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

[John Willett 70]

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. 

 

Thanks for that.  I have read the complaint, though I don't think I read the preliminary motion you mention.

 

Are there specific obstacles that you expect may prevent you from making that challenge?  For example if all the plaintiffs are granted permits, will they maintain standing to bring a challenge?

 

Another item in your post was interesting to me.  

"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. 

 

 

Could you expand on that?

 

While I am not a lawyer, I do consider myself a student of this issue here.  My understanding is the the definition of "justifiable need" as codified is based on how the courts defined it in Siccardi.  Meanwhile, the legislature itself has yet to provide a definition (though the anti's here are seeking to remedy that now). 

[nolocontendere 22]

Thanks for that.  I have read the complaint, though I don't think I read the preliminary motion you mention.

 

Are there specific obstacles that you expect may prevent you from making that challenge?  For example if all the plaintiffs are granted permits, will they maintain standing to bring a challenge?

 

Another item in your post was interesting to me.  

 

Could you expand on that?

 

While I am not a lawyer, I do consider myself a student of this issue here.  My understanding is the the definition of "justifiable need" as codified is based on how the courts defined it in Siccardi.  Meanwhile, the legislature itself has yet to provide a definition (though the anti's here are seeking to remedy that now). 

 

I'll hold off on the standing issue, as that will be presented on 9/2 in our response, but yes, we should have standing.

 

As to your other question:  we have binding third circuit precedent in our machinegun case that says exactly that and I've copied and pasted from our PI brief:

 

"Interpreting the statute so as to include this exception would thereby swallow the rule. We refuse to conclude that with one hand Congress intended to enact a statutory rule that would restrict the transfer or possession of certain firearms, but with the other hand it created an exception that would destroy that very rule. See Abdul–Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 315 (3d Cir.2001) (rejecting an interpretation of a statute that would allow the exception to swallow the rule)"

U.S. v. One (1) Palmetto State Armory PA-15 Machinegun Receiver/Frame, Unknown Caliber Serial No. LW001804, 14-CV-06569, 2016 WL 2893670, at *3 (3d Cir. May 18, 2016).

 

Here, Defendants interpretation is also necessarily without merit because it renders N.J. Stat. § 2C:58-4©-(d) meaningless by narrowing the standard for justifiable need to a standard that is impossible to obtain. Any person can move away from their home if needed, any person could abandon his or her job if absolutely necessary, even though that person may have to expend hundreds of thousands in the process. As constructed by Defendants, the justifiable need standard cannot be met unless it is absolutely impossible to avoid one’s stalker or fall victim to an attack. This is an ultra vires construction.  Further, taken to the New Jersey Court’s absurd conclusion, anyone that was previously attacked and granted a permit to carry could simply change jobs or move and thus be outside of the justifiable need standard as applied by Defendants.

[PDM 91]

I'll hold off on the standing issue, as that will be presented on 9/2 in our response, but yes, we should have standing.

 

As to your other question:  we have binding third circuit precedent in our machinegun case that says exactly that and I've copied and pasted from our PI brief:

 

"Interpreting the statute so as to include this exception would thereby swallow the rule. We refuse to conclude that with one hand Congress intended to enact a statutory rule that would restrict the transfer or possession of certain firearms, but with the other hand it created an exception that would destroy that very rule. See Abdul–Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 315 (3d Cir.2001) (rejecting an interpretation of a statute that would allow the exception to swallow the rule)"

U.S. v. One (1) Palmetto State Armory PA-15 Machinegun Receiver/Frame, Unknown Caliber Serial No. LW001804, 14-CV-06569, 2016 WL 2893670, at *3 (3d Cir. May 18, 2016).

 

Here, Defendants interpretation is also necessarily without merit because it renders N.J. Stat. § 2C:58-4©-(d) meaningless by narrowing the standard for justifiable need to a standard that is impossible to obtain. Any person can move away from their home if needed, any person could abandon his or her job if absolutely necessary, even though that person may have to expend hundreds of thousands in the process. As constructed by Defendants, the justifiable need standard cannot be met unless it is absolutely impossible to avoid one’s stalker or fall victim to an attack. This is an ultra vires construction.  Further, taken to the New Jersey Court’s absurd conclusion, anyone that was previously attacked and granted a permit to carry could simply change jobs or move and thus be outside of the justifiable need standard as applied by Defendants.

