could be to our favor. By painting him as a moderate, low-key, reasonable professional and stating his very good reason for wanting to carry, it might get people thinking that it's not just the "nut jobs" mentioned in the article who want the right to carry. I liked his statement that he's not worried about getting robbed, because it's only money. He's worried about what happens when the robbers don't want to leave any witnesses. This is not a blood-thirsty vigilante looking for an excuse to pull a trigger.

 

This is much better than if they'd twisted it the other way and portrayed him as a googly-eyed, foaming at the mouth extremist.

[Newtonian 453]

I don't

 

So, he does not believe in the Second Amendment.

Hold on. I read or skim at least 25 gun-related articles per week. Reporters, 97% of whom are liberal, don't know anything about guns, the permitting process, or what it takes to own or buy a firearm in this state.

 

For the last year -- and you will read this in any newspaper, including the Times and the W.S. Journal -- they've been saying that Illinois was the last state in the union not to allow concealed carry. Which as you know is 100% wrong. NJ and HI don't have it, and for all practical purposes (as I understand it) MD doesn't either.

 

Drake might have told the reporter, "We already have background checks and in this state you need to be vetted, resulting in a firearms ID card, before you can purchase anything firearm related." 

 

None of our constitutional rights were ever considered to be absolute (yelling fire in a crowded theater, for example). Imagine some parallel universe where CC is free and easy in every state, including NJ. Basically constitutional carry except you need to be vetted and possess a card. Sort of like a driver's license or NJ's infamous FID purchase card. And there's a guy named Drake who petitions the Supreme Court to find the card part unconstitutional.

 

Now if Mr. Drake (as a member of the county utilities commission) was found to be partly responsible for those horrendous, property value-destroying, 2X high power towers that have ruined the views of thousands of homeowners, day and night, I'll let you savage him any way you like.

[Albanian 121]

It's not against the law to yell "fire" anywhere but you are responsible for any panic it may cause.

[voyager9 3,440]

It's not against the law to yell "fire" anywhere but you are responsible for any panic it may cause.

This. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. It also doesn't mean that it is illegal to teach that word to first graders on the off chance they might grow up to say it in a theater.

[ryan_j 0]

There is a big difference between "requiring a card" and "requiring a card, and to get such card you have to have a nearly impossible requirement to meet." 

[JeremyP 0]

For the last year -- and you will read this in any newspaper, including the Times and the W.S. Journal -- they've been saying that Illinois was the last state in the union not to allow concealed carry. Which as you know is 100% wrong. NJ and HI don't have it, and for all practical purposes (as I understand it) MD doesn't either.

 

It's not 100% wrong, more like 99.995% wrong. According to this 2011 report from the Government Accountability Office, NJ has 32k active permits (both resident and non-resident), out of an adult population (age 20 and over) of 6.5 million (2010 census). So roughly 0.005% of the people in NJ can legally carry concealed.

[PeteF 1,044]

It's not 100% wrong, more like 99.995% wrong. According to this 2011 report from the Government Accountability Office, NJ has 32k active permits (both resident and non-resident), out of an adult population (age 20 and over) of 6.5 million (2010 census). So roughly 0.005% of the people in NJ can legally carry concealed.

Then I'd really like to know why the state police documents claim ther are ~1200-1400 permits.

 

I wonder if the report includes LEO and retired Leo.

[CMJeepster 2,781]

Notice it was not called by its proper name ("Firearms Purchaser Identification Card").

No one on here does.

[HBecwithFn7 296]

No one on here does.

 

True, but we get a lot closer....

[CMJeepster 2,781]

True, but we get a lot closer....

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/65721-fpid-this-has-been-bothering-me-for-a-while-now/

 

[mipafox 438]

None of our constitutional rights were ever considered to be absolute (yelling fire in a crowded theater, for example).

Incorrect and Progressive/Leftist red herring.

 

If I strangle my neighbor's wife, it is murder. If I shoot my neighbor's wife, it is murder, and that is not a limitation on my Second Amendment Rights.

 

If I throw a smoke bomb into a crowded theater, it is mayhem and reckless endangerment. If I yell, "Fire" in a crowded theater, it is mayhem and reckless endangerment, and that is not a limitation on my First Amendment Rights.

 

All of our enumerated rights are absolute and without limitation.

[mipafox 438]

 

It's not against the law to yell "fire" anywhere but you are responsible for any panic it may cause.

 

 

Bingo.

[njpilot 671]

Incorrect and Progressive/Leftist red herring.

If I strangle my neighbor's wife, it is murder. If I shoot my neighbor's wife, it is murder, and that is not a limitation on my Second Amendment Rights.

If I throw a smoke bomb into a crowded theater, it is mayhem and reckless endangerment. If I yell, "Fire" in a crowded theater, it is mayhem and reckless endangerment, and that is not a limitation on my First Amendment Rights.

