Jump to content
Downtownv

NRA backs lawsuit claiming NJ handgun policy is ‘unconstitutional’

Recommended Posts

That of which I embolden above is the potential pitfall of all this and is a very possible outcome - I however am not applying for something where I know I will be denied and that denial can travel with you.  that's just me and some may say it is not an issue, but *IS* there an issue with it?  Especially if you now move out of state etc. or refile with other states etc.  Dunno....wouldbe nice to know the pitfalls of the denial in NJ and what ramifications there may be with said denial.

State Police have confirmed there is no repercussions of denial in NJ just need to answer YES to denied and write NJ denied CCW for lack of justifiable need. Also some have confirmed NH didn't have an issue either. Question isn't even on most states applications anymore. I just checked Arizona application and there is no such question. My guess is Nappen probably started the rumor about denial hurting future rights in other states.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 My guess is Nappen probably started the rumor about denial hurting future rights in other states.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I wouldn't be surprised one bit....

2 hours ago, capt14k said:

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

State Police have confirmed there is no repercussions of denial in NJ just need to answer YES to denied and write NJ denied CCW for lack of justifiable need. Also some have confirmed NH didn't have an issue either. Question isn't even on most states applications anymore. I just checked Arizona application and there is no such question. My guess is Nappen probably started the rumor about denial hurting future rights in other states.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Based on what, exactly?  The irony here is that now you will have started a rumor and in 3 to 6 months I'll be reading about how some numbskull "knows" this is true cause he "read it somewhere".   

Here is what I know about Evan Nappen.  He has appeared at each NJ SAFE Conference.  Do you know what we pay speakers?  Nothing. If they come from out of state, we offer them a room to stay in the night before. He has been doing a Continuing Legal Education course with us too.  You know how much money we paid him for that course?  Nothing. Zero. Zilch.  So for the past couple years, he takes his own time to travel to NJ, spend a day with us teaching CLE to help other lawyers know the gun laws better, and then speaks at the conference.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Based on what, exactly?  The irony here is that now you will have started a rumor and in 3 to 6 months I'll be reading about how some numbskull "knows" this is true cause he "read it somewhere".    Here is what I know about Evan Nappen.  He has appeared at each NJ SAFE Conference.  Do you know what we pay speakers?  Nothing. If they come from out of state, we offer them a room to stay in the night before. He has been doing a Continuing Legal Education course with us too.  You know how much money we paid him for that course?  Nothing. Zero. Zilch.  So for the past couple years, he takes his own time to travel to NJ, spend a day with us teaching CLE to help other lawyers know the gun laws better, and then speaks at the conference.      

 

 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.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2018 at 2:48 PM, Zeke said:

What would the grounds for your suit be?

 

3 hours ago, capt14k said:

State Police have confirmed there is no repercussions of denial in NJ just need to answer YES to denied and write NJ denied CCW for lack of justifiable need. Also some have confirmed NH didn't have an issue either. Question isn't even on most states applications anymore. I just checked Arizona application and there is no such question. My guess is Nappen probably started the rumor about denial hurting future rights in other states.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

He's a great self promoter. I called his office 3 times, told him it was gun related and important. Told he will call me right back. That was 2 years ago....I never got that call back.

Your entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.

He didn't know me from Adam I could have been you, I don't think he would have called you back neither.What good is a Gun attorney, if they don't call you back?

Perhaps if I was headline news he would have rushed in like Zorro and rescue me...

 

I personally have no use for someone like that.

 

 

Remember, You are entitled to ONE phone call....

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's a great self promoter. I called his office 3 times, told him it was gun related and important. Told he will call me right back. That was 2 years ago....I never got that call back.
Your entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.
He didn't know me from Adam I could have been you, I don't think he would have called you back neither.What good is a Gun attorney, if they don't call you back?
Perhaps if I was headline news he would have rushed in like Zorro and rescue me...
 
I personally have no use for someone like that.
 