Stephen -- I reread your complaint and took a look at the Palmetto case and am struggling to understand this.  Your argument above -- which is the only real argument you have (as you acknowledged the 2A count is really surplusage in light of Drake) -- is the "Ultra Vires" count in the Complaint, correct?  In the Palmetto case, the court held that the word "person" as used in the NFA had to be read to include a trust, otherwise the exception swallows the rule.  In other words, an individual can't do an end run around the statute by creating a trust to buy machine guns.  In this carry case, the term "justifiable need" is not defined in the statute, and both the state courts and the administrative code have defined it as requiring "imminent threats yada yada".  Unlike the NFA provision cited in Palmetto, where the intent of the statute was perfectly clear (ie individuals can't buy machine guns without complying the the statute), the intent of the NJ code on carry/possession outside the home is not clear at all.  So the NJ courts and the administrative code clarified it.  They did so in a way we don't like and in a way that severely limits and arguably eviscerates the statute, but I fail to see how the holding in Palmetto is analogous or helpful.

 

It would be interesting to know if there is other precedent for the "ultra vires" argument being used by a court to strike down an administrative code provision or state court interpretation of a statute.  I am familiar with the ultra vires concept being used in the corporate context but not as applied to administrative law (but would love to be educated on it).  I hope I am wrong and missing something, but this seems extremely weak.  Nonetheless I wish you luck,

[nolocontendere 22]

Stephen -- I reread your complaint and took a look at the Palmetto case and am struggling to understand this.  Your argument above -- which is the only real argument you have (as you acknowledged the 2A count is really surplusage in light of Drake) -- is the "Ultra Vires" count in the Complaint, correct?  In the Palmetto case, the court held that the word "person" as used in the NFA had to be read to include a trust, otherwise the exception swallows the rule.  In other words, an individual can't do an end run around the statute by creating a trust to buy machine guns.  In this carry case, the term "justifiable need" is not defined in the statute, and both the state courts and the administrative code have defined it as requiring "imminent threats yada yada".  Unlike the NFA provision cited in Palmetto, where the intent of the statute was perfectly clear (ie individuals can't buy machine guns without complying the the statute), the intent of the NJ code on carry/possession outside the home is not clear at all.  So the NJ courts and the administrative code clarified it.  They did so in a way we don't like and in a way that severely limits and arguably eviscerates the statute, but I fail to see how the holding in Palmetto is analogous or helpful.

 

It would be interesting to know if there is other precedent for the "ultra vires" argument being used by a court to strike down an administrative code provision or state court interpretation of a statute.  I am familiar with the ultra vires concept being used in the corporate context but not as applied to administrative law (but would love to be educated on it).  I hope I am wrong and missing something, but this seems extremely weak.  Nonetheless I wish you luck,

I argued the palmetto case in the 3rd. Just hang on until 9/2 and see what we say. I don't mean to give an evasive answer, but I have to assume the .gov defendants read this. I will tell you we have filed a motion to enter a clerks entry of default towards Sussex county today since they've pretty much ignored the complaint even though they tendered a defense to their insurance carrier. Lol. Just hang tight and see what happens. We have some good stuff to throw back at the defendants. I'll be in NJ again soon and will answer everyone's questions, to the extent I can, soon.

[ChrisJM981 924]

Thank you for taking the time to answer questions. I hope another Q&A session in NJ will be coming soon.

[PDM 91]

I argued the palmetto case in the 3rd. Just hang on until 9/2 and see what we say. I don't mean to give an evasive answer, but I have to assume the .gov defendants read this. I will tell you we have filed a motion to enter a clerks entry of default towards Sussex county today since they've pretty much ignored the complaint even though they tendered a defense to their insurance carrier. Lol. Just hang tight and see what happens. We have some good stuff to throw back at the defendants. I'll be in NJ again soon and will answer everyone's questions, to the extent I can, soon.

Will do.  I wish you the best of luck.  It stinks that one has to resort to legal gymnastics to have the state recognize a basic right.  And of course, legal arguments aside, what NJ has done here is an example of the worst kind of legislative and judicial abuse imaginable.

