Jump to content
DirtyDigz

New NJ CCW denial/appeal argument: Cheeseman & Jillard v. Police Chiefs

Recommended Posts

Appeal filing just released by Mark Cheeseman (PDF Attached at bottom of this post).

Cheeseman:

Quote

In light of recent events we feel it is appropriate to release or argument against the state of NJ. The Brief was written by Jay Factor,who i believe presents specific arguments never before brought against the state. I thank Jay for his years of research and time he has put in on this brief. Myself and John Ray Sr. have appealed our denials from Dec13 2017 to the NJ appeals court. A few things you need to understand when you read this.

#1 We are not attacking the statute. We are attacking the code. and the Siccardi rule. Urgent need, specific threats ect.

#2 The code and Siccardi rule are decided on a case by case basis. Heller tells us Chief and Judges no longer can do this.

#3 Our Argument proves that a NJ carry permit 2C:58-4s justifiable need requirement is the same thing as Hellers lawfull purpose.

From the appeal:

Quote

MAIN ARGUMENT: HELLER PAGE 2821 NO LONGER PERMITS CASE-BY-CASE DETERMINATIONS.

Quote

UNDER THE SICCARDI RULE AND NJAC 13:54-2.4d-1, THE STATE DECIDES 2C:58-4 PERMITS ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.

Quote

3. HISTORICAL PROOF: THE “CORE SUBSTANATIVE STANDARD” OF NEW JERSEY’S HANDGUN CARRY PERMITING SYSTEM WAS FORMUALTED BY THE INVESTIGATION UNIT OF THE STATE POLICE IN VIOLATION OF THE APA AND NOT FORMULATED BY THE LEGISLATURE.

Quote

HISTORICAL PROOF: THE INVESTIGATION UNIT OF THE STATE POLICE CREATED THE SICCARDI RULE WHICH BECAME NJAC 13:54-2.4d-1

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about if someone with a Farcebook account copies and pastes the entire case as linked in the original post.

Thanks

https://www.facebook.com/download/177195586379562/cheeseman jillard appeal THIS ARGUMENT DOES NOT CHALLENGE THE STATUTE final draft.pdf?hash=Acq5Vn701cXLERzp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell, here's the crux of the argument - that Heller precludes case-by-case determinations where constitutional rights are concerned:

 

Quote

But as of 2008, Heller has taken case-by-case determinations off the table:

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding "interest-balancing" approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of governmenteven the Third Branch of Governmentthe power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. [District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2821. Emphasis by Applicants.]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

As far as I can tell, here's the crux of the argument - that Heller precludes case-by-case determinations where constitutional rights are concerned:

 

 

That only flies if 2A applies outside one’s home. Something, I thought, the Heller decision steered clear of saying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That only flies if 2A applies outside one’s home. Something, I thought, the Heller decision steered clear of saying. 
Heller and McDonald only dealt with ownership. However this lawsuit is genius. They are arguing that the judiciary is deciding a constitutional right on a case by case basis. This is a new angle. Being some permits have been issued to the elite the judiciary is saying they have a 2A right to keep and bear arms outside the home but others don't. Heller says that constitutional rights cannot be selectively applied and McDonald clarified that Heller applies to the States. NJ maybe screwed by it's own system.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's been argued that DC didn't appeal it's last big 2A case (Wrenn) because they thought they might lose --- and were likely under pressure from similar states where those reverberations would be felt. I tend to agree. Whatever name it goes by ("justifiable need" in NJ's case) our state and a handful of others are, in fact, CHOOSING who gets to be "full" citizens and who will be "lesser" in terms of exercising their constitutional rights. It's total B.S. to my non-lawyer eyes at least - and not what the framers had in mind AT ALL. I agree... the lawsuit has a compelling argument.

My biggest 2 concerns now are: 1) Trump himself... his behavior, inexperience, big yap, tweets, all leading to his potential to be impeached... and 2) simply the unknown element of timing... meaning will he get the opportunity to complete one or more impactful SCOTUS replacement(s) PRIOR to the mid-terms (because post-mid-terms, everything likely gets infinitely harder for him to accomplish). Clock's running. Tick-tock.

I'm a decent person - so I refuse to wish for the demise of any SCOTUS judge... I'll pray for some retirements instead. :D

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, capt14k said:

Heller and McDonald only dealt with ownership. However this lawsuit is genius. They are arguing that the judiciary is deciding a constitutional right on a case by case basis. This is a new angle. Being some permits have been issued to the elite the judiciary is saying they have a 2A right to keep and bear arms outside the home but others don't. Heller says that constitutional rights cannot be selectively applied and McDonald clarified that Heller applies to the States. NJ maybe screwed by it's own system.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

The problem is the argument of selective application of a constitutional right is easy to defend based on CCW not being confirmed as a constitutionally protected right by SCOTUS. As you said, Heller and McDonald only covered ownership. 

