Jump to content
Downtownv

NRA backs lawsuit claiming NJ handgun policy is ‘unconstitutional’

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Again, not holding you back.

have the paperwork right here in front of me.

 

less talk, more action.

Look who' talking. ...when r u doing it?

 

Your famous for one sentence that's 3 words..... utterly amazing

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly how the Mosques got their consent to build and huge monetary awards granted them by the courts / millions in damages in Somerset County......suing the Municipalities and anyone involved personally be it council members or in this case CLEO who makes a Civil Rights decision based on his opinion.......sometin's wrong here....OMO.

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. 
And now 7 days ago UHGC offers a special discount to people who donate to NJ2AS.

This is after NJ2AS tried to shake down Woodland Park and RTSP for sponsorship money and was refused.

Money talks and everything but come on.

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And now 7 days ago UHGC offers a special discount to people who donate to NJ2AS.

This is after NJ2AS tried to shake down Woodland Park and RTSP for sponsorship money and was refused.

Money talks and everything but come on.

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk

Again due to poor advice from the self appointed GM. Who it seems now is the self appointed owner.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


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

And now 7 days ago UHGC offers a special discount to people who donate to NJ2AS.

This is after NJ2AS tried to shake down Woodland Park and RTSP for sponsorship money and was refused.

Money talks and everything but come on.

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk
 

I can't speak to any political actions - real or perceived - that happened in the past with these groups. It's honestly just beyond my scope of knowledge (probably pre-dates my interest in shooting). I'm only speaking from a communications standpoint. IMO, as a general rule, ANY 2A spokesperson in this state when speaking with the press should: 1) promote the 2A cause, 2) certainly, promote their own business or group, and concurrently, 3) refrain from trashing any OTHER 2A individuals/orgs/businesses. 

Sure, squabble and fight for members & donations (that's just life, big deal)... but for goodness sakes, keep the infighting out of the damn press (and social media pages too). Really, is that such a high bar to meet? :facepalm:

When someone starts a squabble in a public venue, squawking to the press like a moron, trashing other 2A entities... they are hurting the LARGER 2A cause. And don't we have enough challenges in this state already? People who do that crap won't get my support, it's that simple. Hey... that's just me. Everyone is free to follow their own values/personal guidelines.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't speak to any political actions - real or perceived - that happened in the past with these groups. It's honestly just beyond my scope of knowledge (probably pre-dates my interest in shooting). I'm only speaking from a communications standpoint. IMO, as a general rule, ANY 2A spokesperson in this state when speaking with the press should: 1) promote the 2A cause, 2) certainly, promote their own business or group, and concurrently, 3) refrain from trashing any OTHER 2A individuals/orgs/businesses. 
Sure, squabble and fight for members & donations (that's just life, big deal)... but for goodness sakes, keep the infighting out of the damn press (and social media pages too). Really, is that such a high bar to meet? :facepalm:
When someone starts a squabble in a public venue, squawking to the press like a moron, trashing other 2A entities... they are hurting the LARGER 2A cause. And don't we have enough challenges in this state already? People who do that crap won't get my support, it's that simple. Hey... that's just me. Everyone is free to follow their own values/personal guidelines.
Completely agree with points 1, 2 and 3.



Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, xXxplosive said:

.....as I said, if that's the case the CLEO and Township should be named in the lawsuit also for violation of 2A Rights......OMO.

Read the suit that is linked in another topic.  It does name the police Chief and also the the Judge I believe.  I don't think you can sue them personally.  They personally may be pro-2A but they have to operate within the law as it is.  

The ANJRPC seeks to get rid of "justifiable need".  We won in DC.  We'll win here too!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read the suit that is linked in another topic.  It does name the police Chief and also the the Judge I believe.  I don't think you can sue them personally.  They personally may be pro-2A but they have to operate within the law as it is.  

The ANJRPC seeks to get rid of "justifiable need".  We won in DC.  We'll win here too!

I believe Federal Civil Rights Violations they are not immune from suit. I have to double check.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, gleninjersey said:

Read the suit that is linked in another topic.  It does name the police Chief and also the the Judge I believe.  I don't think you can sue them personally.  They personally may be pro-2A but they have to operate within the law as it is.  

The ANJRPC seeks to get rid of "justifiable need".  We won in DC.  We'll win here too!

That is exactly it. What laws of the state should they not obey? They don’t make the laws.

Share this post


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

Read the suit that is linked in another topic.  It does name the police Chief and also the the Judge I believe.  I don't think you can sue them personally.  They personally may be pro-2A but they have to operate within the law as it is.  

