Jump to content
Ramup422

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

Recommended Posts

Some have recently said that now is not the time to file a case for carry in NJ, they said, we need to wait for the right time, the right case. but we, at the Po6 ask, when is it the right time, what is the right case? Is it post mortem? Maybe Carol's case would have been the "right case" Or maybe one of the other, now dead NJ innocent victims that waited for help?
Will you, or a loved one be the next one to be "seriously harmed" while waiting? What about when we had a favorable Federal court to the 2A during the bush years?

We appreciate everyone fighting in NJ, but we cannot rely on just 1 organization or person, this must be a multi-prong attack that includes Education, legislation, and litigation that may help in policy change in NJ.

Do you know it takes years to reach the SCOTUS on a case, or to settle a Federal case? We may very well be in to the 2020 election by the time we reach it there, and that is no guarantee we will make it to be heard. but we need to be in the fight, in the pipeline. If you’re not in the fight, you're not winning. It may be a California case, Hawai’I case, a D.C case or maybe the NJ case, we don’t know, but we must fight and be in it, to win it.

 

We, the Plaintiffs in this NJ case cannot gamble with politics, with time or with past lost cases, we must press on. We must fight. This challenge is different from the Drake case, it challenges the face of JN, the burden imposed on us meeting it and other challenges. Read the complaint attached, as the details are there. You may also follow us at www.partyofsix.org

Finally, the lead attorney will be in NJ on June 25th for a meet and greet, Q and A session at RTSP at 130 pm. Pass by and meet the parties involved

Thank you for your support

 

Don’t forget, visit www.partyofsix.org for additional details

 

 

 

https://www.scribd.com/doc/315622227/New-Jersey-Complaint

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We appreciate everyone fighting in NJ, but we cannot rely on just 1 organization or person, this must be a multi-prong attack that includes Education, legislation, and litigation that may help in policy change in NJ.

 

 

 

I might believe this if I had heard you apologized to the people you dragged through the mud or were calling lapdogs.

 

At least you have modified your about page to not attack other groups by name.  Still not enough to warrant any trust though.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you're still out here barking, being a lap dog for those that don't want to cause waves in NJ and keep the status quo, ey?

 

That's ok Willy, we are out here fighting for your rights as well. 

 

Stay frosty John :-)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its good to know that Albert can be counted on to rely on personal insults rather than attempt to defend his BS.  

 

You know, it doesn't matter what you call me, or how popular or unpopular it is.  I will tell you directly when you're wrong. 

 

Don't patronize me with this "fighting for your rights" crap.  We both know that you are only interested in your case and don't give a whit about anyone else's rights.  Whether your case is good or bad for us as a movement, it doesn't matter to you at all. 

 

Even all of that wouldn't bother me so much, except for the fact that you wouldn't have spread baseless lies about other members of this community, all because you thought it would net you more donations.  I care too much about this community to let you pretend you otherwise.  I noted the change on your website, but you have revealed yourself, that nothing has changed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to be honest I posted a few direct questions about the goal of this case in another thread and it was ignored. My feeling based on my questions being ignored, is that this case doesn't help with 2a rights in NJ it only helps a few guys prove justifiable need or imminent danger to acquire their permits. In fact should they win in that basis they are only enhancing the statute not helping strike it down as unconstitutional. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

These are my comments from an earlier thread ignored, because the answer will prove my above supposition.

 

Since I dwell in FL a considerable amount I haven't followed this but it's peaked my interest. Is the PO6 trying to prove their justifiable need on their applications or prove justifiable need is silly? If the former how does that help broadly? I can see how it helps those six fellows but not everyone else, and in fact just respects the unjust justifiable need. If they are fighting that justifiable need is indeed just another word for no and should be struck down then I can see the mass benefit. However, what do you suggest it gets replaced with? Constitutional carry? While ideal I'd have to say impossible and I'm far from spineless. Maybe make NJ a shall issue state with no clause for justification just proficiency?

