Jump to content
Downtownv

NRA backs lawsuit claiming NJ handgun policy is ‘unconstitutional’

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, capt14k said:

I think you misunderstand how the previous cases ended. Once their permits were granted they no longer had standing. They were suing for the right to carry. State granted it to them. How can you say they would owe money? How could they stay part of the case? Your honor I would like to continue to sue for my right to carry even though NJ granted me a carry permit?


What was supposed to happen is 2A groups built on the win and argued why is it a right for some but not all. This maybe that case or it may not be. If it is not anyone who applies and gets their CCW is rewarded for having the guts to take a stand. Maybe the next case will help everyone.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

Ah, ok, I did misunderstand. Frankly, I haven't delved into those previous cases! But, I see your point... once the permit was in hand, the harm to those plaintiffs was effectively "undone" and the case ended from a legal standpoint. Makes total sense!

Presumably that's why this case is structured as it is... why it's including other plaintiffs, both individuals and an unnamed large group of gun owners (e.g., "10's of thousands"). I'm guessing... the plan might be that even as individual plaintiff's permits might get granted (forcing them to drop out), ANJRPC will backfill them with more plaintiffs... to keep the case rolling and rolling and rolling... all the way to SCOTUS? But, honestly, I have to go back and listen to the rest of that radio program - this is getting interesting! :)

Either way, I am delighted the game is afoot! I hope this case is "the one", and if not, that there's another one right on its heels. I'd like to see ANJRPC/NRA become a freakin' NIGHTMARE for this new governor!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, ok, I did misunderstand. Frankly, I haven't delved into those previous cases! But, I see your point... once the permit was in hand, the harm to those plaintiffs was effectively "undone" and the case ended from a legal standpoint. Makes total sense!
Presumably that's why this case is structured as it is... why it's including other plaintiffs, both individuals and an unnamed large group of gun owners (e.g., "10's of thousands"). I'm guessing... the plan might be that even as individual plaintiff's permits might get granted (forcing them to drop out), ANJRPC will backfill them with more plaintiffs... to keep the case rolling and rolling and rolling... all the way to SCOTUS? But, honestly, I have to go back and listen to the rest of that radio program - this is getting interesting! [emoji4]
Either way, I am delighted the game is afoot! I hope this case is "the one", and if not, that there's another one right on its heels. I'd like to see ANJRPC/NRA become a freakin' NIGHTMARE for this new governor!
That is what I think the plan is. Get so many involved that have been denied, then the state either grants the permits en masse and defends why the next round of permits aren't granted, or the state stays in the fight and the courts rule against the state, thus leading to CCW for everyone.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

@Mrs. Peel while I am very competitive I don't mean to turn it into a competition. It's just this is an issue that has bothered me for years in NJ. Firearms owners talk other firearms owners out of applying for CCW out of fear of losing future rights and no one applies.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

I assure you, that wasn't my intention! In fact, I've stated on NJGF more than once that applying "en masse" seemed like a good strategy to me for a multitude of reasons. I simply got leery when I heard what sounded like people "assuming" they'll be invited to join as a plaintiff,  etc. There's no guarantees of that, of course.

That said, I guess there's no downside to applying either. What's the worst that happens? You get denied for lack of justifiable need and maybe you can't afford the lawsuit on your own? So... you don't sue. You're really no worse off, I guess, than you were before you applied! You still don't have a CCW permit. And the NJSP rep has already confirmed it doesn't hurt your chance to reapply at some future point, either within NJ if the law changes... or in another state.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 And makes his money on book sales and charges people to hear him speak. What do I base his unfounded statements causing people to repeat what he says as gospel? How about a loaded magazine by itself is illegal in NJ? I find him to be overrated and IMO he has done absolutely nothing for NJ Firearms Owners other than plead some cases out. I am not a fan of Nappen and I’m sorry if that hurts anyone's feelings.    

 

Since you seem to be close to Nappen how about next time you speak to him ask him what happened to taking the Pantano case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

 

 

 

 

Regarding the loaded magazine issue. I have spoken with 3 different attorneys (Nappen included) regarding transporting loaded magazines they all advise not to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regarding the loaded magazine issue. I have spoken with 3 different attorneys (Nappen included) regarding transporting loaded magazines they all advise not to do it.

I guess I live on the edge, but there is nothing in the law that says loaded magazines separate from the firearm is illegal. What is the purpose of bringing extra mags to the range if you have to load them when you get there?

 

 

Also keep in mind you are asking attorneys they are going to advise don't do it to protect themselves. Nappen actively promoted the myth.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I guess I live on the edge, but there is nothing in the law that says loaded magazines separate from the firearm is illegal. What is the purpose of bringing extra mags to the range if you have to load them when you get there?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

That is always going to be up to the prick that pulls you over....Most cops are very understanding but others are not. They resent the fact you even own a gun, they are use to "them only" (except politicians, judges and prosecutors) Their Lives are so much more important than yours!

