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

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

7 minutes ago, capt14k said:

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.

 

Interested read. But if elections are won by "energizing your base" - that's not helpful either. Because he's energizing the OTHER side's base.

[Zeke 5,504]

1 minute ago, Mrs. Peel said:

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!

Well it’s definitely polarizing.. like breaking an overgrown building with sledgehammer... would you prefer we stay the course?

[voyager9 3,434]

23 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Actually, I have friends and family on both ends 

 

3 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

getting your panties in a twist. Eegads!

Umm, context?

 

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

Just now, Zeke said:

Well it’s definitely polarizing.. like breaking an overgrown building with sledgehammer... would you prefer we stay the course?

THREAD DRIFT! THREAD DRIFT! THREAD DRIFT! 

Just now, voyager9 said:

Umm, context?

Oh, I give up!! 

[voyager9 3,434]

1 minute ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Oh, I give up!! 

I win!

Im still curious how this case advances in lieu of the courts not solidifying that CCW is a constitutionally protected right under 2A.  I mean, it is a very interesting strategy and I hope it bares fruit but seems to rely on a shaky foundation. 

[WP22 1,558]

44 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Interested read. But if elections are won by "energizing your base" - that's not helpful either. Because he's energizing the OTHER side's base.

And that has been my  ongoing concern; I'm getting whiffs of an energized Dem base and a meh from the GOP.

[SJG 253]

i read the brief in its entirety. The argument is that Heller says no to case by case determinations --the take away being that you cannot have case by case determinations under our permitting scheme. Also that justifiable need must be construed as meaning a lawful purpose-under Heller. Frankly, a much more simplistic  and easier to follow argument could carry the day.   I agree that may issue laws(justifiable need or good cause and the like) do not comport with the Second Amendment for reasons expressed in Wren: "impinges on core Second Amendment conduct " I think the better reasoning is not the one expressed in the Cheeseman appeal but rather is the one that we have been advancing that the N.J. Supreme Court has simply not yet ruled on.  Switching horses (reasoning)-- that in my opinion is convoluted and weaker does little to increase the chances that we will prevail on appeal. Wren lays out a template that should be followed here.

[Scorpio64 5,153]

I'm just curious.  When was the last time an attempt was made on the life of a NJ politician or judge?  If it almost never happens, or happens at the same statistical rate as any other person, then, by their own rationale, they don't have a justifiable need.  They are carrying simply because they believe they are more important and deserving than the plebeians.

[njJoniGuy 2,131]

2 hours ago, SJG said:

i read the brief in its entirety. ... Wren lays out a template that should be followed here.

Can you please post a link where those of us interested in the legal-speak can read the entire Wren case?

Thanks

[SJG 253]

www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/005426559985AEE685258168004F376E/$file/16-7025-1685640.pdf

[1LtCAP 4,262]

9 hours ago, Scorpio64 said:

I'm just curious.  When was the last time an attempt was made on the life of a NJ politician or judge?  If it almost never happens, or happens at the same statistical rate as any other person, then, by their own rationale, they don't have a justifiable need.  They are carrying simply because they believe they are more important and deserving than the plebeians.

i've said this in a couple other threads. start a suit to take their ccw's away. if we don't have justifiable need, then they do not. if they have it, then so do we. they are really no different than us. they live in houses in neighborhoods like ours.

[xXxplosive 824]

Politicians, judges, lawyers and politically connected friends.......

[1LtCAP 4,262]

wouldn't it be interesting if something made it to the sc, showing that for the most part, all ccw's in nj are issued to those?

[capt14k 2,052]

i've said this in a couple other threads. start a suit to take their ccw's away. if we don't have justifiable need, then they do not. if they have it, then so do we. they are really no different than us. they live in houses in neighborhoods like ours.

That is not a bad idea and it would be a good suit for multiple individuals to file against multiple state politicians.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Scorpio64 5,153]

Just now, capt14k said:

That is not a bad idea and it would be a good suit for multiple individuals to file against multiple state politicians.

Is there any way to get a federal investigation into the permitting process and how it excludes all but the politicians and the politically connected?  A successful suit really begins with who exactly has a ccw and that info isn't ever going public.  We'd need some third party with the authority to audit the list of ccw holders.  2A is a federally protected right so it makes sense that the feds would be the ones to investigate this.  After all, when you look at who has a ccw and who doesn't, it screams corruption.