 

The CC EO didn't really change anything with regards to CCW. In fact the words that were substituted are tantamount to justifiable need--only they sounded less foreboding. Imminent danger was it? Truth be told I always feel like I'm in imminent danger walking the streets and going to the movies or walking around shopping malls or road ragers all around. I could go on but would any of that work? Nah.

 

So really the only question I'd like to understand is my first one. What's the purpose of the PO6?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Willet, can you tell us, the people of NJ, why are YOU so against their right to self defense with a side arm? Including one of the Plaintiffs being a combat veteran?

 

Now, you will come on here next and say you are not, that you are a fighter,  that you are only against me because you are BUTT hurt that I expose you, and challenge the status quo.

 

But the truth is, you are against anyone that  fights for their rights to self defense in NJ (you have shown us that you are, why?) .....Are you anti carry John? Because your actions surely do show it. Why do you want the status quo in NJ, are you protecting someone? Your wallet maybe? or are the "masters" telling you that is what is best for you?

 

Have a "nice" day John.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see a case come to trial with this stated as the reason to carry.

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

 

That and nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CC EO didn't really change anything with regards to CCW. In fact the words that were substituted are tantamount to justifiable need--only they sounded less foreboding. Imminent danger was it? Truth be told I always feel like I'm in imminent danger walking the streets and going to the movies or walking around shopping malls or road ragers all around. I could go on but would any of that work? Nah.

 

So really the only question I'd like to understand is my first one. What's the purpose of the PO6?

 

EO 180 resulted in a small change to the NJ State police regulation that had incorrectly captured the definition of justifiable need based on NJ courts.  It added "serious threats" to the existing language.  Its not what we would all want carry permits to be based on, but it wasn't meaningless.   

 

 

John Willet, can you tell us, the people of NJ, why are YOU so against their right to self defense with a side arm? Including one of the Plaintiffs being a combat veteran?

 

Now, you will come on here next and say you are not, that you are a fighter,  that you are only against me because you are BUTT hurt that I expose you, and challenge the status quo.

 

But the truth is, you are against anyone that  fights for their rights to self defense in NJ (you have shown us that you are, why?) .....Are you anti carry John? Because your actions surely do show it. Why do you want the status quo in NJ, are you protecting someone? Your wallet maybe? or are the "masters" telling you that is what is best for you?

 

Have a "nice" day John.

 

So your reply is to make BS up about me?

 You may not realize this, but asking you questions, being dissatisfied with the answers, and calling you on your lies doesn't make someone against self defense or "anti carry".   Frankly, I see other poorly formed legal challenges and hold my tongue because I believe those folks are operating in good faith with the rest of us who care about 2A. Also I had reservations about the tactic of protesting in front of Sweeney's house, but waited until I had the chance to go there and witness it before commenting, at which point I had changed my mind.   I demonstrated in Trenton, were you there?

 

 You only expose yourself, as someone with no substance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EO 180 resulted in a small change to the NJ State police regulation that had incorrectly captured the definition of justifiable need based on NJ courts. It added "serious threats" to the existing language. Its not what we would all want carry permits to be based on, but it wasn't meaningless.

 

 

 

So your reply is to make BS up about me?

You may not realize this, but asking you questions, being dissatisfied with the answers, and calling you on your lies doesn't make someone against self defense or "anti carry". Frankly, I see other poorly formed legal challenges and hold my tongue because I believe those folks are operating in good faith with the rest of us who care about 2A. Also I had reservations about the tactic of protesting in front of Sweeney's house, but waited until I had the chance to go there and witness it before commenting, at which point I had changed my mind. I demonstrated in Trenton, were you there?

 

You only expose yourself, as someone with no substance.

It's concerning that they won't answer my simple questions. It makes me think the action is self serving instead of group serving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's concerning that they won't answer my simple questions. It makes me think the action is self serving instead of group serving.