 
Remember, You are entitled to ONE phone call....
 



That is the exact same response I and a friend of mine received from the Great Nappen. He also dropped Pantano like a bad habit when he didn't want to give him six figures to appeal his case. Yet Nappen told all the reporters at the time he was taking it all the way to the top.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes 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 your 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.

 

 

 

 

If you were following Pantano, you know that the NJ Supreme Court decided to not hear the case, claiming that their earlier decision to hear it was "improvident", I think.  If he couldn't appeal a state court ruling, my understanding is that it would have changed the path to SCOTUS to be through the federal court system, which we had already done with Drake, et al.  

Share this post


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

 

 

 

 


That is the exact same response I and a friend of mine received from the Great Nappen. He also dropped Pantano like a bad habit when he didn't want to give him six figures to appeal his case. Yet Nappen told all the reporters at the time he was taking it all the way to the top.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

Doesn't Nappen have an address in New Hampshire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you were following Pantano, you know that the NJ Supreme Court decided to not hear the case, claiming that their earlier decision to hear it was "improvident", I think.  If he couldn't appeal a state court ruling, my understanding is that it would have changed the path to SCOTUS to be through the federal court system, which we had already done with Drake, et al.  

 

Actually I did follow Pantano and just asked a couple weeks ago what happened to the appeal to SCOTUS. Nappen wanted too much money. That's why it was dropped. Notice I live in the same town of Manalapan.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, capt14k said:

 


Actually I did follow Pantano and just asked a couple weeks ago what happened to the appeal to SCOTUS. Nappen wanted too much money. That's why it was dropped. Notice I live in the same town.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

According to whom or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to whom or what?


From the horse's mouth. It was too much money to continue was the exact statement.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Doesn't Nappen have an address in New Hampshire?


Yes that is why he now has to travel to NJ to self promote for free and then sell tickets for his other speaking engagements.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

He's a great self promoter. I called his office 3 times, told him it was gun related and important. Told he will call me right back. That was 2 years ago....I never got that call back.

Your entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.

He didn't know me from Adam I could have been you, I don't think he would have called you back neither.What good is a Gun attorney, if they don't call you back?

Perhaps if I was headline news he would have rushed in like Zorro and rescue me...

 

I personally have no use for someone like that.

 

 

Remember, You are entitled to ONE phone call....

 

And I know several people he has helped. 

Can he be hard to get a hold of sometimes?  YES.  But then again, so am I.

My "ONE phone call" is to my wife, not my lawyer. Should I need to make it, she knows what to do from there.  (God forbid).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad the 2A groups are getting behind the latest lawsuit and I am even more ecstatic that Nappen is not the attorney. I hope this isn't a one and done lawsuit and many more are filed. Follow the lead of California and use the methods the Scientologists did. Bury them with so many lawsuits they don't know which way is up. Get injunctions as soon as the laws are signed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

 


From the horse's mouth. It was too much money to continue was the exact statement.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes that is why he now has to travel to NJ to self promote for free and then sell tickets for his other speaking engagements.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

So Nappen said that he wanted too much money to continue his case?  That doesn't make any sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So Nappen said that he wanted too much money to continue his case?  That doesn't make any sense.

 

No Patano. He has a store in Manalapan. Stop in and ask him one day. I thought the Manalapan connection made that easy to follow.

 

I really don't want to get into it with you because I think you are trying to better things, but people like Nappen are just in it for the money. Just because he shows up for a free hotel, food, and drink and doesn't get paid doesn't mean he isn't promoting himself for the payday.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any worthwhile representation at that level is going to be frighteningly expensive.  That's why cases supported and guided by institutions (like ANJRPC) are so valuable.  The fact that an individual decided it was too expensive to finance on their own doesn't mean a whole lot.  

By the way, I'm not arguing Nappen is a saint or some kind of savior.  My point was that I don't think he deserves much of the criticism that I see here based on things I personally have witnessed. 