The ANJRPC seeks to get rid of "justifiable need".  We won in DC.  We'll win here too!

So in other words, the "I was just following orders" defense works for them?

Judges should know that the Bill of Rights overrules state law. If they don't get it, they are guilty of "war crimes" against the citizens.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2C:58-4.  Permits to carry handguns
      a.  Scope and duration of authority.    Any person who holds a valid permit to carry a handgun issued pursuant to this section shall be authorized to carry a handgun in all parts of this State, except as prohibited by section 2C:39-5e.  One permit shall be sufficient for all handguns owned by the holder thereof, but the permit shall apply only to a handgun carried by the actual and  legal holder of the permit.

    All permits to carry handguns shall expire 2 years from the date of issuance  or, in the case of an employee of an armored car company, upon termination of  his employment by the company occurring prior thereto whichever is earlier in  time, and they may thereafter be renewed every 2 years in the same manner and  subject to the same conditions as in the case of original applications.

      b.  Application forms.    All applications for permits to carry handguns,  and all applications for renewal of such permits, shall be made on the forms  prescribed by the superintendent.  Each application shall set forth the full  name, date of birth, sex, residence, occupation, place of business or  employment, and physical description of the applicant, and such other information as the superintendent may prescribe for the determination of the applicant's eligibility for a permit and for the proper enforcement of this chapter.  The application shall be signed by the applicant under oath, and shall be indorsed by three reputable persons who have known the applicant for at least 3 years preceding the date of application, and who shall certify thereon that the applicant is a person of good moral character and behavior.

      c.  Investigation and approval.    Each application shall in the first instance be submitted to the chief police officer of the municipality in which the applicant resides, or to the superintendent, (1) if the applicant is an employee of an armored car company, or (2) if there is no chief police officer in the municipality where the applicant resides, or (3) if the applicant does not reside in this State.  The chief police officer, or the superintendent, as the case may be, shall cause the fingerprints of the applicant to be taken and compared with any and all records maintained by the municipality, the county in  which it is located, the State Bureau of Identification and the Federal Bureau  of Identification.  He shall also determine and record a complete description of each handgun the applicant intends to carry.

    No application shall be approved by the chief police officer or the superintendent unless the applicant demonstrates that he is not subject to any of the disabilities set forth in 2C:58-3c., that he is thoroughly familiar with  the safe handling and use of handguns, and that he has a justifiable need to  carry a handgun.  If the application is not approved by the chief police  officer or the superintendent within 60 days of filing, it shall be deemed to  have been approved, unless the applicant agrees to an extension of time in  writing.
 
2C:58-4.1.  Employee of armored car company;  application;  letter from chief executive officer
    In addition to the requirements of N.J.S. 2C:58-4 any application to carry a  handgun by an employee of an armored car company shall be accompanied by a letter from the chief executive officer of the armored car company verifying employment of the applicant;  endorsing approval of the application;  and agreeing to notify the superintendent forthwith upon the termination of the employee of any person to whom a permit is issued and to obtain from the employee the permit which shall thereupon be surrendered to the superintendent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • This Mornings Asbury Park Press:
  • A Wall man, a statewide association of gun clubs and the National Rifle Association are taking on New Jersey’s gun laws, asking a federal court to throw out the state’s restrictions on carrying handguns in a case they hope will reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
     

    Thomas R. Rogers, described as a Wall businessman who services ATM machines in high-crime areas, and the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. filed a federal lawsuit Monday seeking to have what they said were New Jersey’s “draconian” gun restrictions declared unconstitutional.

    The lawsuit, supported by the NRA, asserts that New Jersey’s restrictions on carrying guns violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

    New Jersey’s law limits the right to carry firearms outside the home to those individuals who can show they have a “justifiable need’’ to do so, according to the lawsuit.

     In order to do that, the individual “must establish specific or serious threats or previous attacks which put him in special and unavoidable danger to obtain a permit from the state to carry a firearm in public,’’ the suit says.

    The effect is “to make it wholly illegal for typical law-abiding citizens to carry handguns in public – for by definition, these ordinary citizens cannot show that they face a serious or specific, unavoidable threat that poses a special danger to their safety,’’ the suit said.

    Rogers was just such an ordinary citizen who passed the required background checks, completed required firearm training courses and met every other requirement to be eligible to obtain a permit to carry firearms in public, the suit said. But, because he cannot establish a clear and present threat to his safety, Wall Police Chief Kenneth J. Brown and Superior Court Judge Joseph W. Oxley denied his permit application, the suit said.