Rob, you are more than welcome to attend the Q&A event on the 25th at RTSP. You can also read the 121 page complaint that challenges multiple aspects of the JN, including the burden that the state imposes on us to prove it. If any thing, hopefully it chips away on parts that will make it easier for us in the future...But we won't know, unless we try fighting it.

 

Thank you, Albert

 

P.s, John, you can read it as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read a lot all day and I'm not really up for a 100 plus pages of legalese. My question has a binary answer with optional detail--don't feel compelled to answer it but I'll make my assumptions based on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EO 180 resulted in a small change to the NJ State police regulation that had incorrectly captured the definition of justifiable need based on NJ courts. It added "serious threats" to the existing language. Its not what we would all want carry permits to be based on, but it wasn't meaningless.

 

It doesn't invalidate my question of what they are trying to accomplish. Are they trying to prove they have serious threats and should be granted CCW or that the language is still silly and preventing people from CCW unnecessarily? Again either way is fine but if the prove the former who is that helping other than themselves? Isn't that also giving credence to the statute rather than weakening? Moreover my sense is they are trying to prove their need based on whatever the law says, threats what have you.

 

Easy Q for them to answer but instead I get a response to read the complaint-seems dodgy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob,

 

Looks like more of a serious threat kinda deal. But being already denied the silly language portion will need to be raised during the process.

 

Regardless this is tremendous task, i could only imagine the personal expense, thank you for a look into your personal fight for a Conceal Carry Permit. 

 

Im going to try and make it Saturday for that Q&A as i have about no familiarity with this type of stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob,

 

Looks like more of a serious threat kinda deal. But being already denied the silly language portion will need to be raised during the process.

 

Regardless this is tremendous task, i could only imagine the personal expense, thank you for a look into your personal fight for a Conceal Carry Permit.

 

Im going to try and make it Saturday for that Q&A as i have about no familiarity with this type of stuff.

I'm not a lawyer but I think you are either fighting the requirement or fighting that you achieve the requirement, but what do I know? I think it's pretty simple for someone intimately involved in the case to just clarify point.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the brief:

 

 

Plaintiffs reserve a facial challenge on whether or not justifiable need is constitutional in light of Heller  and  McDonald  for Third Circuit Court of Appeals review en banc, and/or the United States Supreme Court.

 

 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:

 

a)
 
declaratory judgment that N.J. Stat. § 2C:58-4©-(d) and N.J. Admin. Code § 13:54-2.4(d)(1) are invalid as-applied to Plaintiffs under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments because the application of justifiable need impermissibly restricts the approval of permits to carry a handgun;

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might believe this if I had heard you apologized to the people you dragged through the mud or were calling lapdogs.

 

At least you have modified your about page to not attack other groups by name.  Still not enough to warrant any trust though.   

Maybe that's not the classiest thing to do according to the Marquis de Queensbury, but in truth the fake phony frauds who take our money in the name of "protecting" "our" 2nd Amendment rights should be exposed for the charlatans they are. I have commented negatively about the NRA and at least one NJ organization that will remain nameless. I could write a paragraph or two on the two prominent NJ "gun law" attorneys as well.

 

That being said, I have pointed out here and to Albert personally that winning his case will only perpetuate the absurd fiction of "justifiable need." The powers that be can cite carry licenses thus granted as proof that the system works, that they are not incorrigible criminals, and the myth that they continue to keep NJ residents safe. Granting a carry license to someone who walks through Camden late at night but not me is one of the most twisted readings of plain-language law since 1984. You'd think that a person who takes such risks for $$$ would be disqualified under mental health rules.

 

BTW, I have yet to receive even an acknowledgement (much less my shirt and patch) from the Gang of Six for my sizable donation two weeks ago.

