Jump to content
ajpaul59

Second Amendment Case 'Stephens vs Jerejian' Docketed with SCOTUS

Recommended Posts

Did the NJ attorney bother to reply?

 

"Attorney General of New Jersey has until January 12, 2017 to file an answer."

And say what? "This is ridiculous we do not discriminate when turning our subjects into victims" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And say what? "This is ridiculous we do not discriminate when turning our subjects into victims" ?

 

:-)  Probably...  Seems to me between arguments like this (totally different approach bringing discrimination into the mix), national reciprocity (hopefully passed soon), and a REAL SCOTUS once the new Pres gets to confirm his pick(s), states like NJ, CA, HI, and MD will lose this battle finally!   At least it's cause for optimism that we can force the loony politicians entrenched in these states to truly recognize the constitution...  We'll see...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the NJ attorney bother to reply?

 

"Attorney General of New Jersey has until January 12, 2017 to file an answer."

 

Jan 10 2017 Waiver of right of respondents Judge Honorable Edward A. Jerejian and John Jay Hoffman to respond filed.

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-7165.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the NJ attorney bother to reply?

 

"Attorney General of New Jersey has until January 12, 2017 to file an answer."

It is passed that.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did he need to do any of that to transfer guns he owned?  What does justifiable need have to do with the FPID and P2P process?  Was he also applying for carry at the same time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can some one translate this to English?

 

Waiver of right of respondents Judge Honorable Edward A. Jerejian and John Jay Hoffman to respond filed.

 

Legalese sucks.

 

 

It would seem that Judge Honorable Edward A. Jerejian and John Jay Hoffman feel that the appeal of the lower courts decision will not be heard by SCOTUS so they are not going to waste their time responding in opposition to it.  A response on their part is optional.

 

They either did not respond in the 30 days or filed a response that they will not respond.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the vid it appears carry.

 

One part of the VID mentioned FPID--which I guess is a precondition for carry in NJ.  Although it shouldn't be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can be issued a P2P without applying for an FID at the same time, or having been previously issued a FID, and you can purchase a pistol from a NJ FFL with only a P2P and no FID (not every FFL may choose to let you do that, but there is nothing, legally, preventing it).

 

That's not how I would recommend going about it (no reason not to get a FID if you're getting a P2P), but it can be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can be issued a P2P without applying for an FID at the same time, or having been previously issued a FID, and you can purchase a pistol from a NJ FFL with only a P2P and no FID (not every FFL may choose to let you do that, but there is nothing, legally, preventing it).

 

That's not how I would recommend going about it (no reason not to get a FID if you're getting a P2P), but it can be done.

My pd always asks for " the card" when I re up for p2p's

 

Honestly I never thought about one vs the other.

Only advice I got was do both at same time( first time).

Interesting.

Regardless, I think based on judge and court this is a ccw

 

Possession in home is not illegal ( unless they are scary and have the evil features). This gentleman has apparently lived in atleast a few States

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a closer look I gathered that he applied for a FPID and a P2P only. Nothing about CCW.

He was denied the FID and P2P by his CPD which he appealed and lost.

 

Somehow I don't think we are getting all the facts here. He apparently has had past serious threats against him

and the state mentioned a fear that he "might take the law into his own hands".  He was asked, if he had a gun would he be prepared to use it?

He responded "yes" and that is being used against him as well.

 

There must be something in this fellows past that he has not revealed in the video nor on his website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmn

Idk. I did mine at the same time.

Do you have information otherwise?

 

You got yours at the same time and so did I.

But nowhere in the law says you must have or get a FPID in order to get a p2p. It is a good idea to do so but it's not required.

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.



×
×
  • Create New...