Downtownv

NRA backs lawsuit claiming NJ handgun policy is ‘unconstitutional’

252 posts in this topic

NRA backs lawsuit claiming NJ handgun policy is ‘unconstitutional’

Posted: Feb 07, 2018 7:37 PM ESTUpdated: Feb 08, 2018 6:25 AM EST
 
 
 
 
 
NRA backs lawsuit claiming NJ handgun policy is ‘unconstitutional’
 
 
00:00 / 02:09
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CC
 
 
 
MONROE TOWNSHIP -

The National Rifle Association is backing a lawsuit filed by a New Jersey gun group that says the state’s handgun permit policy is “unconstitutional.”

The lawsuit was filed by the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs. The group’s suit seeks to throw out handgun permitting rules, especially the ones about concealed carry.

Ira Levin owns the Union Hill Gun Club in Monroe Township, which opened this month. The club already has 1,200 members, just under the number of handgun permits in the state, according to GunsToCarry.com. Levin says that the lawsuit is long overdue.

“I have concealed carry permits in the states of Utah, Florida, Arizona and New Hampshire. I can legally carry a concealed weapon in 40 states. I cannot carry a concealed handgun in my home state of New Jersey,” he says.

In order to successfully receive a concealed carry permit in the state, the recipient must prove that they have a justifiable need – which means a direct threat to their life.

The lawsuit is on behalf of a Monmouth County man who says that he needs a gun to protect himself since he services ATMs in high-crime areas.

New Jersey has some of the strongest gun laws in the nation. Gun safety advocates say that the strong laws keep New Jersey safe. But Levin says that responsible gun owners do too.

“The Constitution affords us that right. Some states infringe upon that right. [New Jersey] is one of those states,” he says.

Levin says that the Union Hill Gun Club has the largest indoor gun ranges in the state.

 

http://newjersey.news12.com/story/37453873/nra-backs-lawsuit-claiming-nj-handgun-policy-is-unconstitutional

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the Big Battle that we've been waiting for!

We need EVERY Gun organization, Shooting Range and enthusiast to get in this fight.

One push, go for all the marbles!
Spread this around to everybody you can!

Timing of a ANTI Gun Governor/Legislature and Senate planning on MORE Laws will be stopped, their focus broken with this action. It's ALL or Nothing, time!

I sent this to Alex Roubian already

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had an NJ carry permit before. And I would like to help out here if possible.

I saw this lawsuit the other day. I recently learned the guy suing owns an ATM business where he Services them. Having also worked as security guard in New Jersey I applied for and received a New Jersey carry permit. The process is essentially sponsored by your employer who also writes a letter on your behalf in addition to the three letters of reference and other paperwork for the carry permit.

Permit I received just like everyone else I worked with look similar to an F ID card however it was for carrying handguns and on the back was a box where the judge could put notes and depending on what county you lived in the wording would change but always always something to the effect it was only valid while performing duties for your company.

I see that this run guy runs a small business so I'm wondering why massive security companies are able to get permits for all of their employees but this guy with his small business can't get a permit for himself or his employees? That seems extra unfair especially because New Jersey Can and does issue Carry Permits for security guards, jewelry showrooms, etc. even in the limited fashion such as this.

Share this post


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

I have had an NJ carry permit before. And I would like to help out here if possible.

I saw this lawsuit the other day. I recently learned the guy suing owns an ATM business where he Services them. Having also worked as security guard in New Jersey I applied for and received a New Jersey carry permit. The process is essentially sponsored by your employer who also writes a letter on your behalf in addition to the three letters of reference and other paperwork for the carry permit.

Permit I received just like everyone else I worked with look similar to an F ID card however it was for carrying handguns and on the back was a box where the judge could put notes and depending on what county you lived in the wording would change but always always something to the effect it was only valid while performing duties for your company.

I see that this run guy runs a small business so I'm wondering why massive security companies are able to get permits for all of their employees but this guy with his small business can't get a permit for himself or his employees? That seems extra unfair especially because New Jersey Can and does issue Carry Permits for security guards, jewelry showrooms, etc. even in the limited fashion such as this.