 

Albert, I promise to go topless and show all my man-titties until I get my stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have pointed out here and to Albert personally that winning his case will only perpetuate the absurd fiction of "justifiable need." The powers that be can cite carry licenses thus granted as proof that the system works, that they are not incorrigible criminals, and the myth that they continue to keep NJ residents safe.

 

I said the same thing two or three times. If they try the case and win by proving imminent threat or justifiable need or what ever stupid language now prevails they will only help give credence to the current law. Thus, NJ can say, see why grant permits.

 

 

BTW, I have yet to receive even an acknowledgement (much less my shirt and patch) from the Gang of Six for my sizable donation two weeks ago.

 

Albert, I promise to go topless and show all my man-titties until I get my stuff.

I really hope you get your shirt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

BTW, I have yet to receive even an acknowledgement (much less my shirt and patch) from the Gang of Six for my sizable donation two weeks ago.

 

...

 

Yeah, same here.  I don't care so much about the swag, but donor relations isn't a strength of this campaign currently - an acknowledgement or "Thank You" beyond gogetfunding's automated email receipt might result in donor's feeling more inclined to pass the word on, Albert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, same here.  I don't care so much about the swag, but donor relations isn't a strength of this campaign currently - an acknowledgement or "Thank You" beyond gogetfunding's automated email receipt might result in donor's feeling more inclined to pass the word on, Albert.

"Swag" is the word I was looking for but couldn't find at 2:19 am. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no acknowledgement, still no shirt, still no patch. Not even a disingenuous "Please allow six to eight business weeks for a response." Gratitude delayed = gratitude denied. At this point my Southern Italian antisocial urges are bubbling up. 

 

Did anyone attend the meeting on the 25th? I get email notifications that money is trickling in. 

 

Is it time again to purchase incredibly ugly t-shirts, stand under sprinklers, and send 100s of emails begging legislature democrats to do the unthinkable? Could a hand-written certified return-receipt-requested letter to the Governor push his administration over the top with regard to NJ "conceal and carry," which as stated he has already greatly facilitated? We are, after all, this close to Nirvana. Should I include a BOGO coupon for a double Big Mac 'n' Cheese to sweeten the pot?

 

We have so many attractive options. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its good to know that Albert can be counted on to rely on personal insults rather than attempt to defend his BS.

 

You know, it doesn't matter what you call me, or how popular or unpopular it is. I will tell you directly when you're wrong.

 

Don't patronize me with this "fighting for your rights" crap. We both know that you are only interested in your case and don't give a whit about anyone else's rights. Whether your case is good or bad for us as a movement, it doesn't matter to you at all.

 

Even all of that wouldn't bother me so much, except for the fact that you wouldn't have spread baseless lies about other members of this community, all because you thought it would net you more donations. I care too much about this community to let you pretend you otherwise. I noted the change on your website, but you have revealed yourself, that nothing has changed.

That's a crock of shit. Almeida is in the trenches with us just as much as anyone else. Even before his case, during his case, after his case went stagnant, and still now that his case is going federal. He is genuinely not just about himself, that I will call shenanigans on.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you attended the meeting you would have your questions answered by the attorney taking on the case. He was there answering questions. Basically they're going after Justifiable need in a way different than the Drake debacle. This case will prove that even if you have met the justifiable need statue in NJ that they still deny. In turn they will be going for either open or consealed carry without justifiable need. If we can't have consealed with justifiable need, the. Will get open carry without. I suggest attending the next PO6 tavern meeting for the full strategies of the case.

