NickySantoro 211 Posted May 16, 2015 Blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah. The ruling will be ignored. Piggy thinks he is a law unto himself. Complain and your paperwork will "accidentally" fall into the shredder. Piggy has no fear. Things won't change until he does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin125 4,772 Posted May 16, 2015 I hope that makes a difference because the AG can give a ratz arse. When I filed an Official Misconduct report to CC, (this was per Frank Fiamingo's instructions), CC forwarded it to the AG... The AG had a heart attack and was planing to pull a full internal investigation on my dept. The Asst AG actually called me freaked. He wanted to know where this was all coming from. He said the term Official Misconduct was a criminal investigation. When I explained to him it was and this had nothing to do with my dept., I could actually here him wipe the sweat from his brow. A 40 min. bs session on the phone after we both calmed down, it went no where. He said you cannot file an Official Misconduct charge because it was a civil matter or some crap. I had to call my detective in case it went the wrong way to explain it wasn't filed against them, but the Passaic County Mental Health dept which at the time was holding reports back for months. This is the crap we are dealt with. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Unreal. Great that you tried. But the Asst AG's response is unreal. Wouldn't it be nice if public officials actually followed the law rather than their agenda? If we even meet, I'm buying you a beer.... or a box of your favorite ammo. Whichever you prefer. Thanks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bhunted 887 Posted May 16, 2015 Thanks, my wife knows my blood boils with crap like that. If I didn't like my dept., I would have let a full investigation ensue. We just had a one sided argument and she just yeses me to death. Lol. She knows how nuts this makes me. Ya know what? He told me to call them. There is no contact methods on their web site. Heh Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted May 16, 2015 Unreal. Great that you tried. But the Asst AG's response is unreal. Wouldn't it be nice if public officials actually followed the law rather than their agenda? If we even meet, I'm buying you a beer.... or a box of your favorite ammo. Whichever you prefer. Thanks. What exactly are you upset about? The AG was ready to put the hammer down on police misconduct over permits. That willingness kind of sounds like a good thing to me, even if it might have been a mistake in this case. Thanks, my wife knows my blood boils with crap like that. If I didn't like my dept., I would have let a full investigation ensue. I can't figure out how that comes into play but it pushes me further into the AG's camp. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bhunted 887 Posted May 16, 2015 You had to hear it. It wasn't about doing the right thing. It was about putting a fire out anyway he could. There is no way to really convey the conversation unless you heard it. His response should have been at the very least, they'd look into it. Give me names, numbers, something! I'm upset it went no where! What else? How hard is that to understand? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
siderman 1,131 Posted May 16, 2015 To the OP's question about whether "justifiable need expired". We should know on Monday. The administrative code gets re-adopted every 7 years. It expired on May 12th. The proposed changes were posted a couple of months ago and there was a 60 public comment period that ended on February 13th. Notices of re-adoption are published in the NJ Register every 2 weeks. It was not in May 4th edition. It may have been readopted in the last 2 weeks. We will know on Monday when the new edition comes out. borrowed the above quote from another thread- This reminds me, wasnt one of those admin codes about the NJSP re-wording the paperwork requirements to allow them to circumvent the law on extra paperwork by saying itsfor the common good or some other ambiguous wording? kind of flys in the face of this so called binding court decision....interesting Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stonecoldchavez 92 Posted May 16, 2015 From NJ.com Police can't add requirements to state gun permit applications, appeals court rules This was nothing but a complete circle jerk for the courts and lawyers to make money. My take: The local PD knows they cannot deviate from the State Police forms. So they deny the guy thinking he will just go away. Money spent filing lawsuit in Superior Court. The Superior Court Judge knows the law and code; if not his law clerk can look it up. He had no reason to deny the guy. More money spent in court fees and lawyers. Three, the guy has to to appeal to Appellate Court. Even more money spent on lawyers. How come the Appellate Judge's knew the law, but not the Superior Court one? Complete the circle jerk for wasted time and money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Polak 3 Posted May 17, 2015 Complete the circle jerk for wasted time and money. No...it's not. He's setting a precedent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Princetonian58 53 Posted May 17, 2015 I would be happy to be corrected, but I think you are focusing on the wrong part of the statement. It's not because this court decided to publish it and the other court did not. It's because this court was a court of appeals and appeals rulings are generally binding within a jurisdictional while lower court rulings are not. The JC case was also from the Appellate Division. Generally speaking a case is published when it is considered to make new law or settle a question under existing law. All NJ Supreme Court opinions are published. Maybe about 3-5% of Appellate Division cases. