Jump to content
capt14k

Where is the Lawsuit for NJ refusal to recognize FFL03 License

Recommended Posts

On 5/16/2018 at 7:01 PM, capt14k said:

When did I post proportions up. Filing suits does not cost much. However it forces the other side to answer. Not all these suits would be frivolous. In fact a small portion would, the others would be hail Mary's, and the main would be very winnable based on the Constitution.   

 

 

Suing every LEO personally who ever infringed on a citizens second amendment right would be part of the strategy and maybe a hail Mary but certainly winnable. Same goes for suing every legislator personally who voted to infringe on our 2A Rights. Maybe even a collusion suit between them as well.

 

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You realize that SCOTUS only hears about 1% of the cases brought to it.  I think  CCW, OGAM, and AWBs are much more likely to be heard than NJ does not recognize C&R licenses.

Suing every LEO who has infringed on someone's 2A rights?  Yes we are all aware of such instances but are you talking about an LEO enforcing one on NJ's bs gun laws?  I'll get into that next.

Suing legislators that voted to infringe of the 2A?  You realize of course that before you sue the legislators you need to prove the laws they voted for are unconstitutional.  You are also talking a 10A issue here.

Collusion between the executive and legislative branches?  That's supposed to happen.  The executive let's the legislative know what laws they need to get the job done.  Obamanocchio bypassed this by issuing Executive Orders (many of them illegal IMO).

You also realize that all three branches of government have certain immunities.  These are needed for them to do their jobs.  You seem to think if SCOTUS rules something unconstitutional every judge, cop, and legislator related to that issue should be held personally responsible.  It doesn't work that way.

Your idea of suing everyone won't get anywhere.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2018 at 6:22 PM, JT Custom Guns said:

Would it not just be easier for an  un-happy class 3 to reclassify as a Class 1 and 

be done with?

03 was designed for a collector, firearms older than 50 Years only. So to buy a 100 year old 1911, I have to apply for PPs and wait 3 months, then I can only buy every 30 days. I am disabled and cannot work an 01 license or I would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 1563621 said:

03 was designed for a collector, firearms older than 50 Years only. So to buy a 100 year old 1911, I have to apply for PPs and wait 3 months, then I can only buy every 30 days. I am disabled and cannot work an 01 license or I would.

FFL01 is for buying and reselling. Not to be used solely for personal collecting.

FFL03 is for collecting. NJ Law allows OGAM exemptions for this.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

You realize that SCOTUS only hears about 1% of the cases brought to it.  I think  CCW, OGAM, and AWBs are much more likely to be heard than NJ does not recognize C&R licenses. Suing every LEO who has infringed on someone's 2A rights?  Yes we are all aware of such instances but are you talking about an LEO enforcing one on NJ's bs gun laws?  I'll get into that next. Suing legislators that voted to infringe of the 2A?  You realize of course that before you sue the legislators you need to prove the laws they voted for are unconstitutional.  You are also talking a 10A issue here. Collusion between the executive and legislative branches?  That's supposed to happen.  The executive let's the legislative know what laws they need to get the job done.  Obamanocchio bypassed this by issuing Executive Orders (many of them illegal IMO).

You also realize that all three branches of government have certain immunities.  These are needed for them to do their jobs.  You seem to think if SCOTUS rules something unconstitutional every judge, cop, and legislator related to that issue should be held personally responsible.  It doesn't work that way.

Your idea of suing everyone won't get anywhere.  

 

 

 

 Do you even know how the civil court system works? Suing them personally would be a Hail Mary as stated and would have no intent of being heard by SCOTUS.  

 

When collusion is done to infringe on rights it doesn't matter if they are supposed to work together or not. The fact that one is passing the Unconstitutional Law and the other is enforcing it makes the Civil Rights violation that much worse, but again it is a Hail Mary that can win but is being done to force the state to defend multiple suits.

 

 

You keep bringing up 10A but you are completely wrong. States can not violate Second Amendment, First Amendment, or any other Constitutionally Protected Right.l, under the guise of state rights.

 

Obama Executive Orders were Unconstitutional.

 

 

Cop violates ones Constitutional or Civil Rights they absolutely get sued personally, and often lose. So does their superior, police department, and the town or county or state depending on the situation. That is up to a court to decide, not necessarily SCOTUS. Also for the 5th maybe 6th time it is a strategy to stretch the state thin while at the same time it is a Hail Mary that it could win. You say it would lose, but how can you say that not knowing the facts of the Right violation.