Share this post


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

 

No Patano. He has a store in Manalapan. Stop in and ask him one day. I thought the Manalapan connection made that easy to follow.

 

I really don't want to get into it with you because I think you are trying to better things, but people like Nappen are just in it for the money. Just because he shows up for a free hotel, food, and drink and doesn't get paid doesn't mean he isn't promoting himself for the payday.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

best way in the world to increase business is to give a little away for free.

one would think that there's gotta be a way to go after this stuff based simply on the cost of proper representation......if it gets that crazy expensive that the average joe can't afford it..........

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I am glad the 2A groups are getting behind the latest lawsuit and I am even more ecstatic that Nappen is not the attorney. I hope this isn't a one and done lawsuit and many more are filed. Follow the lead of California and use the methods the Scientologists did. Bury them with so many lawsuits they don't know which way is up. Get injunctions as soon as the laws are signed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There is another suit being filed.  Looking for donations.

https://www.gofundme.com/restore-carry-nj

Share this post


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

I am glad the 2A groups are getting behind the latest lawsuit and I am even more ecstatic that Nappen is not the attorney. I hope this isn't a one and done lawsuit and many more are filed. Follow the lead of California and use the methods the Scientologists did. Bury them with so many lawsuits they don't know which way is up. Get injunctions as soon as the laws are signed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There is another suit being filed.  Looking for donations.

https://www.gofundme.com/restore-carry-nj


It's Launch Time!

 

Share this post


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

Isn't that the same one that has 3-4 threads on the forum?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

Yep same.  I'm glad it popped up again though since it reminded me to donate and share on Facebook!

Share this post


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

Saying they are representing and actual standing are two different things. If you have never applied you right to carry has never been denied. Restricted out of fear maybe.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I was out today (shooting, yay!)... hence my delayed response. I'm not sure "standing" is quite as cut and dry as many people think. Again, I'm not a lawyer... but I can read and interpret. And, as a layperson, I read through these simple Wikipedia definitions (below) and it appears to me that "standing" may come from direct harm -or- indirect harm. Further, it shows that the mere threat of harm can cause a "chilling effect" on people exercising their "constitutional" rights specifically - and that indeed confers a indirect form  of "legal standing".  Hmmmm....! 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

If you read that second citation, it notes that it's the fear of "legal sanction" that causes this (legal) chilling effect. 

So, with all of that in mind, I went back and reread that lawsuit. Let me draw your attention to Para. 36 which states: 

Plaintiff ANJRPC has numerous members who wish to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense but have not applied for a Handgun Carry Permit because they know that, although they satisfy or can satisfy all other requirements of N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4, they are unable to satisfy the “justifiable need” requirement. But for Defendants’ continued enforcement of the New Jersey laws and regulations set forth above, those members would forthwith carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense but refrain from doing so for fear of arrest and prosecution.  [boldface//underlining added by me].

Words matter! And, usually, every phrase in a well-constructed lawsuit is there for a very specific legal reason... (lawyers don't like adding superfluous "ideas" that could muddy the waters, so to speak).  Though it appears that  the chilling effect doctrine is most commonly applied to 1st amendment cases, it sounds like they're trying to apply it in this case to the 2nd amendment. Paragraph  36 makes the argument that (aside from the 2 plaintiffs) - this "chilling effect" is far broader and impacts a very large number of people. (I'm sure this is the wrong legal phrasing, but I think the way this lawsuit is structured almost lends a "class action" vibe).

Members of the jury... I rest my case! ;)

(LMAO!!)


 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was out today (shooting, yay!)... hence my delayed response. I'm not sure "standing" is quite as cut and dry as many people think. Again, I'm not a lawyer... but I can read and interpret. And, as a layperson, I read through these simple Wikipedia definitions (below) and it appears to me that "standing" may come from direct harm -or- indirect harm. Further, it shows that the mere threat of harm can cause a "chilling effect" on people exercising their "constitutional" rights specifically - and that indeed confers a indirect form  of "legal standing".  Hmmmm....! 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

If you read that second citation, it notes that it's the fear of "legal sanction" that causes this (legal) chilling effect. 