[nolocontendere 22]

Thank you for taking the time to answer questions. I hope another Q&A session in NJ will be coming soon.

 

Yessir.  I'll be back up there soon and will answer as many questions as I can in person.  Ya'll make sure to watch the taser case we brought as well.  Some good things happening up there for you guys hopefully.

[Newtonian 453]

"NJ2AS President Alexander Roubian: (phone # deleted) August 19, 2016 -

 

 

................ After having his life threatened several times by tenants who were known gang members and convicted violent felons, he sought a conceal carry permit which requires approval from his local police chief and a Superior Court Judge. After his permit application was denied due to not satisfying the albatross of justifiable need, he filed a lawsuit against the State."

 

------------------

 

How is this "NOT", specific threat(s) ?

1. Is your second paragraph about Almeida or Roubian?

2. If you change the definition of "justifiable need", either through statute or (if possible) administratively, then that's that. NY State CC license applicants put "for all legal purposes." On my NH application I put "for personal protection and all legal purposes." Granted it's a game but it's a very easy game to play if the definitions change.

[nolocontendere 22]

As you know I brought up the "what's in it for us" point long ago. I even mentioned it to Albert when he was attending a religious ceremony here in Newton last year. He told me at the time this was NOT only on behalf of the Po6. 

 

I believed him enough to donate $115.

 

So here's the point. You knew I'd get to it right?

 

Albert Almeida, please tell us or have your lawyer tell us on what basis you received your permit, if there are any restrictions, and what next steps your team is planning that might interest us as NJ gun owners and potential donors.

 

Until we hear that I'm going to withhold judgement.

 

But Albert, if I have to wait as long as I waited for my shirt, well, you never know what I might post here. 

 

He received his permit because Judge Conforti granted it.  Judge Conforti is a defendant in a federal case.  Albert's permit application was essentially the same as the first, only with more threats.  He has no restrictions.  It is so bad where you live that the Attorney General's office didn't know who actually issued the damn permits.  That is not a joke.  I had a nice long convo with one of them this morning and that very question arose.   Albert's case met New Jersey's justifiable need standard.  What you need to realize is that we have different angles of attack on this standard.  The first was that Albert met it.  That's the easy win.  Now they want to make us go away, so they issue his permit and "mueller" him in two years and don't renew.  The briefs are being written now in response to New Jersey's briefs.  We defaulted Sussex county today because they simply failed to answer/defend the complaint.  We will move forward with a full-on default judgment against Sussex.

 

We will go as far as we can with the court.  Just because Al got his permit doesn't change the fact that he is still in the case.  You may ask how?  I request that you wait until 9/2 to read about it.  It will be worth your wait.

 

Oh, and one last thing.... the funding thing that I think Nick spoke about, that we are simply going to leave once the money is out.  How much money do you think we've been paid?  Serious question?

[orangesolo 26]

He received his permit because Judge Conforti granted it.  Judge Conforti is a defendant in a federal case.  Albert's permit application was essentially the same as the first, only with more threats.  He has no restrictions.  It is so bad where you live that the Attorney General's office didn't know who actually issued the damn permits.  That is not a joke.  I had a nice long convo with one of them this morning and that very question arose.   Albert's case met New Jersey's justifiable need standard.  What you need to realize is that we have different angles of attack on this standard.  The first was that Albert met it.  That's the easy win.  Now they want to make us go away, so they issue his permit and "mueller" him in two years and don't renew.  The briefs are being written now in response to New Jersey's briefs.  We defaulted Sussex county today because they simply failed to answer/defend the complaint.  We will move forward with a full-on default judgment against Sussex.

 

We will go as far as we can with the court.  Just because Al got his permit doesn't change the fact that he is still in the case.  You may ask how?  I request that you wait until 9/2 to read about it.  It will be worth your wait.

 

Oh, and one last thing.... the funding thing that I think Nick spoke about, that we are simply going to leave once the money is out.  How much money do you think we've been paid?  Serious question?

