Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Dear Forum Members,

For all those interested in the status of the Brief which has been discussed in this forum, here is an update:

This past week the Brief was filed with the Federal District Court in Trenton.  This afternoon Mr. Purpura was notified that the filing has been accepted and a docket number issued and the case has been assigned to a Federal Judge.

 

Also the complete list of defendants have been served and provided with the full documentation which includes the brief which will be called Nicholas E. Purpura v Governor Chris Christie, et al.   Those served include Governor Christie, the New Jersey Attorney General, the Firearms director, several state and local judges and over 30 lawmakers.

 

The entire Brief including the 19 associated Exhibits can be seen and downloaded from the SAPPA Group web pages.  Also the Press Release which will begin to go out to media outlets tomorrow can be seen there as well.  Please note that the contact phone numbers for Mr. Purpura have been x'd out on the website document.  That was done to prevent his number appearing in open source.

 

If anyone in this forum would like to help get this Press Release out to their favorite media (if there is such a thing) please contact me at [email protected]   Please give me a contact number so we can call you.  We will then give you a link where the unobscured Press Release can be downloaded and then sent to the media.

 

Here is the link to the SAPPA Group web page.  http://www.tpath.org/sappa.html

 

I wish to take this time to thank all those in this forum who have come to our meetings and/or have offered to help.  The following few months will see our group working every aspect of publicity we can.  Any help from anyone here would be so appreciated.

 

Let's Rock and Roll,

Dwight Kehoe

SAPPA GroupCCPLAWSUIT 12.pdf

www.tpath.org

 

THE SAPPA GROUP for webpage.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This needs to be spread to our fellow pro2a groups throughout the country especially Iowa and New Hampshire where our current anti2a governor is trying to make his pitch for the white house,  someone needs to ask the governor on a national forum while he's pissing away our tax dollars in these states why he should be given consideration as a potential republican candidate for president when he is a party to a federal civil rights lawsuit which denies American citizens in his home their RIGHT to bear arms and why he has not done ONE SINGLE THING to bring NJ into compliance with the Constitution since becoming governor. In fact he has actively fought with the anti 2a (anti-American) crowd during his tenure.  One question that should be asked is: "Why did you order the NJAG to fight the recent justifiable need case known as Drake v Jerejian rather than order him bring NJ into compliance"    second question: " Why are you currently fighting the latest lawsuit Purpura v you!"   This needs to be asked on a national level and fellow pro2a groups need to be aware of his antigun attitude.    Even if he were to be elected president keep in mind he thinks NJ is special and we still wouldn't get our rights back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An update on the progress of The SAPPA Group

We were asked to create a one page document  that would describe what SAPPA is and the intent of the Federal Brief which was filed in Trenton last week.  Click on the link below to read or download that document

 

http://nebula.wsimg.com/c5d4825b848c885826e77e1989fa1e86?AccessKeyId=3221A0C50080D1C903B6&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

 

 

Click here for the latest news related to this effort.

http://www.tpath.org/sappa.html

 

 

 

Personal expenses are growing.  Here is a request for help.

http://www.tpath.org/sappa-donate-page.html

 

 

The next step will be the much anticipated Court hearing after the defendants provide the court with their replies.

 

Thanks everyone,

Dwight

SAPPA Group

www.tpath.org

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds great. Thanks for the heads up....

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Not really.

 

What they say will happen:

 

1) Go to federal court, either win and loser appeal to 3rd circuit, or lose and appeal to 3rd circuit. 

2) lose at 3rd circuit. 

3) go to SCOTUS for the win. 

 

What will likely happen:

1) Go to federal court,  lose and appeal to 3rd circuit. 

2) lose at 3rd circuit. 

3) go to SCOTUS and have them refuse to hear the case. 

 

About the only thing it does that is new and guaranteed is bring RICO into it, which means that if the defendants can be taken to court three times, they all have to live in peril of those in power deciding they want to go and seize all their assets without anything resembling due process.

 

I'm all for someone else bankrolling it to give it a shot, but I'm pretty reluctant to call their legal reasoning sound unless their end goal is to simply demonstrate that signing on to a party platform plank as a no questions asked party line voter (i.e. not a true believer)  comes with the peril of having to defend against lawsuits like this. Even that won't pan out if the federal court simply summarily dismisses the case. If it actually gets heard though, there's the implicit threat that it can be dragged as far as the guy suing you wants to pay for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

someone please tell me that the lawyers fees for the 36 defendants is not funded by the taxpayers/us.

