Po6 NJ Carry challenge: COUNT I – VIOLATION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

[DeerSlayer 241]

I agree almost 100% with what you wrote above. Where I disagree is that I think the PO6 case and NJ relenting in Mr. Almeida's case demonstrates the unreasonableness of NJ's position on concealed carry. They WILL NOT issue a permit

until they are "on the federal courthouse steps". Here they issue the permit to the plaintiff with the strongest case, trying to weaken the collective position of the remaining plaintiffs. This is almost exactly what happened in the Drake case where at the

last minute they issued a permit to the kidnap victim Mr. Mueller. He too had an extremely strong case, so they "gave" it to him to get him out of the case. There are probably other similar situations in NJ history. IANAL, but I think that these cases

could be used to demonstrate a pattern of abuse of the "justifiable need" process. While this won't help the "shall issue" cause, it may force the state, at some point, to apply a more reasonable interpretation to justifiable need. In this state, I

would consider that progress.

That's pretty much the plan.

 

So what's everyone else's plan to restore carry rights here? And what's your organization actively doing about it, is my question to all the naysayers?

[John Willett 70]

I am not too familiar with the PO6 plan, but i would like to believe that this is their goal. For starters, maybe we can get what the hell 'justifiable need' means put on paper...

I'd like to believe that i myself have justifiable need, but apparently unless i have literally already been killed, that is not the case.

 

I understand that not everyone spends part of each day studying this issue, but the resources are available to all of us to get a handle on what the legal parlance means.  There are a couple of podcasts focused specifically on New Jersey, Gun for Hire Radio and Bear Arms Show (shameless plug for mine )  Also, many youtube videos published by NJ2AS or NJ SAFE Conference (another self plug) that go into great detail as to what the laws mean.  

 

 

That's pretty much the plan.

 

So what's everyone else's plan to restore carry rights here? And what's your organization actively doing about it, is my question to all the naysayers?

 

POS has yet to lay out their plan in these forums for how they will accomplish their stated goal of challenging the state's need requirement.  In their own filings they argue that Mr. Almeida and Mr. Tuminelli MEET the standard.  We already know the result of this case up to the third circuit.  We also know that SCOTUS has denied several carry cases over the past couple years, including Drake, and that was with Scalia on the court.  Filing lawsuits for the purpose of filing lawsuits, without a plan to get a decision that benefits us, isn't a viable strategy.  Its reckless.  

 

Also, this idea that the folks you are demanding support you have to go to some bar to have their questions answered is ridiculous.  They have appeared on podcasts before, their lawyer has appeared on podcasts before, why all the secrecy?  It's silly

 

 

one of the first things they teach you in law school is that the facts are everything. "The law" doesn' exist in a vaccum. Legal principles, whether based on case law, statute or regulation, are only meaningful when applied to the facts at hand. The facts of Almeida's case were dramatic and could relatively easily be seen as falling under the admittedly nebulous and arbitrary justifiable need standard. If someone without direct and dramatic threats against them makes the exact same argument I imagine they will fail. In other words, in my view the simple assertion that "self defense" satisfies the justifiable need standard without documented and dramatic threats of imminent bodily harm is not one iota stronger than it was before Almeida got his permit. And there had been no ruling by the court so no legal precedent has been set. Put simply, this "victory" does absolutely nothing to help anyone other than Albert Almeida and perhaps, at best, other people who can demonstrate significant and imminent threats or bodily harm AND who are willing to spend the time and mone to fileva lawsuit.

 

Probably one of the best posts on this thread, save Newtonian's brilliant poetry.

[DeerSlayer 241]

I understand that not everyone spends part of each day studying this issue, but the resources are available to all of us to get a handle on what the legal parlance means. There are a couple of podcasts focused specifically on New Jersey, Gun for Hire Radio and Bear Arms Show (shameless plug for mine ) Also, many youtube videos published by NJ2AS or NJ SAFE Conference (another self plug) that go into great detail as to what the laws mean.

 

 

 

POS has yet to lay out their plan in these forums for how they will accomplish their stated goal of challenging the state's need requirement. In their own filings they argue that Mr. Almeida and Mr. Tuminelli MEET the standard. We already know the result of this case up to the third circuit. We also know that SCOTUS has denied several carry cases over the past couple years, including Drake, and that was with Scalia on the court. Filing lawsuits for the purpose of filing lawsuits, without a plan to get a decision that benefits us, isn't a viable strategy. Its reckless.