So, with all of that in mind, I went back and reread that lawsuit. Let me draw your attention to Para. 36 which states: 

Plaintiff ANJRPC has numerous members who wish to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense but have not applied for a Handgun Carry Permit because they know that, although they satisfy or can satisfy all other requirements of N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4, they are unable to satisfy the “justifiable need” requirement. But for Defendants’ continued enforcement of the New Jersey laws and regulations set forth above, those members would forthwith carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense but refrain from doing so for fear of arrest and prosecution.  [boldface//underlining added by me].

Words matter! And, usually, every phrase in a well-constructed lawsuit is there for a very specific legal reason... (lawyers don't like adding superfluous "ideas" that could muddy the waters, so to speak).  Though it appears that  the chilling effect doctrine is most commonly applied to 1st amendment cases, it sounds like they're trying to apply it in this case to the 2nd amendment. Paragraph  36 makes the argument that (aside from the 2 plaintiffs) - this "chilling effect" is far broader and impacts a very large number of people. (I'm sure this is the wrong legal phrasing, but I think the way this lawsuit is structured almost lends a "class action" vibe).

Members of the jury... I rest my case! [emoji6]

(LMAO!!)

 

 

I like their approach, but I like having actual standing and actual numbers of denied permits a lot more. Especially being NJ has used the tactic before. The fear of applying and losing rights elsewhere is an easy one for the State to Defend, because it is an unreasonable fear. The not applying because you know you will be denied is better, but it is tough when the state says we approve 90% of applications.

 

 

Once Kennedy retires it is a different story. Until he does though SCOTUS will not take a 2A case. Though he should be retiring soon and any case brought now likely will not reach SCOTUS til Kennedy has been replaced by someone more Conservative than Thomas.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Words matter! And, usually, every phrase in a well-constructed lawsuit is there for a very specific legal reason... (lawyers don't like adding superfluous "ideas" that could muddy the waters, so to speak)

It’s true. Putting words together for lawyers is what my “Henry Fiancé” does for a living. I’d only like to add that they definitely will put together words that will muddy the waters if that’s their intent. And often it is. So you can rest assured it’s crafted in a deliberate manner. I hear it daily when “how was your day” time comes around. 

 

That being said, I think one of the cleverest moves here is not just the 2A but also the 14thA. Even treatment. Disparaging treatment with regards to the constitution and it’s citizens. I think that’s the blindside that will carry a lot of weight here. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To @Mrs. Peel myself and[mention=4503]Downtownv[/mention] were right. Listen to 5 min mark of gun for hire broadcast they are looking for more plaintiffs. Now let's see who has the balls to apply.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

To @Mrs. Peel myself and[mention=4503]Downtownv[/mention] were right. Listen to 5 min mark of gun for hire broadcast they are looking for more plaintiffs. Now let's see who has the balls to apply.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

Ummm... it's a discussion, not a competition...  :facepalm:  (Men!! LOL).That said, in the radio show, I noticed what ANJRPC didn't mention was any kind of date for inclusion (like having applied before the case was filed), so I'm going to assume that's not an issue (from a legal perspective)... and they may assess prospective plaintiffs on a case-by-case basis going forward.

And I know you won't agree with me on this next point... but I'm sure you and others will apply to (as you say) hedge your bets that the state will grant your permits just to make this case "go away".  Sorry to sound like a meanie, but I personally hope like hell that ANJRPC has added some kind of fail-safe to prevent that... for instance, a signed agreement stating if an individual exits the case, they owe their portion of the legal fees. It seems only fair to me! This case is being funded by members' fees and the donations of the 2A community - why should it benefit just a small handful of people? I think people are sick of being duped by other plaintiffs that have come before.

16 minutes ago, Downtownv said:

I see it this way. I have nothing from NJ and Nothing to lose. Application tomorrow.