 

$20.00 

[Lambo2936 297]

I wish you guy's luck! If you really make notable change in the whole JN/CCP issue we have here in NJ, i would gladly cut a check to help cover whatever you are owed.
That said, unless i was guaranteed a CCP i sure as hell can't afford to throw money at the wall. I hate to be a negative person, but i am, and the situation in NJ is, as you now know, terrible.

[nolocontendere 22]

I wish you guy's luck! If you really make notable change in the whole JN/CCP issue we have here in NJ, i would gladly cut a check to help cover whatever you are owed.

That said, unless i was guaranteed a CCP i sure as hell can't afford to throw money at the wall. I hate to be a negative person, but i am, and the situation in NJ is, as you now know, terrible.

 

No one can afford to throw money against the wall except for bloomberg.  We are spending considerable amounts of our time for you in NJ.  Not because we are making thousands of dollars, because it is a fight worth bringing and we believe in it.  So, donate, don't donate, it's going forward regardless.  Obviously it would be nice to make some of this money that the other attorneys are making, but it's not about the money.  And, look at what has been raised.  8K.  Three attorneys doing this since April 2016.  You think that's enough to cover all of our time?  lol

[Newtonian 453]

He received his permit because Judge Conforti granted it.  Judge Conforti is a defendant in a federal case.  Albert's permit application was essentially the same as the first, only with more threats.  He has no restrictions.  It is so bad where you live that the Attorney General's office didn't know who actually issued the damn permits.  That is not a joke.  I had a nice long convo with one of them this morning and that very question arose.   Albert's case met New Jersey's justifiable need standard.  What you need to realize is that we have different angles of attack on this standard.  The first was that Albert met it.  That's the easy win.  Now they want to make us go away, so they issue his permit and "mueller" him in two years and don't renew.  The briefs are being written now in response to New Jersey's briefs.  We defaulted Sussex county today because they simply failed to answer/defend the complaint.  We will move forward with a full-on default judgment against Sussex.

 

We will go as far as we can with the court.  Just because Al got his permit doesn't change the fact that he is still in the case.  You may ask how?  I request that you wait until 9/2 to read about it.  It will be worth your wait.

 

Oh, and one last thing.... the funding thing that I think Nick spoke about, that we are simply going to leave once the money is out.  How much money do you think we've been paid?  Serious question?

If you had to depend on the cheapskate big-talking windmill chasers in this forum, I'd say no more than about $115.00, which is what I donated. If that's what you're talking about. NJGF participants prefer taking free showers on people's front lawns while wearing ugly yellow shirts. 

[nolocontendere 22]

If you had to depend on the cheapskate big-talking windmill chasers in this forum, I'd say no more than about $115.00, which is what I donated. If that's what you're talking about. NJGF participants prefer taking free showers on people's front lawns while wearing ugly yellow shirts.

 

I'm not even sure what you mean. I have all the funded money in my trust account. None of us have been paid one dollar. Since extremely few people in NJ are interested in this case and putting any money up, we are saving it for travel and expenses instead of paying ourselves. I flew up there a while back out of my own pocket ($712 plane ticket) to meet every one and answer questions.

[bhunted 887]

He was referring to the past events with and the Sweeny debacle. Don't take it wrong. We appreciate what you are doing.

 

I'm not even sure what you mean. I have all the funded money in my trust account. None of us have been paid one dollar. Since extremely few people in NJ are interested in this case and putting any money up, we are saving it for travel and expenses instead of paying ourselves. I flew up there a while back out of my own pocket ($712 plane ticket) to meet every one and answer questions.

[Newtonian 453]

I'm not even sure what you mean. I have all the funded money in my trust account. None of us have been paid one dollar. Since extremely few people in NJ are interested in this case and putting any money up, we are saving it for travel and expenses instead of paying ourselves. I flew up there a while back out of my own pocket ($712 plane ticket) to meet every one and answer questions.

In other words none of the pro-2A organizations, national or state, are supporting you?

 

Have you approached them? Do they know your strategy?

 

I'm very curious. I have long stated that the orgs are generally useless in this state except at collecting dues. 

 

Edit: I didn't mean to include ANJRPC in that categorization. They accomplish their mission, which is to promote shooting statewide. I'm particularly interested in any possible interaction with NRA or the national Second Amendment Foundation, which have been absent in this state as far as I know.