All of our enumerated rights are absolute and without limitation.

 

 

Bingo.

Agreed. You can yell fire in a crowded theater. There is nothing to stop you. You will just pay the consequences for doing so.

 

Just the same, there shouldn't be the limits we have on exercising our 2A rights, just consequences if you abuse them.

 

People can die in a crowded theater if someone falsely yells fire just as people can die if someone illegally uses a firearm.

 

It's the consequence that is put in place for people who abuse these rights.

 

There is nothing stopping people from voting multiple times, there is just the consequence of them abusing that protected right if they use it illegally.

[mipafox 438]

Let me be the first to say that I amuse my 2A rights early and often

[Newtonian 453]

Incorrect and Progressive/Leftist red herring.

 

If I strangle my neighbor's wife, it is murder. If I shoot my neighbor's wife, it is murder, and that is not a limitation on my Second Amendment Rights.

 

If I throw a smoke bomb into a crowded theater, it is mayhem and reckless endangerment. If I yell, "Fire" in a crowded theater, it is mayhem and reckless endangerment, and that is not a limitation on my First Amendment Rights.

 

All of our enumerated rights are absolute and without limitation.

Take the following examples:

 

* yelling fire in a crowded theater

* not yielding the microphone at a public meeting

* interrupting a judge during a trial

* bringing a megaphone to church and interrupting the service

* advocating acts of murder 

 

You can call these acts "disorderly" or menacing or with whatever legal term you like, but they are all speech. As an astute poster wrote, the 1st Amendment doesn't protect you from consequences. But why are there consequences, and what is their relation to the enumerated right? Regulation. 

 

We have a right to peacefully assemble, but not in the middle of the busiest intersection in town on Wednesday at 10am. Regulation.

 

Courts have ruled favorably on reasonable regulation since the founding.

 

Everyone in this forum would agree that we've gone way too far in regulation of everyday life, and that "eternal vigilance" rings hollow when it takes hundreds of thousands in legal costs and years of your life to get a court to agree you have a plain language right. That's an entirely different discussion.

 

The legal system is one huge cesspool. This is why I keep urging everyone to VOTE. 

[CMJeepster 2,781]

Courts have ruled favorably on reasonable regulation since the founding. 

Like not allowing convicted fellons and the mentally ill, etc. to possess firearms.  Unlike the other Rights, the Secound is, "You're guilty (or dead) unless proven otherwise" here in the PRNJ.  Right Mr. Drake?

[mipafox 438]

 

Take the following examples:

 

* yelling fire in a crowded theater

* not yielding the microphone at a public meeting

* interrupting a judge during a trial

* bringing a megaphone to church and interrupting the service

* advocating acts of murder 

 

You can call these acts "disorderly" or menacing or with whatever legal term you like, but they are all speech. As an astute poster wrote, the 1st Amendment doesn't protect you from consequences. But why are there consequences, and what is their relation to the enumerated right? Regulation. 

 

We have a right to peacefully assemble, but not in the middle of the busiest intersection in town on Wednesday at 10am. Regulation.

 

Courts have ruled favorably on reasonable regulation since the founding.

 

Everyone in this forum would agree that we've gone way too far in regulation of everyday life, and that "eternal vigilance" rings hollow when it takes hundreds of thousands in legal costs and years of your life to get a court to agree you have a plain language right. That's an entirely different discussion.

 

The legal system is one huge cesspool. This is why I keep urging everyone to VOTE. 

 

 

Take these:

 

Shooting your neighbor's wife vs. strangling her

Shooting your cousin's windshield vs. breaking it with a hammer

Threatening your Pastor with a bat vs. a firearm

Breaking into your landlords house with a kick to the door vs. a breaching round

 

You can call these "crimes" or whatever you like, but none of them have anything to do with a gun unless that's what you happened to use.

 

I can't believe you doubled down on this nonsense.

[Newtonian 453]

   

 

Take these:

 

Shooting your neighbor's wife vs. strangling her

Shooting your cousin's windshield vs. breaking it with a hammer

Threatening your Pastor with a bat vs. a firearm

Breaking into your landlords house with a kick to the door vs. a breaching round

 

You can call these "crimes" or whatever you like, but none of them have anything to do with a gun unless that's what you happened to use.

 

I can't believe you doubled down on this nonsense.

OK then, does the 2nd amendment guarantee extend to death row inmates? To the criminally insane? To someone who has just been arrested for burglary, while they're in custody? And please address my example of peaceful assembly. Regulation need not result in tyranny. 

[njpilot 671]

Let me be the first to say that I amuse my 2A rights early and often

Doh!

[jackandjill 683]

I see lot resentment about what Mr. Drake said (or didnt say).  I may get flamed for writing this. It takes determination, money and ba*ls to do what Mr. Drake (and others like him) did.   I venture to guess that  99% of 2A proponents (including me) are armchair proponents who would never go to the lengths that Mr. Drake went to fight for what he believed to be his right.