Not a slam dunk case, and could easily backfire. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, it's been argued that DC didn't appeal it's last big 2A case (Wrenn) because they thought they might lose --- and were likely under pressure from similar states where those reverberations would be felt. I tend to agree. Whatever name it goes by ("justifiable need" in NJ's case) our state and a handful of others are, in fact, CHOOSING who gets to be "full" citizens and who will be "lesser" in terms of exercising their constitutional rights. It's total B.S. to my non-lawyer eyes at least - and not what the framers had in mind AT ALL. I agree... the lawsuit has a compelling argument.
My biggest 2 concerns now are: 1) Trump himself... his behavior, inexperience, big yap, tweets, all leading to his potential to be impeached... and 2) simply the unknown element of timing... meaning will he get the opportunity to complete one or more impactful SCOTUS replacement(s) PRIOR to the mid-terms (because post-mid-terms, everything likely gets infinitely harder for him to accomplish). Clock's running. Tick-tock.
I'm a decent person - so I refuse to wish for the demise of any SCOTUS judge... I'll pray for some retirements instead. [emoji3]
Trump will not get impeached. I haven't checked the House scenario still but even the Liberals know the Republicans will gain seats in the Senate. Even if Dems control the house the most they could do is draw articles of impeachment. The Senate does the actual impeaching. Not going to happen. As for Supreme Court Justices only the Senate deals with confirmation. Both SCOTUS and Trump are safe for the next 3 years. You can take that to the bank.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

 PRIOR to the mid-terms (because post-mid-terms, everything likely gets infinitely harder for him to accomplish). Clock's running. Tick-tock.

 

Ah, so you are convinced the Dems will take back control of the House or Senate! I am remaining hopeful that will not happen and that the way the Dems have been acting and blocking everything Trump does will actually help us in the mid-terms.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JohnnyB said:

Ah, so you are convinced the Dems will take back control of the House or Senate! I am remaining hopeful that will not happen and that the way the Dems have been acting and blocking everything Trump does will actually help us in the mid-terms.

Pay check smiles happen in February..

im on your page

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, so you are convinced the Dems will take back control of the House or Senate! I am remaining hopeful that will not happen and that the way the Dems have been acting and blocking everything Trump does will actually help us in the mid-terms.
The big number I was looking for came out today. Consumer Spending is at a post recession high. Trump is winning. Only because the Dems have history on their side and so many Republican incumbents retired I will revise my prediction to the Dems pick up 12 seats in the House and lose 8 seats in the Senate. Unfortunately due to the disaster in Alabama it won't be filibuster proof.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, capt14k said:

Trump will not get impeached. I haven't checked the House scenario still but even the Liberals know the Republicans will gain seats in the Senate. Even if Dems control the house the most they could do is draw articles of impeachment. The Senate does the actual impeaching. Not going to happen. As for Supreme Court Justices only the Senate deals with confirmation. Both SCOTUS and Trump are safe for the next 3 years. You can take that to the bank.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

just read an article in usatoday.....they say ginsberg is tooling up so to speak to see through trumps term to 2020. the article makes it seem as if she doesn't think that he'll get a 2nd term. i think he will. while i personally wish someone would smash his phone with a hammer........i suspect this is all some sort of plan.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 1LtCAP said:

just read an article in usatoday.....they say ginsberg is tooling up so to speak to see through trumps term to 2020. the article makes it seem as if she doesn't think that he'll get a 2nd term. i think he will. while i personally wish someone would smash his phone with a hammer........i suspect this is all some sort of plan.......

The choice to stay till 2020 may not be up to her at all....................GOD WILLING!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just read an article in usatoday.....they say ginsberg is tooling up so to speak to see through trumps term to 2020. the article makes it seem as if she doesn't think that he'll get a 2nd term. i think he will. while i personally wish someone would smash his phone with a hammer........i suspect this is all some sort of plan.......

Everything Trump does is calculated. Every tweet that seems stupid to many, there is a plan behind it. Think about how many tweets people thought were crazy that months later he was proven correct. For example him tweeting that he was being spied on. Now it looks like there was an organized effort by those in the FBI to defeat Trump and hand Hillary the election while abusing the FISA court system. Hopefully when they release the memo it brings even more of it to light.

 

 

Ginsburg can decide not to retire, but she can't decide not to die.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JohnnyB said:

The one sided, anti Trump news media has taken it so far that I think they may actually help us!:)

I think you're being over-optimistic. Frankly, I hope you're right... and I do agree that the media has overplayed its hand, but then again, perhaps so has Trump. I tend to set my predictions based on what I see in other swing voters.