[nolocontendere 22]

In other words none of the pro-2A organizations, national or state, are supporting you?

 

Have you approached them? Do they know your strategy?

 

I'm very curious. I have long stated that the orgs are generally useless in this state except at collecting dues.

 

Everyone knows. I have been labeled dangerous. The case has been called dangerous. We are bringing some groups together but nj is a tough nut to crack

 

Whether one will ride in towards the end will still be seen. I have my beliefs, based on past experience. The problem is that nobody believes anyone can win in NJ so it's struck as a lost cause. I just don't see things that way and I put my money and time on on the line.

[John Willett 70]

In other words none of the pro-2A organizations, national or state, are supporting you?

 

Have you approached them? Do they know your strategy?

 

I'm very curious. I have long stated that the orgs are generally useless in this state except at collecting dues. 

 

 

I think it is awfully tough to work with someone who has already shown that they are willing to blatantly spread lies and gossip about you to try and raise money.  Appears it wasn't even that effective.  

[Lambo2936 297]

If you had to depend on the cheapskate big-talking windmill chasers in this forum, I'd say no more than about $115.00, which is what I donated. If that's what you're talking about. NJGF participants prefer taking free showers on people's front lawns while wearing ugly yellow shirts.

I hope youre not referring to the NJGF Swag weve all been waiting for? Not a fan of ugly yellow, they better be grey or something.

[Lambo2936 297]

I think it is awfully tough to work with someone who has already shown that they are willing to blatantly spread lies and gossip about you to try and raise money. Appears it wasn't even that effective.

Not sure what happened between you guys, but at the end of the day we are all on the same side of the battle against the Antis. The NJ 2A community certainly needs to unify and stop with the high school drama crap, haha. The enemy of my enemy is my friend....

Its a shame that so few gun owners are active on here. Seems like most of the active members arent even in New Jermany any more.

[John Willett 70]

Everyone knows. I have been labeled dangerous. The case has been called dangerous. We are bringing some groups together but nj is a tough nut to crack

 

Whether one will ride in towards the end will still be seen. I have my beliefs, based on past experience. The problem is that nobody believes anyone can win in NJ so it's struck as a lost cause. I just don't see things that way and I put my money and time on on the line.

 

 

You've admitted here that your case against Justifiable Need is DOA until you get to the Third Circuit, en banc.  The only people who may benefit are the named plaintiffs that you can pressure the state issuing permits to.  I have yet to hear anyone argue that NJ is a lost cause, expect POS members putting words into others mouths.  If the work is going to be done in the federal system, then cases nationally should figure into that strategy.  It appears that there are simply stronger cases outside of NJ now. 

[Newtonian 453]

I think it is awfully tough to work with someone who has already shown that they are willing to blatantly spread lies and gossip about you to try and raise money.  Appears it wasn't even that effective.  

Please explain what you mean in plain language. I'm not sure who you're referring to.

[Lambo2936 297]

You've admitted here that your case against Justifiable Need is DOA until you get to the Third Circuit, en banc. The only people who may benefit are the named plaintiffs that you can pressure the state issuing permits to. I have yet to hear anyone argue that NJ is a lost cause, expect POS members putting words into others mouths. If the work is going to be done in the federal system, then cases nationally should figure into that strategy. It appears that there are simply stronger cases outside of NJ now.

From what i understand, the current case is basically to just get on paper the definition of JN. Once we have on paper that youve got to have been gang raped, kidnapped, and then murdered to get a CCP here, theyll be able to fight JN in 3rd, as it would be unconstitutional to have such insane requirements, which we already know, as it is all but by name an absolute ban. I could be wrong, but thats basically the way i understood it.

[John Willett 70]

Not sure what happened between you guys, but at the end of the day we are all on the same side of the battle against the Antis. The NJ 2A community certainly needs to unify and stop with the high school drama crap, haha. The enemy of my enemy is my friend....

Its a shame that so few gun owners are active on here. Seems like most of the active members arent even in New Jermany any more.

 

Nothing happened between us.  I simply won't stand for people making shit up, and acting like they are the victim of some bullshit conspiracy  

[John Willett 70]

Please explain what you mean in plain language. I'm not sure who you're referring to.