 

Read this board, most of us dont want to even apply for a carry permit because we are afraid (lets me honest) of being rejected and having that haunt us for rest of our lives.  We dont even exercise the existing rights with fear of getting arrested by cops who may or may not know the laws.  We debate every day about locking firearms in the box, in the trunk, with ammo, without ammo.  We hold our bladder with fear of "deviating" from the trip to range.

 

Drake did what most of us wont even dream about doing.  You think you can do better ? Please do.

[PeteF 1,044]

OK then, does the 2nd amendment guarantee extend to death row inmates? To the criminally insane? To someone who has just been arrested for burglary, while they're in custody? And please address my example of peaceful assembly. Regulation need not result in tyranny.

 

Due Process.

Convict had right removed through the legal process on a case by case basis.

Proven guilty by State.

 

Criminaly insane rights removed through legal process on a case by case basis.

Proven incapable by State.

 

NJ laws guilty by fiat. Try and prove you are innocent.

 

Little backwards there don't you think?

 

All rights are absolute. Anyone saying otherwise is just playing word games.

 

The right always exists. How you exercise that right is what is open to interpretation.

 

 

Yell fire in a burning theater = Hero

Yell fire in a non burning theater = menace

 

Use a gun to rob someone = crime

Use gun to stop robbery = hero

 

 

See the difference

[Newtonian 453]

Due Process.

Convict had right removed through the legal process on a case by case basis.

Proven guilty by State.

...

All rights are absolute. Anyone saying otherwise is just playing word games.

 

If a court can strip you of your rights then those rights are not absolute. Absolute = always and everywhere. NJ gun laws were also concocted through a process.

 

Still nobody taking on my scenario of 1000 people peacably assembling on Second and Main on a work day. Absolute right, or reasonably regulated?

[Newtonian 453]

I see lot resentment about what Mr. Drake said (or didnt say).  I may get flamed for writing this. It takes determination, money and ba*ls to do what Mr. Drake (and others like him) did.   I venture to guess that  99% of 2A proponents (including me) are armchair proponents who would never go to the lengths that Mr. Drake went to fight for what he believed to be his right.

 

Read this board, most of us dont want to even apply for a carry permit because we are afraid (lets me honest) of being rejected and having that haunt us for rest of our lives.  We dont even exercise the existing rights with fear of getting arrested by cops who may or may not know the laws.  We debate every day about locking firearms in the box, in the trunk, with ammo, without ammo.  We hold our bladder with fear of "deviating" from the trip to range.

 

Drake did what most of us wont even dream about doing.  You think you can do better ? Please do.

Let's not confuse him with James Madison, ok? He applied for a permit. That doesn't make him a hero.

 

You can waste your time and money on a protest application if you like. You will be turned down.

 

There actually is something "better" we can all do, that has a greater chance of succeeding that poor Mr. Drake, and that is vote. But that's not as much fun as griping is it?

[jtd771 18]

I see lot resentment about what Mr. Drake said (or didnt say).  I may get flamed for writing this. It takes determination, money and ba*ls to do what Mr. Drake (and others like him) did.   I venture to guess that  99% of 2A proponents (including me) are armchair proponents who would never go to the lengths that Mr. Drake went to fight for what he believed to be his right.

 

Read this board, most of us dont want to even apply for a carry permit because we are afraid (lets me honest) of being rejected and having that haunt us for rest of our lives.  We dont even exercise the existing rights with fear of getting arrested by cops who may or may not know the laws.  We debate every day about locking firearms in the box, in the trunk, with ammo, without ammo.  We hold our bladder with fear of "deviating" from the trip to range.

 

Drake did what most of us wont even dream about doing.  You think you can do better ? Please do.

Well said.

[PeteF 1,044]

If a court can strip you of your rights then those rights are not absolute. Absolute = always and everywhere. NJ gun laws were also concocted through a process.

 

Still nobody taking on my scenario of 1000 people peacably assembling on Second and Main on a work day. Absolute right, or reasonably regulated?

 

And they are always and everywhere, until you are PROVEN INCAPABLE of exercising them..

 

 

Illegal exercise of there 1st admendment rights.

 

Their rights end where somone elses begin.

[Newtonian 453]

And they are always and everywhere, until you are PROVEN INCAPABLE of exercising them..

 

 

Illegal exercise of there 1st admendment rights.

 

Their rights end where somone elses begin.

Please look up the word "absolute." If you believe what you say you believe, then you are talking about regulated rights not absolute rights. The same as when some cockamamie judge says you can carry a gun at home but not on Main St. 

 

Still no nibbles on the right to peaceably assemble. Absolute right?

 

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, t The right of the people to keep and bear arms in all places and locations shall not be infringed by national, state, or local governments, except in cases of criminal activity or mental illness, and then only as prescribed by law.