 

Also, this idea that the folks you are demanding support you have to go to some bar to have their questions answered is ridiculous. They have appeared on podcasts before, their lawyer has appeared on podcasts before, why all the secrecy? It's silly

 

 

 

Probably one of the best posts on this thread, save Newtonian's brilliant poetry.

NJ gun forums isn't frequently visited by anyone in PO6. Their website contains all the information about their group. If someone is further interested they can attend a meeting if they wish. Regardless of who posts about their ideas here, there's always someone or multiple people with negative comments, the SAPA group thread is full of bullshit posts as well. All that I ask is what are the people doing with their negativity to help the fight? Everyone has an opinion here, but I'm not seeing any kind of action... Safecon was cool, I commend you for organizing a great event. But did it restore our carry rights? Drake really screwed us, like I said above. Now that's a ruling that needs to be overcome. The incompetence from Drake was "reckless"! Those were your buddies, that caused that debacle. It's not about filing lawsuits for no reason. There's a definite reason. You just don't seem to care enough to find out the answers you seek, so why should I waste my time explaining it? Go to the meeting if you want to know more, they're not at bars btw. The last one was held at RTSP in a conference room. They're dubbed "tavern meetings" similar to what the founders called their meetings when they overthrew British rule, mostly discussed at the famous green draggon tavern. Check out the lawyers Facebook posts, and his website as well for updates if you're interested. Here's today's update:

 

http://www.sdslaw.us/single-post/2016/08/19/New-Jersey-Strikes-Back-Files-its-Motion-to-Dismiss-in-Almeida-et-al-v-Conforti-et-al

[Kevin125 4,772]

Deerslayer. Thanks for answering so many questions. I'm sure you've got better things to do.

 

It seems to me that the argument they may have to make may be one of these two.  

 

That whether any person can cite a history of risk or not is irrelevant.  We all face risks we can not predict.  To deny us the ability to be prepare to address those risks as we choose is tantamount to denying us our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Therefore, we ALL have justifiable need and therefore can not be denied the right to defend ourselves in the manner we choose.     I specifically did not say "entitled".  The right to carry is not an entitlement.. but I digress.

 

The other argument is that justifiable need in itself is not a 'test' that the state is entitled to apply.  In this case I specifically chose the word "entitled" as we the people have determined and will continue to determine, what the gov't is entitled to do.  But this is a much tougher battle.  The argument isn't much different than what I said immediately above, but the basis is that the gov't has no power to determine the method and terms under which we defend ourselves.

 

So I suppose I get it. Or some version of it.  But how does the case claiming JN for Mr. Almeida morph into on of the Constitutional arguments I described.  Or into whatever the lawyers will be arguing?

[PDM 91]

i wrote the post above with a heavy heart but i do believe it is important to be realistic. "What's your plan" isnt always a meanignful statement. Sometimes there can be no plan because of the reality on the ground. The argument that NJ's justifiable need standard violates the 2A is a dead letter in the 3rd circuit after Drake. i will reread the pos6 complaint to refresh on their alternative arguments but my recollection is that it will not help anyone other than, possibly, people in Mr Almeidas situation. In other words the application of the standard may be subject to challenge but i think the ship has sailed (and sunk) on challenging the standard itself. as for people who criticize gura's approach in Drake, understand that the 3rd circuit opinion was a horribly reasoned one in which thr judges did contortions to reach the result they wanted. the judiciary is so stacked against us that no amount of legal argument is likely to succeed and now with the supreme court likely to lurch hard left because cruz supporters handed hillary a victory even a win at the federal appellate level will only result in an opportunity for heller to be overturned. i truly hope im wrong. time will tell.