It is one way or the other considering we pay their salary through our taxes. Since they don't actually do any work that benefits us, I consider the money they earn in their salaries as stolen from the taxpayers. How ever you want to look at it were paying for it if they're personally reaching into their own pockets for our money (they claim to have earned), or having the state write the check to the lawyers directly. We're funding their defense directly or indirectly. Won't bother them, they'll just steal more of our money to compensate...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I'm not a legal expert but Why would scotus refuse to hear the case.

Because they hear very few cases annually, they like to pick and choose what they believe is "important" and what's not. 2nd amendment cases are toxic for them most times. It draws heavy criticism from the left. They seem to care what the left thinks of them unfortunately.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Received an update from them this morning. I'll try to post it within the next day or so. Not really much happening, but the motion has been filed, court fees of $400 have been demanded and paid, and the courts are considering it (or, sitting on it, trying to figure out how to dismiss it, for the skeptical).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

I'm sorry that I have not been back here as often as I would like to keep those interested up to date on the progress of our Brief.

 

We have created a chronicalized log of occurrences for the over 100 SAPPA support group members and have decided to share that log with the NJ Gun Forum.  So if anyone is interested in  what's been going on  click the link.

 

http://www.tpath.org/sappa-news-and-reports.html

 

Warm regards to all our friends here in the forum.

 

Dwight and Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SAPPA Group has been very busy dealing with New Jersey officials, court clerks and attorneys.

 

I promised many of you here in the Gun Forum to keep you up to date on the progress of our Brief. 

 

Here is link where you can follow chronologically the events and filings. This log is updated as events occur.

 

http://www.tpath.org/sappa-news-and-reports.html

 

Thanks everyone, keep up the good fight.

 

Regards,

Dwight

www.tpath.org

 

NOTE:

As you read the log linked above keep in mind that the Motion of Default which will be filed with the Court on Thursday will be made available for all to read or download after it is received and sealed by the Court.

  

Once you get to  read it you will see that Mr. Purpura pretty much has these people backing into a corner.  No Judge ever wants to be on the side of a case which is overturned.  Mr. Purpura, in the Motion for Default has given the Court a way out.  That is that the Judge could wash his hands of this and order the case moved to the Third Circuit.  

 

That is of course what we intended and if the Judge does it, we will not need to file a new Brief for the Circuit Court.  The District Court Brief will be the one of record.  Remember, our ultimate goal is to get to the US Supreme Court as quickly as possible.

 

If the case gets heard there, it will be very difficult for those Justices, even the liberal ones, to rule against us because we support much of our case on rulings made by those very same liberal Justices.

 

Thanks

Dwight

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.



  • olight.jpg

    Use Promo Code "NJGF10" for 10% Off Regular Items

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Similar Content

    • By 124gr9mm
      Received this last night.
      Sent a message to all the contact names on the list they provided at the link:
       
       HONEST GUN OWNERS TREATED
      THE SAME AS MURDERERS FOR
      INADVERTENT, TECHNICAL LAW VIOLATIONS   No Violent Crime Required Rot in Jail for Years While Awaiting “Trial”
      Tell Lawmakers to Fix or Oppose This Poorly-Crafted Bill
      On Monday, March 14 at 1:00 p.m., the New Jersey Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee is scheduled to consider A2426 – an apparently well-intentioned but badly botched piece of legislation whose intended purpose appears to be to throw the book at violent gun criminals – which law-abiding gun owners actually support.
        But as written, the bill does not distinguish between violent criminal behavior and innocent technical infractions for the draconian presumption against bail to apply.  Law-abiding gun owners who inadvertently violate NJ’s thicket of hyper-technical firearms possession laws would be treated exactly the same as murderers—thrown in jail to rot for years without bail while they await trial someday for their “crimes.”
      This is not an imagined concern, as the Garden State has a well-documented track record of throwing the book at honest gun owners for innocent technical infractions.  As written, this bill adds insult to injury and would throw honest gun owners in the gulag for years while they await trial for “infractions” like:
      -Stopping for food, fuel, going to the bathroom, or medical treatment on the way to or from the target range.
      -Transporting firearms to or from one’s place of business, a gun store, hunting, fishing, target shooting competitions, target ranges, re-enactments, gun buyback events, vacation homes or other destinations.
      -Widows or widowers turning in firearms of their deceased spouses.
      -Possession of antique and black powder firearms (even these firearms could trigger the draconian penalties under this bill).
      PLEASE IMMEDIATELY CLICK HERE TO EMAIL EVERY ASSEMBLY MEMBER AND TELL THEM TO EITHER FIX OR OPPOSE A2426.  The law should distinguish between MERE POSSESSION of firearms by honest gun owners, vs. MISUSE of firearms by violent gun criminals, and draconian penalties like presumptive denial of bail should only apply to violent criminals who misuse firearms, and not to innocent mistakes of honest gun owners like technical possessory infractions where no violent misconduct is present.  Honest gun owners should not be treated the same as murderers!  Throw the book at the bad guys but take extreme care not to lump the good guys in with the bad.  The bill can easily be amended to make it clear that its penalties apply only to persons accused of violent criminal behavior.
       