I think you underestimate how much voters "in the middle" (even those that voted for him) are sick and tired of the tweets, the social gaffes, the unnecessary controversies. I've personally learned to grin and bear it... but in my social circle, I'm just seeing too many people that are expressing regrets with his performance. Apparently, they hoped he'd settle in and magically start "acting more presidential". That's a concern... to me anyway. You have to realize... those of you who are Trump fans, you rejoice at this stuff... but others are cringing... and not just those on the left. Anyway, again, I hope you're correct... because I'd like to see a few more SCOTUS appointments to slow down what I see as a "lurch" to the left in recent years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mrs. Peel said:

I think you're being over-optimistic. Frankly, I hope you're right... and I do agree that the media has overplayed its hand, but then again, perhaps so has Trump. I tend to set my predictions based on what I see in other swing voters.

I think you underestimate how much voters "in the middle" (even those that voted for him) are sick and tired of the tweets, the social gaffes, the unnecessary controversies. I've personally learned to grin and bear it... but in my social circle, I'm just seeing too many people that are expressing regrets with his performance. Apparently, they hoped he'd settle in and magically start "acting more presidential". That's a concern... to me anyway. You have to realize... those of you who are Trump fans, you rejoice at this stuff... but others are cringing... and not just those on the left. Anyway, again, I hope you're correct... because I'd like to see a few more SCOTUS appointments to slow down what I see as a "lurch" to the left in recent years.

Coming from “ the middle” a shit hole is a shit hole... Kardashian’s care bout tweets. True story. Step outside your paradigm 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zeke said:

Coming from “ the middle” a shit hole is a shit hole... Kardashian’s care bout tweets. True story. Step outside your paradigm 

Actually, I have friends and family on both ends of the political spectrum. But I do tend to pay more attention to the moderates... because frankly, they are called swing voters for a reason... they are the ones that swing elections! And I'm hearing a worrisome level of grumbling. And although my own threshold for blunt language is fairly high, I still think many of you underestimate just how deeply offensive his vulgar comments are to a LOT of people (not just those who are reliably liberal/progressive)... there's a level of Trump burnout that I think is taking place, like it or not. Hey, just my opinion! But, we're drifting the thread --- back to the topic at hand... Go, Cheeseman & Jillard.. GO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mrs. Peel said:

Actually, I have friends and family on both ends of the political spectrum. But I do tend to pay more attention to the moderates... because frankly, they are called swing voters for a reason... they are the ones that swing elections! And I'm hearing a worrisome level of grumbling. And although my own threshold for blunt language is fairly high, I still think many of you underestimate just how deeply offensive his vulgar comments are to a LOT of people (not just those who are reliably liberal/progressive)... there's a level of Trump burnout that I think is taking place, like it or not. Hey, just my opinion! But, we're drifting the thread --- back to the topic at hand... Go, Cheeseman & Jillard.. GO!

I disagree. Because I’m getting the opposite feed back from my friends across the country “ breath of fresh air” , “ say it and mean it”

but this is pointless, and we shall see. I know you’re offended. History is the judge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zeke said:

I disagree. Because I’m getting the opposite feed back from my friends across the country “ breath of fresh air” , “ say it and mean it”

but this is pointless, and we shall see. I know you’re offended. History is the judge

You think I'm offended? I voted for him and haven't regretted it yet. Yes, there are moments I'd love to rip his smart phone out of his hands and stomp it into teensy bits... but that's a minor irritation I've learned to deal with. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can buy “Trump Burnout” occurring with swing voters.  Right or not they don’t want a president that sometimes acts like an 8th grader.  I think him taking the high road once in a while, especially given recent media and democrat missteps, could really help his image rebound. Certainly the economy and other results will help and he should get out of the way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, I have friends and family on both ends of the political spectrum. But I do tend to pay more attention to the moderates... because frankly, they are called swing voters for a reason... they are the ones that swing elections! And I'm hearing a worrisome level of grumbling. And although my own threshold for blunt language is fairly high, I still think many of you underestimate just how deeply offensive his vulgar comments are to a LOT of people (not just those who are reliably liberal/progressive)... there's a level of Trump burnout that I think is taking place, like it or not. Hey, just my opinion! But, we're drifting the thread --- back to the topic at hand... Go, Cheeseman & Jillard.. GO!

 

You shouldn't put too much into swing voters. They don't vote.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/03/the-astonishing-decline-of-the-american-swing-voter/?utm_term=.46656fff2736

 

Elections today are won by energizing your base.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zeke said:

That be offended there Bob

Perhaps I didn't express myself correctly? I've listened to others (generally moderate people) expressing great disdain for his  "crass" "vulgar" "ugly" comments. (Their words, not mine).

See how locked in people are? If I even float the idea that he might be losing critical votes, you all start getting your panties in a twist. Eegads! Back to the topic - Go, Cheeseman & Jillard! Godspeed!

  • Like 1

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...