[DeerSlayer 241]

i wrote the post above with a heavy heart but i do believe it is important to be realistic. "What's your plan" isnt always a meanignful statement. Sometimes there can be no plan because of the reality on the ground. The argument that NJ's justifiable need standard violates the 2A is a dead letter in the 3rd circuit after Drake. i will reread the pos6 complaint to refresh on their alternative arguments but my recollection is that it will not help anyone other than, possibly, people in Mr Almeidas situation. In other words the application of the standard may be subject to challenge but i think the ship has sailed (and sunk) on challenging the standard itself. as for people who criticize gura's approach in Drake, understand that the 3rd circuit opinion was a horribly reasoned one in which thr judges did contortions to reach the result they wanted. the judiciary is so stacked against us that no amount of legal argument is likely to succeed and now with the supreme court likely to lurch hard left because cruz supporters handed hillary a victory even a win at the federal appellate level will only result in an opportunity for heller to be overturned. i truly hope im wrong. time will tell.

Lol so your plan is: don't try anything accept what we're given. And hopefully some other state defeats justifiable need for us? Or just move? Or there is no plan, and we should just complain that our state sucks on the Internet? Sounds cool...

[PDM 91]

i'll continue to pay my nra and anjrpc dues, try to introduce as many people as i can to shooting and explain the overall 2a position to them. i will maintain an open mine about the pos6 lawsuit and if i become convinced that it isnt a waste of money for people other than two of the plaintiffs ill make a donation. thats my plan for now. what i wont do is develop a false sense of hope about something that isnt based in reality and has no solid legal basis.

[Newtonian 453]

I absolutely agree about going to the Media. We need this case plastered all over the place to raise awareness and to open peoples eyes. Any rational person would agree that people such as Albert NEED a firearm for protection.

No more than anyone else does. I like Albert but you've got to be a bit loony to purposely put yourself in a position where even the State of NJ believes you have justifiable need. 

[Newtonian 453]

Lol so your plan is: don't try anything accept what we're given. And hopefully some other state defeats justifiable need for us? Or just move? Or there is no plan, and we should just complain that our state sucks on the Internet? Sounds cool...

PDM made a great post but like everyone else who tries to inject sanity into these conversations he gets a "lol." Well LOL indeed.

 

I don't understand the legal stuff. It's all Armenian to me. So I don't know whether Almeida will have far-reaching effects. I support those guys but if I were a betting man you'd have to give me 20:1 odds that something good would come from this. 5%. And that's based solely on reports I read about here as to their legal strategy. 

 

Remember something I tell you guys over and over: JUST DOING SOMETHING is not always more productive than doing nothing. Sometimes it's essentially wasting your time. You can go nuts in life chasing 0.3% chances. You have better odds in Atlantic City. 

[intercooler 41]

I am happy one of the PO6 got his permit, but it doesn't change a thing. State did it to protect itself from the suit by making it go away. Nothing changed, this means nothing 

sorry

[DeerSlayer 241]

i'll continue to pay my nra and anjrpc dues, try to introduce as many people as i can to shooting and explain the overall 2a position to them. i will maintain an open mine about the pos6 lawsuit and if i become convinced that it isnt a waste of money for people other than two of the plaintiffs ill make a donation. thats my plan for now. what i wont do is develop a false sense of hope about something that isnt based in reality and has no solid legal basis.

Those are all good practices. And it's ok, not everyone is an optimist. I'm not butt hurt over anything. You do you, at least you're doing that. I personally think ANJRPC is a waste of my money, but I retain my membership because I like Cherry Ridge. If they didn't have the range I wouldn't support them financially. I'm more of an NJ2AS guy.

[Newtonian 453]

I am happy one of the PO6 got his permit, but it doesn't change a thing. State did it to protect itself from the suit by making it go away. Nothing changed, this means nothing 

sorry

Excellent point. Now they get to say, "See, we issue permits." I forgot about this one. Yup.

[67gtonut 847]

Not only that..... I think it proved the idiotic NJ system works( to the anti's).....

 

Want a permit..... Get a lawyer and prove Justifiable Need.....

 

Great.... this one proved it......  Next..... Take a number, get a lawyer..... 

[WP22 1,558]

I'm happy for Almeida, but...

 

this is the reality of things::

Not only that..... I think it proved the idiotic NJ system works( to the anti's).....

 

Want a permit..... Get a lawyer and prove Justifiable Need.....

 

Great.... this one proved it......  Next..... Take a number, get a lawyer..... 

 

[Stonecoldchavez 92]

First, congrats to Mr. Almeida. He is truly "one in a million".