    “That result simply cannot be squared with the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment,’’ the suit said.

    Rogers was robbed at gunpoint many years ago while working as a restaurant manager, and now runs a large ATM business for which he must frequently service ATM machines in high-crime areas, the suit said. He wants to carry a handgun in public for self-defense, but is barred from doing so, the suit said.

     Violating New Jersey’s handgun-carrying ban carries a prison term up to 10 years.

    Named as defendants in the suit are state Attorney General Gurbir Grewal, and Patrick J. Callahan, acting superintendent of the New Jersey State Police. Also named as defendants are Brown, Oxley, who sits in Monmouth County Superior Court, and Superior Court Judge N. Peter Conforti, who sits in Sussex County and was said to have denied a carrying permit to a member of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs who lives in Sussex County.

    State officials did not immediately respond to requests to comment on the lawsuit. The defendants have not yet filed responses to the suit. Gov. Phil Murphy, in his election campaign last year, said he would direct the attorney general’s office to enforce the state’s gun laws more vigorously than they had been under the administration of former Gov. Chris Christie. Murphy also vowed to sign gun-control laws that Christie vetoed.

    More: Las Vegas shooting: Guadagno, Murphy split on guns

    More: Las Vegas shooting: Christie says gun control wouldn't work

    While federal courts have previously upheld New Jersey’s gun carrying restrictions, the lawsuit is asking the federal court in New Jersey to take a second look, in light of a recent federal court decision striking down a restriction similar to New Jersey’s in Washington, D.C., said Scott Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs.

    “This is the first time there has been a split among the federal circuit courts,’’ Bach said. “That is usually when the U.S. Supreme Court gets involved.

    “We fully hope and expect our case and others like it will go up to the U.S. Supreme Court, where eventually this issue will be resolved for the entire nation, once and for all,’’ Bach said.  

    Kathleen Hopkins: 732-643-4202; [email protected]  

     

Where's Mr TOO important, Celebrity Lawyer Evan Nappen?

 

MIA?

 

Can't make yourself rich and famous here?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Fred2 said:

So in other words, the "I was just following orders" defense works for them?

Judges should know that the Bill of Rights overrules state law. If they don't get it, they are guilty of "war crimes" against the citizens.

"War crimes" is a stretch.  No integrity would be more fitting.  But then most of them prob are dems / liberals who agree with the law as is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2018 at 2:51 PM, xXxplosive said:

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.

This goes back to the previous thread where I was saying that you have no standing if you haven't been denied.  If you haven't been denied, then you cannot show that any harm has been done to you.  Nobody has violated your 2nd Amendment rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, JC_68Westy said:

This goes back to the previous thread where I was saying that you have no standing if you haven't been denied.  If you haven't been denied, then you cannot show that any harm has been done to you.  Nobody has violated your 2nd Amendment rights.

I thought that was why the wording of the suit was particularly clever. By saying (don't have exact words in front of me) - we represent 10's of 1000's of gun owners who would apply, but who don't simply because they know they'll never meet the definition of "justifiable need" -  it infers that the law alone is blocking people from applying. Now, whether that's enough to meet the threshold of the phrase "legal standing", I don't know. But, it certainly gives the case much broader "emotional punch" - which I sort of liked. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JC_68Westy said:

This goes back to the previous thread where I was saying that you have no standing if you haven't been denied.  If you haven't been denied, then you cannot show that any harm has been done to you.  Nobody has violated your 2nd Amendment rights.

indeed they have. ask most that would want to carry as to why they never applied...and they will all say the same thing....'cause they know they wouldn't get it.....that sounds like violation of 2a rights to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Downtownv said:

What do you think would happen if 1000/10000/50000 people or more ALL applied for carry permits on a given day?

And maybe a reporter came with you..

Right now in the PRNJ if 10,000 people applied, the courts would be backlogged with cases so the process would take a long time. In the end 10,000 people would be denied. A few might get them for being a friend or relative of judge or politician.:mad:

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

indeed they have. ask most that would want to carry as to why they never applied...and they will all say the same thing....'cause they know they wouldn't get it.....that sounds like violation of 2a rights to me.

I hear what you are saying, but there are no metrics to back up your statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hear what you are saying, but there are no metrics to back up your statement.
That's been part of the problem. I'm going to apply and get denied, then hope I can get attached to the suit, and if NJ gives in to not lose in court at least I get a CCW

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

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...