 

[capt14k 2,052]

Is there any way to get a federal investigation into the permitting process and how it excludes all but the politicians and the politically connected?  A successful suit really begins with who exactly has a ccw and that info isn't ever going public.  We'd need some third party with the authority to audit the list of ccw holders.  2A is a federally protected right so it makes sense that the feds would be the ones to investigate this.  After all, when you look at who has a ccw and who doesn't, it screams corruption.
 

Would likely need a judge's order to release the information. Which should be possible because it would be pertinent to the suit and the state obviously knows who has them.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[GunsnFreedom 245]

12 minutes ago, Scorpio64 said:

Is there any way to get a federal investigation into the permitting process and how it excludes all but the politicians and the politically connected?  A successful suit really begins with who exactly has a ccw and that info isn't ever going public.  We'd need some third party with the authority to audit the list of ccw holders.  2A is a federally protected right so it makes sense that the feds would be the ones to investigate this.  After all, when you look at who has a ccw and who doesn't, it screams corruption.

 

Just file an OPRA request.  Citizens 4 A Safer NJ did it a few years ago and got some good data.  The one piece of info they could not get is whether or not the CCW had a work restriction. 

[Scorpio64 5,153]

9 minutes ago, GunsnFreedom said:

Just file an OPRA request.  Citizens 4 A Safer NJ did it a few years ago and got some good data.  The one piece of info they could not get is whether or not the CCW had a work restriction. 

OPRA is a dead end.

From the NJSP response to Citizens For A Safer NJ

Quote

As to the number of permits to carry a handgun broken down by county, number of permits to carry a handgun issued to armored car service employees and to regular citizens, I must deny your request as we do not make or maintain such records.

They have that 411, maybe not officially, but they know.  And if they don't, a third party federal investigator can certainly find out.  The justifiable cause has to be documented somewhere.  Maybe the NJSP processes the armed guard permits and the judges and their cronies process their permits locally, to keep it all quiet like.  If it's kept out of the purview of the NJSP, then they can deny knowledge.

[njJoniGuy 2,131]

Reading the Wrenn case in its entirety now.

My thoughts as I proceed here:

Quote

The Second Circuit also finds that carrying outside the home matters less based on analogies to other individual rights. Thus, it asks: if our law “treat the home as special” when it comes to sexual privacy right ,why not when enforcing the right to use a gun? Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 94.

But of course, sex is different. In Judge Posner’s wry understatement, “the interest in having sex inside one’s home is much greater than the interest in having sex on the sidewalk in front of one’s home,” while the need to fend off violence might arise on sidewalk and in bedrooms alike.

Moore v. Madigan, 702F.3d 933, 941 (7th Cir. 2012).

Interesting comparison.

 

Quote

As Judge Posner writes: “[W]hen a state bans guns merely in particular places, such as public schools, a person can preserve an undiminished right of self-defense by not entering those places. . .”

Moore, 702 F.3d at 940.

 

By contrast, a ban on owning or storing guns at home leaves no alternative channels for keeping arms.

Quote

So we do not gainsay our sister circuits’ considered judgments—only the

assumptions that some of them made for argument’s sake—when we conclude

that (longstanding exceptions aside) carrying beyond the home, even in populated

areas, even without special need, falls within the Amendment’s coverage, indeed within its core.

II

Quote

We pause to draw together all the pieces of our analysis:

At the Second Amendment’s core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions. These traditional limits include, for instance, licensing requirements, but not bans on carrying in urban areas like D.C. or bans on carrying absent a special need for self-defense. In fact, the Amendment’s core at a minimum shields the typically situated citizen’s ability to carry common arms generally. The District’s good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. That’s enough to sink this law under Heller I

.

Sound like a winner winner chicken dinner if we can get the right case to SCOTUS

Quote

And the resulting decision rests on a rule so narrow that good-reason laws seem almost uniquely designed to defy it: that the law-abiding citizen’s right to bear common arms must enable the typical citizen to carry a gun.

We vacate both orders below and remand with instructions to enter permanent injunctions against enforcement of the District’s good-reason law.

So ordered.

I don't know why my text is set as strike-through

Please ignore that aspect of it. The copy and paste required a lot of re-formatting to get it here in legible fashion. Sorry about that, Chief!

[BobA 1,235]

18 hours ago, SJG said:

i read the brief in its entirety. The argument is that Heller says no to case by case determinations --the take away being that you cannot have case by case determinations under our permitting scheme. Also that justifiable need must be construed as meaning a lawful purpose-under Heller. Frankly, a much more simplistic  and easier to follow argument could carry the day.   I agree that may issue laws(justifiable need or good cause and the like) do not comport with the Second Amendment for reasons expressed in Wren: "impinges on core Second Amendment conduct " I think the better reasoning is not the one expressed in the Cheeseman appeal but rather is the one that we have been advancing that the N.J. Supreme Court has simply not yet ruled on.  Switching horses (reasoning)-- that in my opinion is convoluted and weaker does little to increase the chances that we will prevail on appeal. Wren lays out a template that should be followed here.