 

Almeida and POS regularly disparage other groups in their postings on social media and here on these forums, at least until a group acquiesces to their greatness.  Then they are friends.  It's bullying.  

 

They accused a prominent attorney and the leader of a group of conspiring to stifle Almeida's case.

 

When confronted Almeida has resorted to his usual grade school name calling.  Other in POS, will say they took down the Facebook post, which apparently they think should absolve them.   

 

However, if you have shown yourself untrustworthy, it's on you to build that trust, not the parties lied about. 

[Newtonian 453]

I have yet to hear anyone argue that NJ is a lost cause, expect POS members putting words into others mouths. 

The strategies or lack thereof of national pro-2A groups certainly suggest they have given up here. E.g. NRA had a shindig earlier this year for governors and dissed Christie (and IMO all NJ gun owners) by not inviting him. There was nothing at all to lose, nothing, but they believed that making a childish "statement" about his RINO/gun positions was more important than engaging the only politician in NJ who might have made a difference. 

 

On the other hand they spend millions in other states gilding the lily, upgrading those states' gun rights "plans" from cadillac to mercedes to mazerati. If I hear of another successful case in a shall-issue or constitutional carry state involving carrying in churches or bars I'm going to puke. I can go to jail for 10 years merely for stepping off my property with an unloaded holstered gun or single hollow point .22 round.

 

Fix that first, NRA and 2AS, then fight for the rights of Kansan girl scouts to carry in a church procession on Easter Sunday in a school zone. 

[nolocontendere 22]

You've admitted here that your case against Justifiable Need is DOA until you get to the Third Circuit, en banc. The only people who may benefit are the named plaintiffs that you can pressure the state issuing permits to. I have yet to hear anyone argue that NJ is a lost cause, expect POS members putting words into others mouths. If the work is going to be done in the federal system, then cases nationally should figure into that strategy. It appears that there are simply stronger cases outside of NJ now.

Most people that hear about this case say it's a lost cause. You're writings suggest you know more than you are saying. I don't know who you are from Adam, but we've already gotten al his permit. Something I was told would never happen. And yes, I've been told from other than POS members that NJ is a lost cause. On ar15.com, lots of posters (who are not POS member) said that exact thing.

 

And while we are bound by drake, if you've read our PI and once you read our response, you will have a better understanding of your this will benefit all of NJ and not just the plaintiffs.

[Ramup422 18]

Please explain what you mean in plain language. I'm not sure who you're referring to.

First, let me apologize in advanced to my legal team that I know is going to tell me stop entertaining the negativity again (Because NJ 2A community is overloaded with it). But I must set the record straight and respond to inaccurate statements made yet again by the individual above.

 

Second; let me answer Angelo. Yes, we have reached out to other Professional organizations many time, many emails we have to prove it and many conversations as well. If you recall, the SAF was on board and fully funding the case back in 2013. I am the one that personally reached out to and proposed my case to Mr. Gotlieb, No one else. Allan immediately jumped on board after vetting me and the case and we laid out the plan going forward, all the way up to SCOTUS if necessary. That same plan was the vision and goal of the previous law firm handling my case in 2013.

 

I also personally reached out to the NRA, but I was rejected by the NRA because they stated only the attorney and or the NJ NRA representative could make an official request for financial support on litigation cases. No request from either was made to the NRA for support, in fact, it was later learned that only $1000.00 was requested from the NRA to assist in NJ for 2014. Something that I was told is shameful because other States request and receive much more due to their Proactive involvement in litigations. But, NJ Representatives have not and do not make these requests for help.

As you are aware, I learned from my appellate court decision from a 3rd party and shortly after that, my previous case started to get ignored. This was at the same time that Chris Christie was preparing for a POTUS announcement, and it was during the design phase of the E.O 180. Several people that will remain nameless have told me that politics “allegedly” played a large role in making my 2013 case silently disappear, to not upset CC and to not jeopardize the work of E.O 180. I am telling you, this is only hear say, but the timing of it is all fitting.