They have no control over my existing permits.

I Loath these Bastards!

In any event... Godspeed on your applications, Gentlemen... and Ladies, too... whoever you are! :D I'd like to say this will be exciting to watch... but realistically, as slow as the legal system moves, it will be more like watching paint dry. LOL. Nonetheless, I LOVE to see lawsuits rolling forward. I think it's fantastic!  This state has been stomping on people's constitutional rights for far too long!!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In any event... Godspeed on your applications, Gentlemen... and Ladies, too... whoever you are! [emoji3] I'd like to say this will be exciting to watch... but realistically, as slow as the legal system moves, it will be more like watching paint dry. LOL. Nonetheless, I LOVE to see lawsuits rolling forward. I think it's fantastic!  This state has been stomping on people's constitutional rights for far too long!!

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.

 

 

If anyone should be mad about money donated and wasted it should be those who were snookered by a compulsive litigant.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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

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.



  • olight.jpg

    Use Promo Code "NJGF10" for 10% Off Regular Items

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Posts

    • I have a Springfield 1903 that I inherited long ago.  It was my grandfather's, my father's and finally mine but I know little about it! I also have the original bayonet that it came with.  It's made by Springfield and the serial # is 249839.  I have been told it's unsafe to shoot at that #. I have found that this 1903 was actually made in 1903 and has a casehardened receiver. I know that myself and my descendants have never fired it. The rifling looks brand new for a 119 year old rifle! I know nothing about it's value, how to judge it's condition, etc.  I put a few quick pics below and would appreciate any guidance you could give me.  
    • That paragraph describes the method of securing a firearm when being transported under a number of clauses in that section. You have to read the whole thing. It begins with: So look back to see what 2C:39-5 says about handguns and rifles/shotguns: Note the 2 underlined parts. If you have a permit to carry a handgun, possession of a handgun is not a crime. Therefore, you cannot be exempted, because there is no offence to be exempted from. However, almost nobody ever gets a permit to carry a handgun so almost all of us have to work under the exemptions for handguns. If you have an FPIC, possession of a rifle or shotgun is not a crime. Therefore, you cannot be exempted, because there is no offence to be exempted from. Notice that there is no mention of a loaded handgun, therefore all handguns are treated the same, loaded or not which is how carry permit holders can carry loaded handguns - it is not until you are forced to transport under the exemptions that being unloaded is required for handguns. However, possession of loaded rifles or shotguns is specifically called out as an offence. The thing you may realize from this is that if you have an FPIC, you do not have to adhere to 2C:39-6.g and can have the unloaded rifle or shotgun uncased. That is not to say you wouldn't potentially get jammed up under another charge, such as causing a public alarm or disturbance if you were walking down Main St with it on a sling, but you're not committing a firearms offence per se. Now go back and read what HE and I have said before - do not take my word for any of this. I am not a lawyer and this advice is worth no more than what you paid me for it. Read the whole of 2C:39 and 2C:58 and the relevant parts of the Admin Code, and then decide for yourself whether you believe me or need to ask someone who is actually qualified to explain this.
    • The statutes for transporting firearms do not specify handguns, but seem to apply to all firearms?   2C:39-6 g.   Any weapon being transported under paragraph (2) of subsection b., subsection e., or paragraph (1) or (3) of subsection f. of this section shall be carried unloaded and contained in a closed and fastened case, gunbox, securely tied package, or locked in the trunk of the automobile in which it is being transported, and in the course of travel shall include only deviations as are reasonably necessary under the circumstances.
    • Passed my online exam, but no field sessions available yet. And can I bring a 12-gauge shotgun only, or do I have to use a muzzleloader too?   When do they resume? 
    • I have that same S&W 686 6 shot in a 2.5 barrel, and I keep it at arm's reach at night from my bed loaded with 38 +P HP ammo. 357 ammo has too much recoil in a 2.5 barrel for home defense.   
×
×
  • Create New...