This actually works even better for those of us that want to see CCW. The issuance of CCW in the state is extraordinarily capricious - at best - and possibly breaches equal protection.  The latter may be a stretch, but it appears that judges are allowing, even within the same line of business, some to carry and some not to.  It just depends on the size of business and likely how close you can get to politicians.  Although, I would guess 2A's have already tried equal protection for CCW in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the permits are limited to working hours essentially. It's extremely arbitrary and will differ between employees even at the same company, depending on the individual judge who issues it. 

Wordings go anywhere from "to, from and during work" to "while performing duties for [company]" or "valid while working as [role]" or all other sorts of wordings. which means some people have to turn it in if they quit or change companies. Others can use the same permit at different companies if they leave. Some people can, depending on what the judge wrote, might be able to carry while transporting cash but not while responding to an alarm call or supervising other employees. I have even seen a permit that specified that the person had to have the gun locked while going to and from work. Nothing tops the most ridiculous I ever saw which was an individual who needed an entire new permit process because his specifically stated his job title and the guy got promoted!

Long story short, "arbitrary and capricious" is an understatement here, and I think there is definitely a case for the law not being applied equally and fairly. I.e. this small business operator cannot secure a permit even for work while big companies are able to have a hundred permitted individuals on the payroll!

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Why does the media interview Ira? Why does he refer to himself as the owner of UHGC? Is it the largest range in the state?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Who the media reaches out to has to do with: who is in their community? who has done he best job of keeping their org/business on the radar screen of local press? So, yeah, we see all kinds of individuals and groups getting interviewed - with sometimes a questionable degree of veracity.

That said, I thought this Ira guy did a pretty good job in the interview. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who the media reaches out to has to do with: who is in their community? who has done he best job of keeping their org/business on the radar screen of local press? So, yeah, we see all kinds of individuals and groups getting interviewed - with sometimes a questionable degree of veracity. That said, I thought this Ira guy did a pretty good job in the interview.

 

 

Check out some of his previous interviews with the press. Especially the ones where he threw Gun For Hire and RTSP under the bus after they experienced tragedies of people committing suicide at their businesses.

 

If I was Paul and Beth the actual owners of UHGC I would be livid. It was they who were busting their butts working everyday including weekends getting the range built. Never saw Ira there once yet every interview he says he is the owner. This one he said he selected Monroe. B.S. he had nothing to do with it. That was Paul and the seller of the property Chris who came up with the idea of a range there.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Share this post


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

 


Check out some of his previous interviews with the press. Especially the ones where he threw Gun For Hire and RTSP under the bus after they experienced tragedies of people committing suicide at their businesses.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Ohhhhh! Was THAT the guy? Yikes. OK, I totally didn't place the name! I remember that - and it was swarmy.

Well, what should happen now is that legitimate groups should reach out to that reporter/paper - touting their credentials (X # of members, etc., etc.) and say "we'd love to be a contact for future articles" - then build a relationship with the reporter, always be responsive to their calls, etc.. - and  simply nudge the other guy out of the favored position. That's how that should be handled, IMO!  Sadly, we have a few knuckleheads in the 2A community who are good at "grabbing camera time" and using it to throw their perceived competitors under the bus - but we ALL lose when they do that. Thanks, again, for bringing that to my attention! I retract my flattery of him (LOL). I really despise opportunistic, disloyal types. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ohhhhh! Was THAT the guy? Yikes. OK, I totally didn't place the name! I remember that - and it was swarmy.
Well, what should happen now is that legitimate groups should reach out to that reporter/paper - touting their credentials (X # of members, etc., etc.) and say "we'd love to be a contact for future articles" - then build a relationship with the reporter, always be responsive to their calls, etc.. - and  simply nudge the other guy out of the favored position. That's how that should be handled, IMO!  Sadly, we have a few knuckleheads in the 2A community who are good at "grabbing camera time" and using it to throw their perceived competitors under the bus - but we ALL lose when they do that. Thanks, again, for bringing that to my attention! I retract my flattery of him (LOL). I really despise opportunistic, disloyal types. 
I agree that other members of the firearms community have to start giving interviews to the press. They are afraid of being misquoted by the liberal media. I understand that, but maybe require video interview and record the interview themselves as well. UHGC isn't even a ANJRPC member club. I am glad UHGC got some exposure from the interview, but it could backfire too because he is being shown as the face of the club.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I agree that other members of the firearms community have to start giving interviews to the press. They are afraid of being misquoted by the liberal media. I understand that, but maybe require video interview and record the interview themselves as well. UHGC isn't even a ANJRPC member club. I am glad UHGC got some exposure from the interview, but it could backfire too because he is being shown as the face of the club.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