The fact to me is, the original plan discussed to me was broken and not followed through. I was lead to believe the case was still going forward to a Federal Level, SAF called me on several occasions asking me of the Status on the case because they had NOT received any correspondence or updates, so they were in the dark, I assume, as much as I was.

After repeated attempts to make contact, and after “scheduled” telephone conferences went missed, it became obvious to me, that the interest was no longer present, and the communications had seized. The funding from SAF was cancelled due to a lack of moving the case forward.

 

Now, to address the claims of the individual above, stating “I think it is awfully tough to work with someone who has already shown that they are willing to blatantly spread lies and gossip about you to try and raise money.  Appears it wasn't even that effective”

 

What LIES are you referring to?

What gossip are you referring to?

 

Are you referring to the “factual” multiple attempts made to the NJ NRA Representative and other lawyers in the 2A community, in asking for support in a carry case from a/our dues paying member/s? The discussions that laid out the plans with carry cases, including mine, but went ignored after politics got involved?

And the response was “No, we don’t believe in litigating in these cases”, No, the time is not right (as if our lives don’t matter?), or, what about “your case is weak”? (So weak, that Mr. Stamboulieh and I have won, and I have no idea why I continue the fight, when clearly I no longer have to?).

What about the multiple attempts asking for help by a retired War Veteran, that has gone ignored?

What about the slander made about us, from other lawyers, that “we are fanatics”? If fighting for our rights to defend ourselves against the trash that walks the streets, harming us, our kids and loved ones makes us a Fanatic, well….I AM GLAD TO BE ONE.

SO, it seems like YOU do not have the facts, or maybe you do, but you ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM IN NJ and it is because of people like you, that either are clueless, naive, IGNORANT or part of the spineless establishment, that NJ WILL NEVER WIN.

I no longer have to fight, I won. But I’m still in this fight because I have been asked to and I will not be like Muller. That was my Promise in 2013. I have had one of my feet out of the door many times since 2013, but because of motivated fighters, Like Mike, Mark, Dave, Jay and many more of you great patriots, they have kept me in the fight (sometimes dragging me back in after I was walking away).

Angelo, I hope I answered your question, and you are correct about your statement “I'm very curious. I have long stated that the orgs are generally useless in this state except at collecting dues”

Now, it is up to you in demanding accountability for your hard earned donated dollars, and I hope you guys prevail in NJ. With naysayers, wheel chocks, and low energy people, it will never happen.

Good day all, I’m out. I have to go shopping for extra holsters, thanks to Steve….A great persistent, high energy fighter.

[John Willett 70]

Most people that hear about this case say it's a lost cause. You're writings suggest you know more than you are saying. I don't know who you are from Adam, but we've already gotten al his permit. Something I was told would never happen. And yes, I've been told from other than POS members that NJ is a lost cause. On ar15.com, lots of posters (who are not POS member) said that exact thing.

 

And while we are bound by drake, if you've read our PI and once you read our response, you will have a better understanding of your this will benefit all of NJ and not just the plaintiffs.

 

 

I have been fortunate, in the course of producing a podcast and an annual event focused on 2nd Amendment issues here in New Jersey, to have developed relationships with many members of the 2A movement here.  Maybe you can clear something up for me.  I often see social media posts from POS and its members, but they have said they won't do podcast interviews without their attorney.  Do you clear all their postings regarding the case?

 

I want to support all  the efforts, but they have to make sense to me.  I've had misgivings about a strategy or tactic in the past, and been proven wrong.  I have also made the mistake of supporting an effort, against my better judgement, and seeing it fail miserably.

 

I told Al years ago that the likely best case scenario was that he would get a permit.  I'm glad it happened. However there is a lot of crowing about that permit, and I still don't see any benefit attributing to those who contributed.

 

I am sure there are a lot of folks on forums around the country with a whole host of opinions on New Jersey, hahaha.  My comment was directed more toward the folks populating the groups working to improve things here.  

[DeerSlayer 241]

I hope youre not referring to the NJGF Swag weve all been waiting for? Not a fan of ugly yellow, they better be grey or something.

He's talking about the safety orange recall Sweeney t-shirts from the recall campaign. The free shower he's referencing, is when Sweeney turned his sprinklers on the 20 people protesting on the sidewalk in front of his house.