 

No they can not be sued ex post facto of a SCOTUS ruling but the constitutional violations for suits I would be looking for would be clear violations.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Do you even know how the civil court system works? Suing them personally would be a Hail Mary as stated and would have no intent of being heard by SCOTUS.  

 

When collusion is done to infringe on rights it doesn't matter if they are supposed to work together or not. The fact that one is passing the Unconstitutional Law and the other is enforcing it makes the Civil Rights violation that much worse, but again it is a Hail Mary that can win but is being done to force the state to defend multiple suits.

 

 

You keep bringing up 10A but you are completely wrong. States can not violate Second Amendment, First Amendment, or any other Constitutionally Protected Right.l, under the guise of state rights.

 

Obama Executive Orders were Unconstitutional.

 

 

Cop violates ones Constitutional or Civil Rights they absolutely get sued personally, and often lose. So does their superior, police department, and the town or county or state depending on the situation. That is up to a court to decide, not necessarily SCOTUS. Also for the 5th maybe 6th time it is a strategy to stretch the state thin while at the same time it is a Hail Mary that it could win. You say it would lose, but how can you say that not knowing the facts of the Right violation.

 

No they can not be sued ex post facto of a SCOTUS ruling but the constitutional violations for suits I would be looking for would be clear violations.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're confusing the issue and don't seem to understand how things work.  You ignore an issue one presents because you don't have an answer for it. 

You seem to want everyone to support you, on what you call, "Hail Mary" plays.  You want to spend a lot of other people's money on long shots.  I can't understand why you don't see this.  People don't want to contribute to causes that have little, if any, chance of success.  You're asking people to support something that you up front admit is unlikely to succeed.

Can't you understand why you don't have so much support for your idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're confusing the issue and don't seem to understand how things work.  You ignore an issue one presents because you don't have an answer for it. 
You seem to want everyone to support you, on what you call, "Hail Mary" plays.  You want to spend a lot of other people's money on long shots.  I can't understand why you don't see this.  People don't want to contribute to causes that have little, if any, chance of success.  You're asking people to support something that you up front admit is unlikely to succeed.
Can't you understand why you don't have so much support for your idea?


7th time it is just one part of the overall plan. It is less expensive to file suits than to answer them. Other lawsuits need to be filed as well such as denial of right to protect one's self and family by denying CCW, by taking so long to issue permits and FPID, state taking away property without compensation for magazine limits, state violating sporting use if new AWB passes, state taking away or devaluing property for collectors if AWB passes, state imposing unjust costs on a right (not a privledge like other licenses) as a form of discouraging firearms ownership in violation of the second amendment, state violating second amendment with any of their laws because shall not be infringed means just that. There are plenty of lawsuits that can be filed and should be filed.


Just because there are few on this forum that feel the same way about collecting as I and others do does not mean that is a majority opinion. As I said I and other collectors can easily vote with our wallets and feet.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


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

 


7th time it is just one part of the overall plan. It is less expensive to file suits than to answer them. Other lawsuits need to be filed as well such as denial of right to protect one's self and family by denying CCW, by taking so long to issue permits and FPID, state taking away property without compensation for magazine limits, state violating sporting use if new AWB passes, state taking away or devaluing property for collectors if AWB passes, state imposing unjust costs on a right (not a privledge like other licenses) as a form of discouraging firearms ownership in violation of the second amendment, state violating second amendment with any of their laws because shall not be infringed means just that. There are plenty of lawsuits that can be filed and should be filed.


Just because there are few on this forum that feel the same way about collecting as I and others do does not mean that is a majority opinion. As I said I and other collectors can easily vote with our wallets and feet.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

7th time?  I guess you still don't get it.  Filing  bs lawsuits makes you look like a whiner.  It also eats up assets, no matter how small, that could be used for the better fight.  One needs to prioritize.  One never wins by throwing your assets into bs you when have little chance of success.  We didn't lose 2A rights all at once and we're not going to get them back that way.

Rather than argue your point to me or most people here,  you'd be better off going to a collector's forum to drum up support.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7th time?  I guess you still don't get it.  Filing  bs lawsuits makes you look like a whiner.  It also eats up assets, no matter how small, that could be used for the better fight.  One needs to prioritize.  One never wins by throwing your assets into bs you when have little chance of success.  We didn't lose 2A rights all at once and we're not going to get them back that way.