It's not that they don't give interviews - I've seen interviews with Anthony Colandro (he not only owns GFH but he's on ANJRPC's board too).. and I know Rosey has done interviews (for CNJFO). They've both done well.

My point is that if NJ's legitimate 2A groups think someone isn't the best representative (or is liable to use the interview to promote their own goals OVER and ABOVE 2A goals), they might be well-served by competing for the attention of that reporter/media contact. That's all. And as volunteers join, I think all these orgs will do better at that.. because they'll have the HELP! Everything takes time & effort to do it well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here in NJ a local Chief OP can deny ones CCL app.....I thought it had to go before a judge......and if that's so, then why isn't the lawsuit brought against the Township PD and the Chief for violating one's 2A Constitutional Rights......sue them personally.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

these guys are gonna force me to donate. dammit. and by dammit, i mean.....AWESOME!!

 

 that said........will they just issue this guys permit to make the case go away like they seem to be able to do?

2 minutes ago, xXxplosive said:

So here in NJ a local Chief OP can deny ones CCL app.....I thought it had to go before a judge......and if that's so, then why isn't the lawsuit brought against the Township PD and the Chief for violating one's 2A Constitutional Rights......sue them personally.

my understanding....you do the necessary steps to apply. the cleo then approves or denies you. if approved, then it goes to the judge. i seem to recall reading in the statutes that if you get no reply from the cleo within 60 days then it is presumed to have been approved.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

these guys are gonna force me to donate. dammit. and by dammit, i mean.....AWESOME!!

 

 that said........will they just issue this guys permit to make the case go away like they seem to be able to do?

my understanding....you do the necessary steps to apply. the cleo then approves or denies you. if approved, then it goes to the judge. i seem to recall reading in the statutes that if you get no reply from the cleo within 60 days then it is presumed to have been approved.

There is an appeal process.

Share this post


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

IMO.....forget the appeal process, why does the local CLEO have the authority to deny someone based on what.....his own opinion and representing the township.

Because legislators make laws?

Just now, 1LtCAP said:

i think he also can make the justifiable need decision

 

Yes, but still goes to court. It’s rather redundant.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

.....ridiculous, IMO.....then he should be held accountable / named in the lawsuit along with the township as well.

What would the grounds for your suit be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same as the other.....Violating my Civil and Constitutional Rights as a United States Citizen and resident in good standing in the community / township....in accordance with the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey.....if you must be denied, would you rather it be by a Superior Court Judge in accordance with the Law and US Constitution or by a local CLEO based on his personal opinion......lawsuits against local municipalities and their CLEO's should be encouraged, IMO.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, xXxplosive said:

Hey.....if you must be denied, would you rather it be by a Superior Court Judge in accordance with the Law and US Constitution or by a local CLEO based on his personal opinion......lawsuits against local municipalities and their CLEO's should be encouraged, IMO.

Then do it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Civil Rights violation contrary to the US Constitution...

Again, not holding you back.

have the paperwork right here in front of me.

 

less talk, more action.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey.....if you must be denied, would you rather it be by a Superior Court Judge in accordance with the Law and US Constitution or by a local CLEO based on his personal opinion......lawsuits against local municipalities and their CLEO's should be encouraged, IMO.

The plan needs to be everyone sues everyone. Force the State and Towns to defend so many lawsuits like Duran they say NO MAS.

 

 

As far as CLEO they can deny FID and CCW. Both of which you can appeal. They can also approve FID and CCW. FID Approval nothing more needed. CCW approval still requires Judge to approve.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now