Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If everybody just did this:

This Campaign ( Cheeseman-Jillard vs NJ ) wants to thank everyone for any help you maybe able to do in advance.  Even the sharing of our page to like-minded people is a plus.   


First, they promised us the Gun Control Law would not affect the “fit elements of society.” [Burton at 93&105 (1968)]

They told us the law was constitutional because it was “narrowly constructed” toward preventing criminal and other unfit elements from possessing firearms while enabling the fit elements of society to use them with minimal burdens and inconveniences.” [Burton at 91 & 105.]

Then they told us:

·        the law didn’t violate the Second Amendment because ‘the "justifiable need" component of the carry permit law accommodates, on a case-by-case basis, those who have a reason—to anticipate a violent attack in a public place warranting lawful defensive use of a handgun.’ [Wheeler at 739 (2013)] 

·        New Jersey has decided that it can best determine when the individual benefit outweighs the increased risk to the community through careful case-by-case scrutiny of each application, by the police and a  court. [Drake 3rd Circuit (2013) at 439.]

·        the historical sources cited by Heller … suggest … a limited right … that should be … determined on a case-by-case basis. [Piszczatoski Dist. Court, D. at 827. (2012)] 

·        (t)he “justifiable need” requirement serves the same purpose as the employment-based exceptions, but does so on a case-by-case rather than a categorical basis. [Wheeler at 759.]

 

John and Mark are not challenging the Statute. We believe the Statute was designed that “justifiable need” was synonymous with Heller’s “Lawful Purpose.” See Heller at 2797 (the core lawful purpose (of the Second Amendment) (is) self-defense,)

 

The simple (and only) argument in Mark and John’s case is that the Siccardi Rule requires 2C:58-4 Permits Applications to specify an “urgent necessity” for self-protection which must be determined on a case-by-case basis,
 
Heller threw out case-by-case determinations of Second Amendment Rights in 2008. 

 

The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. [Heller at 2821; McDonald at 3050.]

 

The prayer for relief in Mark and John’s cases is basically, if WE (all of us) qualify for a 2C:58-3 Permit, WE (all of us) qualify for 2C:58-4 Permit to Carry.

 

If you are tired of being told you do not have need for a 2C:58-4 Permit, please donate to the Case. Every dollar will go to defeating the Siccardi Rule and NJAC 13:54-2.4d-1






Thank you.
Mark P Cheeseman &
John Jilliard

They would hit their goal, remember THIS helps all of us!

https://www.gofundme.com/restore-carry-nj/?viewcontent=103648188&utm_source=internal&utm_medium=email&utm_content=cta_button&utm_campaign=upd_n

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't these guys promise "us" that the first time one of them went thru the process that it would benefit "all of us" and it didin't?  

Not trying to be a nay-sayer but if I remember correctly the solicited donations the last time as well and the only one to benefit was the gent that got his CC.  

What's different this time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2018 at 3:24 PM, WP22 said:

Do they have a snail mail address? I don't do online donations. 

You can always mail it to our PO Box & we'll see to it that Mark & John get your check:

CNJFO, PO Box 768, Sewell, NJ  08080

And thanks for helping us all!

Rosey

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2018 at 4:02 PM, Bully said:

Didn't these guys promise "us" that the first time one of them went thru the process that it would benefit "all of us" and it didin't?  

Not trying to be a nay-sayer but if I remember correctly the solicited donations the last time as well and the only one to benefit was the gent that got his CC.  

What's different this time?

Chris,

The difference you seek is already in the OP's post, namely the suit they filed goes after the Siccardi Rule, and points to Heller's ruling that a case-by-case application of the law is illegal, which effectively boxes-in the defendant (NJ).  If relief is granted, it will be for all applicants across the board, NOT for 2 individuals.  Jay Factor has all the history of how the screwed-up law & rulings were actually formed.  It amounts to a house of cards.  Jay, Mark & John have been interviewed by Anthony Colandro on his radio show at least twice.  Jay has them between a rock & a hard place.  Take it from me that this suit isn't about 2 Jamokes getting their permits!

Rosey

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Smokin .50 said:

Chris,

The difference you seek is already in the OP's post, namely the suit they filed goes after the Siccardi Rule, and points to Heller's ruling that a case-by-case application of the law is illegal, which effectively boxes-in the defendant (NJ).  If relief is granted, it will be for all applicants across the board, NOT for 2 individuals.  Jay Factor has all the history of how the screwed-up law & rulings were actually formed.  It amounts to a house of cards.  Jay, Mark & John have been interviewed by Anthony Colandro on his radio show at least twice.  Jay has them between a rock & a hard place.  Take it from me that this suit isn't about 2 Jamokes getting their permits!

Rosey

Thank you.  I'll take that under consideration.  

I was (and still am) pretty pissed and quite wary.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With that party-of-6 or -4 or however many it was, they granted the permit to one guy and that meant he automatically had no more standing, right? And another guy moved to PA or something. IDK about the rest

 

This case isn't structured the same but IANAL and the intricacies are beyond me. I just chip in my $10 and hope for the best...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been very disappointed in our inability to make any progress on the political end of things. The only recourse seems to be to go to the courts, try to power through and ride the small wave of positive gun rights rulings in the courts.