Rather than argue your point to me or most people here,  you'd be better off going to a collector's forum to drum up support.

 

 

 

Scientology

 

 

Don't need to drum up support. Made decision with wallet and will vote with feet.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Scientology

 

 

Don't need to drum up support. Made decision with wallet and will vote with feet.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

?

This is still America. You can pretty much do what you want.

Share this post


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

 

FFL03 is for collecting. NJ Law allows OGAM exemptions for this.

If there is a lawsuit to be filed against NJ regarding 03 C&R licenses, that would be it. NJ law is clear that C&R holders are exempt from OGAM (at a minimum for C&R eligible handguns), but NJ refuses to permit anyone to use that exemption or acknowledge it exists.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2018 at 10:41 AM, capt14k said:

I have to be honest the lack of lawsuits has been depressing. These suits should have been filed for years now. At this point I've about resigned myself to the fact that escape is the only recourse. I will send Anthony a message and ask why it is not brought up. Maybe I missed the episode. If so my apologies.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

I am always available. I do not sell guns. Only transfers for members. Last 10 years NRA and ANJRPC spent over 1 mil on lawsuits. Mostly RTK. As for future lawsuits, we cannot sue until Murphy signs the bills into law! And believe me we are all prepared and ready. 

 

Anthony

[email protected]

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am always available. I do not sell guns. Only transfers for members. Last 10 years NRA and ANJRPC spent over 1 mil on lawsuits. Mostly RTK. As for future lawsuits, we cannot sue until Murphy signs the bills into law! And believe me we are all prepared and ready.   

Anthony

[email protected]

 

I'm glad to hear you guys are ready. I hope the plan is injunctions first like California did, but there are a lot of suits that can be filed based on existing laws. Especially considering the changing makeup of the courts due to Trump appointments. 

 

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

I'm glad to hear you guys are ready. I hope the plan is injunctions first like California did, but there are a lot of suits that can be filed based on existing laws. Especially considering the changing makeup of the courts due to Trump appointments.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

Better than CA, NRA gave us their law firm In DC. Big Hitters. And Dan Schmutter and Scott Bach are the point men in NJ. Me I'm just the agitator. As it should be. As God intended!

 

Ant

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Better than CA, NRA gave us their law firm In DC. Big Hitters. And Dan Schmutter and Scott Bach are the point men in NJ. Me I'm just the agitator. As it should be. As God intended!
 
Ant
That is good news. I edited first post but figured I would ask in New post.


Do you know why ANJRPC or NRA didn't back Patano's suit to SCOTUS? Nappen told the press they were taking it to SCOTUS when NJ Supreme Court suddenly reversed course, but Pantano would have had to come up with a large amount of money out of his pocket so it went nowhere.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


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

That is good news. I edited first post but figured I would ask in New post.


Do you know why ANJRPC or NRA didn't back Patano's suit to SCOTUS? Nappen told the press they were taking it to SCOTUS when NJ Supreme Court suddenly reversed course, but Pantano would have had to come up with a large amount of money out of his pocket so it went nowhere.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

Those decisions were above my pay grade.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fyi the universal background check bill going up in senate thursday one of the exemptions is c&r holders from having to use ffls like everyone else http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/S2500/2374_S1.PDF
 
Thank you for that info. There will be a reason to get my FFL03. Since the bill won't affect me, then according to what others have said, I shouldn't care about it.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2018 at 3:05 PM, GRIZ said:

Bury the state in lawsuits? The state would just go hire more lawyers to defend them.  The state has bottomless funding to pay their legal expenses compared to most litigants.  Guess who pays for that?  Better to file lawsuits you have a strong argument for and good chance of winning.

 

Not true.  Scientologists buried the IRS in lawsuits and the IRS screamed uncle and gave them tax exempt status.  Surely a Federal agency has more resources than a broke ass state like NJ.  No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Alex V said:

Not true.  Scientologists buried the IRS in lawsuits and the IRS screamed uncle and gave them tax exempt status.  Surely a Federal agency has more resources than a broke ass state like NJ.  No?

Big difference is Scientology lawsuits were based on its claims as a religion.  Is the 1A holier than the 2A?  There are few laws governing religion in the US.  Many laws governing firearms.  Yeah, most of them are bs but that's the way it is.