It also attacks the chiefs. Who are they to make the determination of your application being advanced to the Judge?  What are their qualifications to determine character?  In most towns it’s an appointed job. In my town the chief is the NJSP Superentndant. What does he know about me and mine. We wouldn’t know each other if we tripped over each other.  

This is way too much unqualified ignorant guess work being applied unevenly and unfairly. 

[SJG 253]

True, but from a legal standpoint, the Chiefs are a throw away. As the judge makes the final call

[Zeke 5,504]

8 minutes ago, SJG said:

True, but from a legal standpoint, the Chiefs are a throw away. As the judge makes the final call

But they are first line.

[BobA 1,235]

3 minutes ago, SJG said:

True, but from a legal standpoint, the Chiefs are a throw away. As the judge makes the final call

The Judge only gets to make the call if the Chief approves your application. Should he be allowed to approve his daughter’s boyfriend and not that of a neighbor with a barking dog?  Dumb examples, true, but certainly a possibility under unconstitutional justice. 

Criminal background or ligitament professionally proven unstable mental history should be the only determining factors.  

 

[Zeke 5,504]

56 minutes ago, SJG said:

True, but from a legal standpoint, the Chiefs are a throw away. As the judge makes the final call

@SJG are you familiar with the application process of a N.J. ccw?

[bhunted 887]

Its been my experience over the decades that chiefs, being your friend or not, could:

Say, hey Johnny, I can save you the money and headache and advise not wasting your time -or- he could care less and sends it through knowing the judge will deny it. One way or another, you will get denied without purpose. Not just because of your rights, but because you don’t need it unless for your job, blah blah blah.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SJG 253]

If the Chief denies you, nothing prevents you asking for judicial review. You are going to get judicial review either way.  However, I do agree, that the present system is a bad system all around. My point was simply Appellate Review is based on what the trial judge decided. There are other States with much better CCW permitting models where the police are not decision makers but only information suppliers to an authority that makes the decision subject to a judicial appeal. IMO " may issue" schemes are antiquated and do not comport with the Second Amendment unless and until it is recognized that an individual who want to carry for self defense automatically establishes justifiable need or good cause.   This debate will range on until the U. S Supreme Court has the balls to  grant cert and decide the issue regarding the scope of the Second Amendment outside the home. That of course might become unnecessary if true national reciprocity is ever passed and signed into law.

[SJG 253]

On 1/30/2018 at 4:46 PM, BobA said:

The Judge only gets to make the call if the Chief approves your application. Should he be allowed to approve his daughter’s boyfriend and not that of a neighbor with a barking dog?  Dumb examples, true, but certainly a possibility under unconstitutional justice. 

Criminal background or ligitament professionally proven unstable mental history should be the only determining factors.  

 

I disagree: physical defect that makes it impossible for applicant to safely handle firearm; addiction to drug or alcohol irrespective of criminal conviction; minority, unless a member of the armed services, renounced U.S. citizenship; dishonorable  discharge from U. S. armed services; non resident alien legal or illegal entry into U. S., undef a domestic violence restraining order, which has not been vacated. Do you want the above carrying guns?

[capt14k 2,052]

I disagree: physical defect that makes it impossible for applicant to safely handle firearm; addiction to drug or alcohol irrespective of criminal conviction; minority, unless a member of the armed services, renounced U.S. citizenship; dishonorable  discharge from U. S. armed services; non resident alien legal or illegal entry into U. S., undef a domestic violence restraining order, which has not been vacated. Do you want the above carrying guns?

Minority???

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[1LtCAP 4,262]

this is pretty simple. if you trust one to walk amongst you and those you care about....then you should be able to trust them with a firearm. if you do not trust one to walk amongst you and those you care about......they should still be in prison.

[voyager9 3,434]

10 hours ago, SJG said:

I disagree: physical defect that makes it impossible for applicant to safely handle firearm; addiction to drug or alcohol irrespective of criminal conviction; minority, unless a member of the armed services, renounced U.S. citizenship; dishonorable  discharge from U. S. armed services; non resident alien legal or illegal entry into U. S., undef a domestic violence restraining order, which has not been vacated. Do you want the above carrying guns?

How many of the above could legally purchase now?