I dropped $10 for me and $10 for the mizzez...for the cost of a couple of martinis I might get some of my rights back some day.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Non-lawyer-speak this up for me and the rest of the inbreds here. :)

How is the state not able to "buy off" the plaintiffs in this case with a NJ CC permit. 

This case was specifically set-up so the buy-off you mention can't remotely happen.  Because the Plaintiffs aren't suing for any permits at all!  THAT'S RIGHT, YOU READ THAT CORRECTLY!  Learning what happened with Almeida's case taught everyone a valuable lesson in courtroom dynamics, so this case was structured to plead for RELIEF OF A BAD RULE THAT WAS NEVER VOTED ON BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE (that Jay Factor traced to its' very origins with intense & pain-staking investigatory prowess using ancient, leather-bound volumes going back to pre-revolutionary war times) instead of getting permits approved for individuals, thus eliminating any chance of a similar "buy-off" with regards to a granted permit to carry.  Utterly simple in nature, but extremely effective, going after the very house of cards that is completely against the Heller decision.  Brilliant in both scope and procedure, the case rips to shreds the very falsehoods that NJ serfs have been ruled by for DECADES.  By not attacking "Justifiable Need" directly, and instead pleading for relief of bad rules & law, there's NO ONE TO BUY-OFF & NJ is effectively boxed into a corner from which Muhammed Ali's famous "ROPE-A-DOPE" will leave them wishing they never entered the boxing ring.  This case may be expedited straight to the Appellate Division after the State of NJ loses the first round (yes we fully expect to win & then NJ will appeal on same day).

What this all boils-down to is Jay Factor's ability as a historian to find the actual hand-bound volumes of written law of over 2 centuries ago and use them & the standard definitions of the time period, to paint a picture of how gun laws in NJ came about from the very beginning and what bodies said & did what to get to the unholy place we're all at today.  Illegal Rules enforced for decades w/o any proper authorization...a total HOUSE OF CARDS!

Jay might have his You Tube channel up by now so you can get into the very bowels of the minutia, but be warned to swallow it in small pieces as you wrap yer head around it all.

Rosey

Share this post


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

Who or what org should the check be made out to.     I dont do any online payments either,  Just amazon with prepaid cards.

I'll try to find out after I cook dinner.  Worst case is make the check payable to CNJFO & we turn the funds over.  But before we go that route, let me put a feeler out to Mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2018 at 4:02 PM, Bully said:

Didn't these guys promise "us" that the first time one of them went thru the process that it would benefit "all of us" and it didin't?  

Not trying to be a nay-sayer but if I remember correctly the solicited donations the last time as well and the only one to benefit was the gent that got his CC.  

What's different this time?

I think you're confusing the older Almeida/Party of 6 case with the current Cheeseman/Jillard case.

Almeida is the one that solicited donations and then stopped pursuing the case after Almeida got his CC (there's a bit more to it than that, the other plaintiffs dropped out before they got their CC).

This current Cheeseman/Jillard case has much more promise, IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

I think you're confusing the older Almeida/Party of 6 case with the current Cheeseman/Jillard case.

Almeida is the one that solicited donations and then stopped pursuing the case after Almeida got his CC (there's a bit more to it than that, the other plaintiffs dropped out before they got their CC).

This current Cheeseman/Jillard case has much more promise, IMO.

Thank you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update: 9/5/18

 
Update, NJ appeal court moves slow. After speaking with our case managers we found that we are 1200 cases behind. 

We hope to have better news this coming March, thank you all for your support and patience. If anything develops we will let you know asap .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE we are ON the Calendar!

 

Throw a few bucks in here!

https://www.gofundme.com/restore-carry-nj?viewupdates=1&rcid=r01-153869334217-4a00e1e0a4d84628&utm_source=internal&utm_medium=email&utm_content=cta_button&utm_campaign=upd_n

 
 
We are happy to announce the Jilliard / Cheeseman cases have a tentative date for the appeals court review process. Week of Oct 22 2018. We are officially on the calendar. The process may take a few week or a few months. Thank you all for your continued support.

https://www.facebook.com/jay.factor.777/videos/694506720932516/?fref=gs&dti=353517724790801&hc_location=group
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to the NJ Supreme Court!

Update 11/8/18
The past two weeks both Cheeseman and Jilliard were denied in NJ appeals court division. At this point we fully intend on seeking council and moving forward to the next level. Presently we are preparing for NJ Supreme court. The opinions were typical but arguable. Thank you for your continued support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11/20 update:

Update 12
Posted by Mark Cheeseman 
 
 
In light of our recent denials in N.J. appeals court. We have decided our best path. I am proud to announce we have retained David Jensen as council. Mr Jensen comes with an overwhelming knowledge of law experience, specifically second amendment law. As we approach our next level i want to personally thank everyone who has donated, shared or shown support for out grassroots effort. We will continue our fight in the N.J. Supreme court. We still hold the original prayer for relief. Justifiable need is bad law. Self protection and lawful purpose for all law abiding citizens. Thank you
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheeseman hired a new lawyer. Were they representing themselves originally? Where is the one other lawsuit at? When are all the other ones being filed ANJRPC? After the new AWB is passed?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heading to the NJ Supreme Court

 

 

 

Restore Carry NJ

 
 
Update 13
Posted by Mark Cheeseman 
 
 
Limiting the right to bear arms to only those with an
“urgent necessity” for the core purpose of the right is akin to
limiting the right of free speech to only those with an “urgent
necessity for free expression.

