Would this help us with NJs "justifiable need"?

[tmpnj 0]

http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/d-c-shoots-down-99-of-gun-permit-applicants/

 

 

Since the requirement in DC is based on NJs strategy, if the SAF is successful in court with this could it help us or is that just a dream?

 

[CMJeepster 2,778]

It would be nice to think so, but I'm not holding my breathe.

[maintenanceguy 510]

Different federal circuit courts for DC and NJ. A ruling in one circuit court does not count in the others until SCOTUS solves it for the whole country.

 

SCOTUS already answered "individual right" and "right to keep" in our favor but seems unwilling to rule on "right to bear".

[jackandjill 683]

But isn't difference that NJ process makes sure everyone from local Chief to a Judge gets involved in denying applications so technically "due process" has been afforded and system as whole decided against issuing permit ?

 

From the reading I am not sure DC process is same as NJ.

[boo 6]

From what I understand, the cases to be watching now are the two California cases: Peruta v San Diego and Richards v Prieto. I believe they're the next two likely to take a shot at being heard by SCOTUS.

[revenger 473]

One thing I did notice in the complaint is that the DC police chief is being sued both individually and in her official capacity.  it would be nice to see an anti-gun official lose everything personally for denying someone their civil rights,    They might start to understand the constitution a little better if this were to happen more frequently to them.

[maintenanceguy 510]

One thing I did notice in the complaint is that the DC police chief is being sued both individually and in her official capacity.  it would be nice to see an anti-gun official lose everything personally for denying someone their civil rights,    They might start to understand the constitution a little better if this were to happen more frequently to them.

 

Maybe it's now possible.  Maybe a government official who violates a civil right can do jail time: 

 

US Supreme Court Rules Government Officers Liable

[magnawing 5]

By NJ requiring approval from a judge, regardless of the decision made by the Chief of Police, they are basically telling the Chiefs (and residents) "we have absolutely no faith in the capabilities of local police". If I were a Police Chief, I would take that as a huge personal insult.

 

 

This signature is AWESOME!!!

[jackandjill 683]

Yep, but it only applies for someone who take pride in supporting 2A and their job. Otherwise its nice excuse to blame someone else without having to spoiling relationships. And the victim gets told that he/she was afforded due process at multiple levels of the system and he/she is not eligible. Goal accomplished without any single entity taking the rap.

[bzer1 15]

One thing I did notice in the complaint is that the DC police chief is being sued both individually and in her official capacity.  it would be nice to see an anti-gun official lose everything personally for denying someone their civil rights,    They might start to understand the constitution a little better if this were to happen more frequently to them.

I have been arguing for this for a long time. I have seen in the past couple of months that dyfs and other agencies, and the bureaucrats who inhabit them, have been cleared to be sued for the pain they cause. I think it should be applied to all levels of government. especially in the judicial system. Like if a person applies for a ccw, and is denied because a judge decided that justifiable need had not been reached, then that person is attacked and injured or killed, there should be a penalty to be paid by the judge. By their very nature they use their judgement to enforce and interpret the law. If their judgement is so flawed that they couldn't even see the danger a person is in, then they have very poor judgement, and should be removed. I understand that no one is perfect, but there seems to be a total disregard for the governed, and it needs to stop.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

I have been arguing for this for a long time. I have seen in the past couple of months that dyfs and other agencies, and the bureaucrats who inhabit them, have been cleared to be sued for the pain they cause. I think it should be applied to all levels of government. especially in the judicial system. Like if a person applies for a ccw, and is denied because a judge decided that justifiable need had not been reached, then that person is attacked and injured or killed, there should be a penalty to be paid by the judge. By their very nature they use their judgement to enforce and interpret the law. If their judgement is so flawed that they couldn't even see the danger a person is in, then they have very poor judgement, and should be removed. I understand that no one is perfect, but there seems to be a total disregard for the governed, and it needs to stop.

 

What you say makes a lot of sense, but good luck getting them to implement that in this godawful leftist state.

[bzer1 15]

What you say makes a lot of sense, but good luck getting them to implement that in this godawful leftist state.

The lack of accountability is what got us here, the question is , will the pendulum actually swing the other way, and if it does will it swing too far too fast? There is a huge cost to over regulation, we see it in the fleeing of wealth, but few people ever account for the mistakes made by the unaccountable bureaucracy. When they make a mistake, the bureaucracy must grow to fix the mistakes. This leaves us open to an ever increasing risk of more failures that need to be addressed.

[raz-0 1,259]

Different federal circuit courts for DC and NJ. A ruling in one circuit court does not count in the others until SCOTUS solves it for the whole country.

 

SCOTUS already answered "individual right" and "right to keep" in our favor but seems unwilling to rule on "right to bear".

 

It gives the opportunity for a shorter route to SCOTUS, and the opportunity for a better formulated argument than the NJ case.