       
    • By NJGF
      Judge Kavanaugh and the Second Amendment
      http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/judge-kavanaugh-and-the-second-amendment/
      "....Kennedy sided with his more conservative colleagues in finding a Second Amendment right to have a handgun in the home, and there is no reason to believe that Judge Brett Kavanaugh, if confirmed, is likely to disagree"
      "....We know from his recorded dissents from the denial of review that Thomas would vote to review and overturn some existing gun laws, and we know that Gorsuch – at least to some extent – agrees with him. But it takes four votes to grant review in a case, and we do not know whether Roberts and Alito also agree with Thomas but have opted not to say so publicly, or whether they instead are content to leave the court’s gun-rights jurisprudence as it is."
      ".... just this week, the 9th Circuit struck down Hawaii’s ban on carrying weapons openly outside of the home; even if the case goes to the full 9th Circuit, the losing party is almost certain to ask the Supreme Court to weigh in."
    • By NJGF
      Second Amendment challenge to New York state stun gun ban
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/07/second-amendment-challenge-to-new-york-state-stun-gun-ban/?utm_term=.8affecbeea72&wpisrc=nl_volokh&wpmm=1
       
      A law suit was filed that challenges New York's stun gun ban based on second amendment issues.
       
      The filing is here:
      http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/New-York-sued-in-federal-court-over-Taser-ban.pdf
       
      The suit cites Heller, McDonald, and the more recent Caetano v. Massachusetts decision.
       
      If NY falls then maybe NJ will be next.
       
    • By NJGF
      Don Kates, the father of the modern Second Amendment revival, has died
       
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/04/don-kates-the-father-of-the-modern-second-amendment-revival-has-died/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_term=.c54f683896c7
       
      Don wrote “Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment,” 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204 (1983), the first modern article in a major law review arguing for the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment.
       
    • By JibbaJabba
      http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=11186
       
       
      Gun confiscation is one step closer in Connecticut. The mainstream media spins it as “one more chance” for non-compliant gun owners who failed to register their scary guns before the January 1 deadline.
       
      In reality, these letters - 106 to rifle owners, and 108 more to residents with standard capacity magazines – are the first step in the Connecticut State Police beginning to round up guns arbitrarily made illegal last year in that state. These guns include America’s favorite rifle, the AR-15 and magazines over 10 rounds, which include the standard capacity magazines made for that America’s favorite rifle.
       
      Failure to register is now a felony now in Connecticut.
       
      How long will it be before there is bloodshed over this law? We’re not sure, but we’re confident it is coming unless the law is rescinded or struck down by the courts.
       
      Mike Vanderboegh of the edgy Sipsey Street Irregulars released an open letter a couple of weeks ago, warning of what’s coming to Connecticut. The Connecticut State Police aren’t listening. Yet.
       
      We suspect attitudes may change after the first few rounds of bloodshed.
       
      As it stands right now, the best estimates are that 4% of newly-regulated guns and magazines in The Nutmeg State have been registered, leaving a hundred thousand or more newly classified potential felons looking over their shoulder.
       
      Editor’s note: We’re not going to link to the article because they are hiding most of the content behind a paywall and we won’t drive thousands of readers to their website.
       
      One more chance for gun owners
       
      Posted: Monday, February 24, 2014 3:35 pm | Updated: 3:36 pm, Mon Feb 24, 2014.
       
      Manchester, CT (Journal Inquirer) – When state officials decided to accept some gun registrations and magazine declarations that arrived after a Jan. 4 deadline, they also had to deal with those applications that didn’t make the cut.
       
      The state now holds signed and notarized letters saying those late applicants own rifles and magazines illegally.
       
      But rather than turn that information over to prosecutors, state officials are giving the gun owners a chance to get rid of the weapons and magazines.
       
      This entry was posted on February 24, 2014 at 5:55 pm and is filed under Blog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
       
      -------------------------------
      100 letters don't seem like much, but it might be their strategy to tackle a little at a time when it comes to the overall 100k non-compliant gun owners. I'm giving strong consideration to the idea of making future purchases outside state lines.
  • Posts

×
×
  • Create New...