 

Second, did I win the pool money? I said it months ago (and I know the court system) that the NJ Courts would give into him and grant him his permit, just to make his case "go away". The Courts will continue this each and every time in order to never allow CCW here in NJ en mass. That is a gamble they are willing to take anytime. They would rather nickel and dime to let a few people carry (and they will pay for it dearly in court) than have it be taken up in Federal court and have, heaven forbid, the SCOTUS hear our cause.  

[JohnnyB 4,325]

Any change in CCW for the PRNJ will have to come from the Federal Government! Nothing good will ever come from within our state!

If Trump is elected, SCOTUS will be on our side. Only then can CCW laws change for us in the Peoples Republic of New Jersey!

[Kevin125 4,772]

Not only that..... I think it proved the idiotic NJ system works( to the anti's).....

 

Want a permit..... Get a lawyer and prove Justifiable Need.....

 

Great.... this one proved it...... Next..... Take a number, get a lawyer.....

 

Isn't there some precedent in Federal law saying that the gov't can not impose burdens on citizens that are unreasonable when it comes to exercising a Constitutional right.......like voting?

 

If that's true.....how could there be a different standard for rights enumerated in the Second Amendment? I'm not a lawyer...not even close. But if this case is useful, maybe it is by way a new lawsuit that cites it as an unreasonable burden...?

 

Any Constitutional law experts have an opinion?

[Lambo2936 297]

No more than anyone else does. I like Albert but you've got to be a bit loony to purposely put yourself in a position where even the State of NJ believes you have justifiable need. 

It's a job that has to get done, and if you get a fair amount of customers, there is a LOT of money to be made. That said, i would never voluntarily put myself in that situation if i had a better option out there. The only reason i spend time in Newark is because my Father has properties there (Sold two, though, so only one large multi-unit left to maintain and such). Fact is, though, that there is definitely big money in it, if, like i said, you can keep yourself busy.

That said, it's also very dangerous. In many other cities you can legally arm yourself, but in NJ you can't do much at all... The thing is, if something DOES happen, the response time is so bad that you'll be dead by the time they show up. UNLESS someone is shot, then they get all happy and come in guns a-blazin'.

I've contemplated telling them i thought i saw a guy with a gun every time someone broke in, but dont want to have to deal with filing reports, and potentially being asked to help draw up a sketch or something stupid like that.

[Newtonian 453]

It's a job that has to get done, and if you get a fair amount of customers, there is a LOT of money to be made. That said, i would never voluntarily put myself in that situation if i had a better option out there. The only reason i spend time in Newark is because my Father has properties there (Sold two, though, so only one large multi-unit left to maintain and such). Fact is, though, that there is definitely big money in it, if, like i said, you can keep yourself busy.

That said, it's also very dangerous. In many other cities you can legally arm yourself, but in NJ you can't do much at all... The thing is, if something DOES happen, the response time is so bad that you'll be dead by the time they show up. UNLESS someone is shot, then they get all happy and come in guns a-blazin'.

I've contemplated telling them i thought i saw a guy with a gun every time someone broke in, but dont want to have to deal with filing reports, and potentially being asked to help draw up a sketch or something stupid like that.

Before the hee-haws pounce let me say that if NJ offered carry permits I would carry every day, everywhere. Also I don't advocate illegal means of either obtaining a carry license or carrying without one.

 

That said, no amount of money is worth working in an environment where I actually satisfy NJ's justifiable need requirement. Not a million dollars a week, and I don't care how many fucking guns they let me carry or if I shoot like Jerry Miculek. A CC permit doesn't confer super-powers. You don't walk through North Philly in drag at 2 in the morning just because you have a gun. 

 

To each his own. My life is worth more to me than $$ or guns.

[DeerSlayer 241]

I spoke with Stephen Stamboulieh today, he read this thread. But can't comment because he's not a premier member. He is willing to set up a 10 person conference call to field everyone's questions and concerns about the case. Whomever is interested sound off below and let's come up with a time that work's for everyone. This way you can all ask him direct questions pertaining to the case strategy. He's very willing to do so.

[67gtonut 847]

This is not a Premier section..... He should be able to comment even if he is a regular member

[DeerSlayer 241]

This is not a Premier section..... He should be able to comment even if he is a regular member

He told me he tried to join and it required payment. Do you have a link I can send him?