IRS always has it figured how to get the most bang for their buck.

If IRS says a billionaire owes $4,000,000 and the billionaire responds he or she only owes $2,000,000 IRS does some thinking.  If it's going to cost them $3,000,000 to get that 2 they will just settle for the 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big difference is Scientology lawsuits were based on its claims as a religion.  Is the 1A holier than the 2A?  There are few laws governing religion in the US.  Many laws governing firearms.  Yeah, most of them are bs but that's the way it is.
IRS always has it figured how to get the most bang for their buck.
If IRS says a billionaire owes $4,000,000 and the billionaire responds he or she only owes $2,000,000 IRS does some thinking.  If it's going to cost them $3,000,000 to get that 2 they will just settle for the 2.
That comparison was a reach at best, but does prove our point feds don't have unlimited resources; State of NJ has even less resources. At some point they will give in and compromise rather than fight

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


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

That comparison was a reach at best, but does prove our point feds don't have unlimited resources; State of NJ has even less resources. At some point they will give in and compromise rather than fight

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

 

Not my comparison.  I didn't bring up Scientology.  You did.

The IRS doesn't see any sense in spending $3 million to get $4 million and net $1 million when we can net $2 without spending another dime in the example I gave.  They get the most bang for their buck.

Scientology bases it's arguments on being a religion.  Touchy subject for any one, including IRS, going out to prove something is not a religion.

Scientology doesn't have to raise money from supporters.  It already has it and enough generous supporters to replenish their coffers.

Your idea of hammering the opposition with frivolous lawsuits won't work.  You really think you can get supporters by telling them you're going to waste most of their money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Not my comparison.  I didn't bring up Scientology.  You did.
The IRS doesn't see any sense in spending $3 million to get $4 million and net $1 million when we can net $2 without spending another dime in the example I gave.  They get the most bang for their buck.
Scientology bases it's arguments on being a religion.  Touchy subject for any one, including IRS, going out to prove something is not a religion.
Scientology doesn't have to raise money from supporters.  It already has it and enough generous supporters to replenish their coffers.
Your idea of hammering the opposition with frivolous lawsuits won't work.  You really think you can get supporters by telling them you're going to waste most of their money?


Have the current ideas worked that you think are so great? I didn’t think so. Keep on trying the same old same old and watch your rights fade away.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


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

 


Have the current ideas worked that you think are so great? I didn’t think so. Keep on trying the same old same old and watch your rights fade away.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Going for things you can win vs going after things you know you can't win sounds like a better strategy with limited resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Going for things you can win vs going after things you know you can't win sounds like a better strategy with limited resources.


I’ll be impressed if the current groups do anything period with lawsuits. They didn’t do a damn thing for years. Including not supporting Pantano’s CCW Suit.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our law fighter asked for help with the legal stuff he's doing against nazi nj

200+ at club meeting last night, me included sat silent.  

I e-mail, call the scumbag politicraps attack demonrats anyway I can.   BUT>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Shame on us.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our law fighter asked for help with the legal stuff he's doing against nazi nj

200+ at club meeting last night, me included sat silent.  

I e-mail, call the scumbag politicraps attack demonrats anyway I can.   BUT>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Shame on us.

 

I am confused by that post. Can I get a clarification?

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Confused?   Guy asked for help in front of 200+  gun owners, got none. And it was at your/our club meeting..
Just one more of many reasons I'm in exit mode.  
Ok I wasn't following. I thought it was one of the two either what he was talking about doing wasn't much or no one was willing to do anything. There were 200+ people at the meeting? I guess I should start going to them, but with work and the kids I haven't even had time to get to the range.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mjrfd99 said:

Our law fighter asked for help with the legal stuff he's doing against nazi nj

200+ at club meeting last night, me included sat silent.  

I e-mail, call the scumbag politicraps attack demonrats anyway I can.   BUT>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Shame on us.

 

Who was this person at your meeting (presuming CJ?)?  I'd like to get in contact with them and help him/her!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2018 at 11:06 PM, ogfarmer said:

fyi the universal background check bill going up in senate thursday one of the exemptions is c&r holders from having to use ffls like everyone else http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/S2500/2374_S1.PDF

 

That will probably be acknowledged the same as the OGAM exemption  a C&R license provides..........not at all.

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...