Therein lies the problem...Piss on Loretta Weinberg and all the rest of them!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is always going to be up to the prick that pulls you over....Most cops are very understanding but others are not. They resent the fact you even own a gun, they are use to "them only" (except politicians, judges and prosecutors) Their Lives are so much more important than yours!
Therein lies the problem...Piss on Loretta Weinberg and all the rest of them!
I'm curious has anyone ever been convicted or even arrested for possession of a loaded magazine; that didn't contain hollow points? If so what were they charged with?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) there is nothing in any of the statutes which says we cannot transport loaded mags.

2) the guys that spent so much money suing, supposedly hoping their case would go to the supreme court so that nj's laws would be busted got their permits, and then backed off. what's a nj ccw good for? 2 years? what're they gonna do when they don't get renewed?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it doesn't matter, I would go for this one.

“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.”

 

It would be great to have it in writing that this does not apply in NJ

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fred2 said:

What are stating for Justifiable Need?

 

We don't need a justifiable need... They need a justifiable need to decline me :)

2 minutes ago, Fred2 said:

If it doesn't matter, I would go for this one.

“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.”

 

It would be great to have it in writing that this does not apply in NJ

 

 

I like the way you think!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fred2 said:

If it doesn't matter, I would go for this one.

“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.”

 

It would be great to have it in writing that this does not apply in NJ

 

 

You should 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regarding the loaded magazine issue. I have spoken with 3 different attorneys (Nappen included) regarding transporting loaded magazines they all advise not to do it.

The following is speculation and not settled law. It's not illegal to place ammunition in a magazine. You might even be able to transport a firearm with an empty chamber and loaded magazine and not have a loaded firearm.

 

If you go to trial, do you really want to be tasked with educating 12 men and women as to the difference while the prosecutor loads the ammo into the magazine, loads the magazine into the firearm and muddied the water for you.

 

It's entirely possible that you received advice from a set of lawyers not based on the law but on the practical defensible application of the law.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

1) there is nothing in any of the statutes which says we cannot transport loaded mags.

2) the guys that spent so much money suing, supposedly hoping their case would go to the supreme court so that nj's laws would be busted got their permits, and then backed off. what's a nj ccw good for? 2 years? what're they gonna do when they don't get renewed?

The people that sued and got their permits did not "back off", they lost standing.  The ability to sue was taken away from them by the state when the permit to carry (NJ does not distinguish type of carry).  It was a smooth legal maneuver by the state.  This is why any lawsuit needs a lot of people (1000's) to be denied.  The state can easily grant 10's of permits but they cannot simply grant 1000's without destroying their defense mechanism (granting permit to carry to take standing from the plaintiff).

Gun owners in NJ always sit on the sidelines and complain while waiting for someone else to carry the burden.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

That be me bob, works for NH

when i fill out my app, that's what i'm gonna put on there.

1 hour ago, JC_68Westy said:

The people that sued and got their permits did not "back off", they lost standing.  The ability to sue was taken away from them by the state when the permit to carry (NJ does not distinguish type of carry).  It was a smooth legal maneuver by the state.  This is why any lawsuit needs a lot of people (1000's) to be denied.  The state can easily grant 10's of permits but they cannot simply grant 1000's without destroying their defense mechanism (granting permit to carry to take standing from the plaintiff).

Gun owners in NJ always sit on the sidelines and complain while waiting for someone else to carry the burden.

i realize that nj doesn't distinguish...i simply type ccw, 'cause i'm too lazy to type out more, lolol.

i know why the state does it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Zeke said:

It really doesn’t matter . There could be actual zombies, and we could say “ our justifiable need is zombies “ and still get denied. It’s a moot point.

  On 2/9/2018 at 9:35 AM, John Willettsaid:

For those interested in an analysis of the concealed carry litigation environment by the attorney who filed ANJRPC's challenge:

 

Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home.  (McDonald vs Chicago)

 

If I applied I would put for self defense.  Keep it simple.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, gleninjersey said:
  On 2/9/2018 at 9:35 AM, John Willettsaid:

For those interested in an analysis of the concealed carry litigation environment by the attorney who filed ANJRPC's challenge:

 

Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home.  (McDonald vs Chicago)

 

If I applied I would put for self defense.  Keep it simple.

Self defense also is a legal purpose..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, as promised I am giving you my follow-up report.

I was dressed in Business attire on my way home from work and stopped by my local PD. I was greeted by a friendly woman and told her I would like an application for a concealed carry permit. Her smile washed away and the questions started.

Are you a ret LEO- me No

Are you a a Jeweler-me No

Are you a security blah blah blah- me No

Her- we NEVER have given an approval here ever. Me- That's ok.

Here's the app and it must include specific photos, filled out and signed in front of a notary, along with $50 app fee and you must use XYZ for fingerprints More $. Her-But I told you no one has ever been approved. I said thank you, see you in a few days.

 

My take is this is a cultural thing with these people and how DARE you challenge us....I'll be back.

 

I expect to be part of every lawsuit that happens.

 

People, you either stand for your beliefs and do this or take a seat in the stands to watch. I Prefer to be in the 3% that will stand up to tyranny. What will you do?

 

 

  • Like 8

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...