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 SMOKIE901
      Can anyone who has a FLORIDA Non-Resident Concealed Carry Permit explain the details on how it is done to obtain?
    • By ChrisJM981
      Watch for progress on the Rogers & ANJRPC CCW case vs NJ AG, et al. 
      This was listed in another thread, but I thought it will need it's own space to avoid hijacking Rosey's CNJFO thread. 
       
      https://certpool.com/dockets/18-824?fbclid=IwAR2GBSTRnMnR15m914PMdkd7IYl3vrwjPPAXmw-Mt2Pgz1todMU5Gcc17cY
       
      What are your thoughts? I think we're going to Washington!
    • By stuckinNJ
      https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171201/us-house-of-representatives-to-vote-on-hr-38-the-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-next-week
       
      please take 60 seconds to call your reps, BOTH Republicans and Dems, urging their support. It seriously takes seconds. 
      No excuses
    • By fslater
      Hi Everyone
      I just Read the article in the Political report in Shooting Illustrated about The July ruling By the US Court Of Appeals that found DC's "good reason" to be granted a CCW unconstitutional. Wouldn't the conflicting rulings between the DC Federal Court and the Jersey District Federal court force the SCOUS to a hearing to resolve the conflict? This is old news from back in July I'm just hearing about now. If its already been discussed  please direct me to the thread.
      Thanks
    • By CJ Broz
      Can anyone help me find the stats on how many people in NJ apply for CCLs, and how many of those applications get rejected?  
      I'm having an online argument on a military forum (I'm a retired Marine).  Some guy thinks concealed-carry-restrictive states such as New Jersey and California are not violating the 2nd Amendment since they have a process for getting a permit, my response is it is a de facto ban if the vast majority of permit applicants are denied, but it's hard to make that argument without stats to back it up. 
       
  • Posts

    • DT, I also know that surreal feeling you mentioned.  I did a lot of business travel to Texas back in 2015-2016. This was a few years after I got back into firearms and all things 2A related. So was acutely aware of, and felt daily,  the oppression we live under here. Visiting Bass Pro and other gun shops in Dallas there provided a wonderful taste of freedom and respect for our rights.  Actually got to browse and touch the boxes of ammo on the shelves!  Wow!  As an aside, on a short business  trip there in 2017 which spanned a weekend,  I managed to get fingerprinted and attend the CHL class and subsequently  received my Texas non-resident permit. (With that permit I was able to conceal carry in PA for ONE glorious day in my life. Shortly after, PA stopped recognizing non-resident permits.).
    • I have 2 sets of Magpul Industries MBUS Pro Offset Sight for sale. both sets are very lightly used. In other words, they were mounted but the rifles they were mounted to only saw the safe and the range, never any real action, hence both sights are in immaculate condition. The only sign of use is tool marks on the bolt from being mounted, see pics below. Asking $145 per set but it's negotiable, PM me with offers. Local pickup in Manalapan, Marlboro, Freehold area preferred but we can discuss shipping.   since I have 2, first "i'll take both" wins, or first 2 "i'll take one" win.  
    • FWIW, I have called USLS for non-urgent items and they always connect me with someone from Nappen's office (David I think) within a day or two, so from that perspective it has been good.
    • I have also been a USLS member for several years. Have not had to use it but does provide me some piece of mind.  I am not aware of any other such services that provide protection for the various possession laws we must adhere to here in NJ.  (As opposed to actual self-defense use.).  Have you attended any of the USLS seminars with Evan Nappen? They are informative and you can address any questions or concerns (from reviews) you have with their rep. And yes, I hope to god they are responsive when I need them.  
    • Texas ain’t much different.    The first time I walked into an Academy Sports, and saw TONS of guns and ammo (and the ammo was out openly so you could get it yourself…no clerk required). Rifles and shotguns were in racks where you could openly handle them too. Handguns, of course, were locked in a case, but it’s no problem to have a clerk hand one to you.    Because I lived in Nj for 21 years, I almost felt like I was doing something WRONG when I handled them in the shop, with no ‘supervision’. It was kind of a surreal feeling.  I guess living in the northeast, you get browbeaten that firearms are verboten, and those who own them are criminals.  Texas is VERY different in that respect. Talk about firearms, and what you own, where you shoot/hunt like is very common, like it was people talking about what kind of golf clubs you have and what course you play.    Now that I have my Texas DL…next step is CHL.     
×
×
  • Create New...