Yet, while the “core” of the Second Amendment is personal
protection, it is just this conduct that the Siccardi rule
proscribes. Because only those with an “urgent necessity for
self-protection” can obtain permits, N.J.S.A. § 2C:58-4(c)
(emphasis added), those with an average necessity for self protection cannot. This is antithetical to the concept of
constitutional rights.
NOTE.. We still seek to sever the Siccardi rule AKA Justifiable need standard for everyone in NJ. NO permits have been offered and we do not expect the state to offer now. We have gone way past an olive branch.

UPDATE. 
The past few weeks we have filed petitions for review and new briefs for both Cheeseman and Jilliard with NJ Supreme court. 
I am personally uplifted and rejuvenated with the recent Guidance from our new council. David Jensen and Jay Factor have worked together to formulate a significantly damming argument against the state of NJ.Jay Factors historical and up to date research along with David Jensens knowledge and expert second amendment law experience have produced a argument that has the potential of winning. We have more clarity now since the County has provided a reply.

What we expect. 
NJ Supreme court may or may not grant review. 
If this is the case we still move forward.

NJ supreme court grants review but still argues against us. 
If this is the case we still move forward.

Timeline. 
More then likely Mid January we should know where NJ supreme court stands.

Now more then ever we need support. Hopefully i will have significant news in January.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Restore Carry NJ

 
 
3.1K shares
 
 
On behalf of all N.J. law abiding citizens we are proud to present an Amicus brief on behalf of Thomas Rogers Vs GURBIR GREWAL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY. We along With CNJFO and others are coming in force to present the United states Supreme court with a supporting brief. We believe our rights have been ignored to long. Special thanks to New jerseys own Jay Factor, and David Jensen ESQ for the hard work they put into writing this brief Please continue to donate and support our cases and others
Thank you.

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE COALITION OF NEW
JERSEY FIREARMS OWNERS, SECOND AMENDMENT
FOUNDATION, JOHN JILLARD, MARK CHEESEMAN,
JAY FACTOR, GEORGE GRECO, AND JEFFREY
MULLER IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

Link to brief. https://www.supremecourt.gov/…/20190201160948507_18-824%20A…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
As promised. I have decided to move forward to US Supreme Court. As of 6/28/19 i am filed. Docket Number pending. 
As of 5/3/2019 N.J. Supreme court denied review of the case. We are fully aware of the speculation and unknown nature of the Supreme courts opinion at this time, we hope to change that. What we wish to achieve through our petition to the court is a concise and accurate picture of New Jerseys fundamental lack of basic understanding of the Second Amendment. With the clear and concise penmanship of David Jensen and historical knowledge of Jay Factor we believe we have accomplished that. We seek relief for all of law abiding residents of N.J. If our case is granted cert we will see it through. If our case bolsters those cases before us then we have also accomplished our goal. We continue to ask for your support. And thank you for your past support.

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

New Jersey’s “need” standard is an ideal subject for
review by this Court because the standard is firmly
entrenched in New Jersey law and is not realistically
subject to change. Moreover, this Petition was fully
litigated in the courts below, and the Supreme Court of
New Jersey has just declined Petitioner’s petition for
certification. And again, there are no interest groups or
other organizations running this case—just an average
private citizen, who turned to crowdfunding from other
private citizens in this attempt to vindicate his (and
their) constitutional rights.

Read Petition here please.

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track

Appendix here.

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Updates (18)

 
  • Yesterday by Mark CheesemanOrganizer
    Conclusion
    If this Court is ready to review the constitutionality
    of broad preclusion's on the bearing of arms, then this
    Petition—funded directly by the very people who seek
    to vindicate their rights—is the ideal case for review. David Jensen

    This is our final reply to our argument for Docket # 19-27.
    We feel our argument is solid and valid, we are sure of it.
    Next we look forward to Conference on Oct 1 2019. The input and writing from David Jensen and Jay Factor is precise and irrefutable. Please continue to support our case. A case for all of NJ law abiding citizens.
    Thank you.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/…/20190927163346352_19-27 Re…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Downtownv said:

Updates (18)

 
  • Yesterday by Mark CheesemanOrganizer
    Conclusion
    If this Court is ready to review the constitutionality
    of broad preclusion's on the bearing of arms, then this
    Petition—funded directly by the very people who seek
    to vindicate their rights—is the 

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/…/20190927163346352_19-27 Re…

Link isn't working for me. 

Screenshot_20190930-082218_Chrome.jpg

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...