[67gtonut 847]

http://www.njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=global&section=register

 

 

 

 

 

Select any packages you would like to purchase. You will be directed to the payment screen once your account has been created and you have logged in. 
You do not have to purchase a package to complete registration.

[nolocontendere 22]

Hello everyone.  I'd be more than happy to address any questions or concerns.  Of course, if something is asked that is privileged, I can't discuss it, but anything that I can answer I will. 

 

Stephen

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

Stephen, glad you have the time to participate here.

 

I'm a PO6 donator.

Question - Can you describe how this case might bring about, or at least contribute to, the elimination of NJ's "justifiable need" restriction on  the issuing of handgun carry permits?

[nolocontendere 22]

So one of our counts is that NJ is applying an incorrect standard. Insomuch as justifiable need is set by statute, and already upheld by drake, it won't go away with this case. However the legislature has obviously allowed NJ citizens to carry, and that is the rule. So an exception to the rule (ie the admin code definition of justifiable need) which then eliminates the right to carry cannot exist. We have current 3rd circuit precedent on the exception swallowing the rule and I believe it's cited in our preliminary injunction motion. And yes, I know most people would rather not read them, but it really sets everything out. i suggest starting with the pleadings and prelim injunction and we will file our response to NJs motion to dismiss on 9/2. It is going to be beautiful. We've already gotten al his permit which should have been issued from the beginning. He isn't going away and we will not be mueller'd in this case by voluntarily dismissing him.

 

Stephen

[Ricky_Bobby 130]

So one of our counts is that NJ is applying an incorrect standard. Insomuch as justifiable need is set by statute, and already upheld by drake, it won't go away with this case. However the legislature has obviously allowed NJ citizens to carry, and that is the rule. So an exception to the rule (ie the admin code definition of justifiable need) which then eliminates the right to carry cannot exist. We have current 3rd circuit precedent on the exception swallowing the rule and I believe it's cited in our preliminary injunction motion. And yes, I know most people would rather not read them, but it really sets everything out. i suggest starting with the pleadings and prelim injunction and we will file our response to NJs motion to dismiss on 9/2. It is going to be beautiful. We've already gotten al his permit which should have been issued from the beginning. He isn't going away and we will not be mueller'd in this case by voluntarily dismissing him.

 

Stephen

 

Thanks Stephen for your answers - in bold is what I had figured - I guess we need to hire people to get some death threats or robberies on record going forward LOL

[John Willett 70]

So one of our counts is that NJ is applying an incorrect standard. Insomuch as justifiable need is set by statute, and already upheld by drake, it won't go away with this case. However the legislature has obviously allowed NJ citizens to carry, and that is the rule. So an exception to the rule (ie the admin code definition of justifiable need) which then eliminates the right to carry cannot exist. We have current 3rd circuit precedent on the exception swallowing the rule and I believe it's cited in our preliminary injunction motion. And yes, I know most people would rather not read them, but it really sets everything out. i suggest starting with the pleadings and prelim injunction and we will file our response to NJs motion to dismiss on 9/2. It is going to be beautiful. We've already gotten al his permit which should have been issued from the beginning. He isn't going away and we will not be mueller'd in this case by voluntarily dismissing him.

 

Stephen

 

 

If eliminating or redefining "justifiable need" isn't the purpose of this case, what is?

[67gtonut 847]

Not only that..... I think it proved the idiotic NJ system works( to the anti's).....

 

Want a permit..... Get a lawyer and prove Justifiable Need.....

 

Great.... this one proved it......  Next..... Take a number, get a lawyer..... 

 

 

I will follow up with what I said with a different view after discussing the subject with a friend....

 

Albert was issued a CCW  WITHOUT stating a SPECIFIC threat in his Justifiable Need.....   THIS is the opening that I think the future POS members will try to use.....  If this works, we can swing the door further and further open on each case......

[nolocontendere 22]

If eliminating or redefining "justifiable need" isn't the purpose of this case, what is?

John, thank you for the question.  Have you read either the Complaint or the Motion for Preliminary Injunction?  We reserve a facial attack on justifiable need, however, given the precedent set by Drake, only the en banc third circuit can overturn it.  If we get there, we will certainly argue that justifiable need as upheld by Drake is incorrect, but until we get there, we are bound by precedent.