Jump to content
DirtyDigz

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

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, SJG said:

physical defect that makes it impossible for applicant to safely handle firearm;

http://www.nj.com/news/local/index.ssf/2009/11/post_36.html  Been addressed.  ADA steps up.

 

1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

addiction to drug or alcohol irrespective of criminal conviction;

Under any circumstance there are drunks and drugies out there not caught yet.  Could be you or me.  Current laws or adjusted laws have these people slipping under the wire.

 

1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

minority

You got me there.  Can’t even address that one.

 

1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

dishonorable  discharge from U. S. armed services;

How so?  Did he/she rob Post Finance? Then it’s criminal.  Did he/she go nuts on someone or something? Then it’s mental.   And it’s up to the armed forces to keep NICS advised as such.  Did he refuse to shave or get en illegal tattoo? Not criminal or mental.  Just dumb.

1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

undef a domestic violence restraining order, which has not been vacated

Criminal

1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

non resident alien legal or illegal entry into U. S

Criminal

1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

Do you want the above carrying guns?

I want the above classified correctly to fall under constitutional laws.  Not defined by Lawyers, Wall Streeters or Real Estate agents who turned career Politicians for the benefits or legacy. Those who don’t have a clue and/or don’t give a shit about anyone but themselves.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BobA said:
17 hours ago, SJG said:

physical defect that makes it impossible for applicant to safely handle firearm;

http://www.nj.com/news/local/index.ssf/2009/11/post_36.html  Been addressed.  ADA steps up.

If this has been addressed why do we still see it on the form?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, revenger said:

If this has been addressed why do we still see it on the form?

Couldn't tell ya.  But it could be the type of disparaging treatment the law suit is about.  You see yourself what was done at Easton to accommodate Handicap at the pistol ranges. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see. However, the reality is that the U.S. District Court must follow Drake, unless the U. S. Supreme Court hands down a game changing opinion on a similar case. If and when this goes up to the Third Circuit, unless we completely luck out with a great panel or an en banc court decides that Drake was decided incorrectly, they will not overturn Drake, just because a different CCA decided the issue the other way. At the time Drake was decided, the 7th Circuit, went the other way, and that did not matter. Of course, if we loose in the Third Circuit, cert can be sought in the U. S. Supreme Court. At a minimum we are looking at 2 more years and possibly as much as four years, unless the U.S. Supreme Court decides a similar case before. So, this is kind of a back to the drawing board lawsuit. It is rare for a CCA to overturn one of its own decisions, but hope springs eternal. Better than nothing happening. This is why I indicated earlier, that the recent appeal of a State Case that was discussed, needed to focus on Wren and was employing the wrong strategy. 

Share this post


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

Another suit filed to overturn Drake/Filko decision and rid us of "Justifiable Need" as per Wrenn decision.

https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/anjrpc.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/files/Filed_Complaint_Feb2018(P015.PDF

I don't even see why we should have to do this part

Plaintiffs Rogers is an ordinary, law-abiding citizen of New Jersey who wishes to carry firearms outside the home for the purpose of self-defense. He has passed all required background checks, completed all required firearm training courses, and met every other qualification imposed by New Jersey on the eligibility for a permit to carry firearms in public—

 

Either we have a right, or we don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fred2 said:

I don't even see why we should have to do this part

Plaintiffs Rogers is an ordinary, law-abiding citizen of New Jersey who wishes to carry firearms outside the home for the purpose of self-defense. He has passed all required background checks, completed all required firearm training courses, and met every other qualification imposed by New Jersey on the eligibility for a permit to carry firearms in public—

 

Either we have a right, or we don't.

But we do have the right.  And that's the point.  To SJG's point; I agree it will take a judgment from the SCOTUS.  It may not take as long as you think either.  With enough cases it may end up there sooner.  Just pray not sooner that Ginsberg leaves us.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2018 at 2:16 PM, 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
 

Well it couldn't happen to a *nicer* state ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 2/5/2018 at 5:02 PM, Fred2 said:

I don't even see why we should have to do this part

Plaintiffs Rogers is an ordinary, law-abiding citizen of New Jersey who wishes to carry firearms outside the home for the purpose of self-defense. He has passed all required background checks, completed all required firearm training courses, and met every other qualification imposed by New Jersey on the eligibility for a permit to carry firearms in public—

 

Either we have a right, or we don't.

what are those training courses that nj requires?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

i'm guessing no one down here 'round camden county area offers them?

I haven’t really looked into it. After a good discussion with my chief. I’ll aply, get denied by him for “ justifiable need” appeal. He has zero issues with him losing on appeal. But to be real, I’m not winning that appeal, soo why more out of pocket.

He is curios as hell how the judge would respond to “ all legal purposes “. If I wanted to take this further then just becoming another resource name I’d get my ducks in a row, obtain counsel, and be financially prepared. I’m not financially prepared for that endeavor 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friend of mine,  retired NJ LEO who lives in PA just received a letter from the new AG stating that NJ will no longer allow retired NJ leo's who live out of state apply for a NJ CCW as was the past practice.   Also my recent RTSP weekly email stated new requirements for NJ retired officers carry,  

 

 So murphy must be ordering this gas pumper to review all aspects of NJ ccw and put as many hurdles in the way as once NJ laws are ruled invalid they want as many financial burdens in the way.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, revenger said:

Friend of mine,  retired NJ LEO who lives in PA just received a letter from the new AG stating that NJ will no longer allow retired NJ leo's who live out of state apply for a NJ CCW as was the past practice.   Also my recent RTSP weekly email stated new requirements for NJ retired officers carry,  

 

 So murphy must be ordering this gas pumper to review all aspects of NJ ccw and put as many hurdles in the way as once NJ laws are ruled invalid they want as many financial burdens in the way.   

Why would the out-of-state RLEO need or want a NJ CCW? LEOSA covers him in every state.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The added protection while travelling through NJ,    LEOSA covers them but that still doesnt stop uneducated cops from busting balls.   If we ever get national reciprocity we will know why.    Not all retired cops look like cops anymore, some look like hippies of the sixties as there is no longer any dress requirement so if I was eligible I would want one as well.

My point is that this administration is gearing up and taking a proactive anti-gun stance for the inevitable.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, revenger said:

The added protection while travelling through NJ,    LEOSA covers them but that still doesnt stop uneducated cops from busting balls.   If we ever get national reciprocity we will know why.    Not all retired cops look like cops anymore, some look like hippies of the sixties as there is no longer any dress requirement so if I was eligible I would want one as well.

My point is that this administration is gearing up and taking a proactive anti-gun stance for the inevitable.    

I don't know what to make of this. "added protection", "some look like hippies", :facepalm:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PK90 said:

I don't know what to make of this. "added protection", "some look like hippies", :facepalm:

Yes, the other day I thought I saw one that looked like a Yippie.  Upon closer look he was only dressed as a Yuppie.  They're very clever and masters at disguise.  Be careful out there. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PK90 said:

Why would the out-of-state RLEO need or want a NJ CCW? LEOSA covers him in every state.

My friend is retired from the job in Jersey City.  He moved to PA and had to stand on his head and spit nichols to get his LEOSA.  He got it but it's all too confusing for me to remember.  I'll probably see him at the weekend's winter show in Oaks Sunday and get the scoop if we're still on this thread.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, revenger said:

 

My point is that this administration is gearing up and taking a proactive anti-gun stance for the inevitable.    

they can gear up all they want. if national recip passes, there's absolyutley nothing they can do to prevent us carrying.

  • 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...