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Princetonian58 53 Posted May 17, 2015 Thankyou for that info. but this whole publishing thing still odd. Where does it get published to that makes it a binding decision (law?) and why would other simular court decisions not be published? Seems like arbitrary law enforcement w/o the publishing. Cases are published in a series of books (now mostly on line) that all lawyers must and judges should review on a given issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
siderman 1,131 Posted May 17, 2015 The JC case was also from the Appellate Division. Generally speaking a case is published when it is considered to make new law or settle a question under existing law. All NJ Supreme Court opinions are published. Maybe about 3-5% of Appellate Division cases. so this decision is one of the 3-5%, its refreshing to know there are judges who actually want their decision to matter. thankyou judges Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
71ragtopgoat 23 Posted May 17, 2015 This was nothing but a complete circle jerk for the courts and lawyers to make money. My take: The local PD knows they cannot deviate from the State Police forms. So they deny the guy thinking he will just go away. Money spent filing lawsuit in Superior Court. The Superior Court Judge knows the law and code; if not his law clerk can look it up. He had no reason to deny the guy. More money spent in court fees and lawyers. Three, the guy has to to appeal to Appellate Court. Even more money spent on lawyers. How come the Appellate Judge's knew the law, but not the Superior Court one? Complete the circle jerk for wasted time and money. You have to understand lower court judges are appointed. They are not upholders of the law they are hacks who donated large sums of money or time to the party which appointed them. They are trained from day one not to buck the system on there own. However they are also told not to buck published rulings. I few years back christie was yanking judges from family court for following the party line over what the law said. It's not a system built on finding the best person to defend the law but as a reward for being loyal to some power broker. Higher courts are a bit more law minded though. But to get in front of one takes time and money plus a little luck. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin125 4,772 Posted May 18, 2015 You have to understand lower court judges are appointed. They are not upholders of the law they are hacks who donated large sums of money or time to the party which appointed them. They are trained from day one not to buck the system on there own. However they are also told not to buck published rulings. I few years back christie was yanking judges from family court for following the party line over what the law said. It's not a system built on finding the best person to defend the law but as a reward for being loyal to some power broker. Higher courts are a bit more law minded though. But to get in front of one takes time and money plus a little luck.And you'd have to wonder where the journalists are that would expose this pattern for all to see. But I guess most journalists only pay attention when minority rights are violated. White rights don't matter. Firearms laws aren't a race issue, the left sees it as a race issue. Only white guys buy guns in their view. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silence Dogood 468 Posted May 30, 2015 Here's the full opinion, if you like to read such things (it's very clear):https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2800728/in-the-matter-of-the-denial-for-a-new-jersey-firea/?q=&court_njsuperctappdiv=on&order_by=dateFiled+desc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,259 Posted May 30, 2015 You have to understand lower court judges are appointed. They are not upholders of the law they are hacks who donated large sums of money or time to the party which appointed them. They are trained from day one not to buck the system on there own. However they are also told not to buck published rulings. I few years back christie was yanking judges from family court for following the party line over what the law said. It's not a system built on finding the best person to defend the law but as a reward for being loyal to some power broker. Higher courts are a bit more law minded though. But to get in front of one takes time and money plus a little luck. another reason all political donations need to stop. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites