Jump to content

Recommended Posts

NJ State Supremes to issue opinion on Cheeseman-Jillard Case this Monday Nov. 5th!

 

NJ SUPREME COURT TO POST OPINION ON CCW CASE!
JOHN JILLARD AWAITS MONDAY RELEASE OF NJSC RULING!
by Black Wire Media Saturday Nov. 3, 2018 www.cnjfo.com/join-us

John Jillard is waiting for the New Jersey Supreme Court to post their opinion of his gun carry (CCW) case in which he sued the State of New Jersey for ALL OF OUR 2nd Amendment rights to be restored. He (and all of us) will learn this Monday morning November 5th at approximately 10:00am just what our Black Robes have to say. His suit attacks the unconstitutionality of the long-standing rules never voted on by our Legislature, and therefore is NOT set-up as an individual fighting "Justifiable Need" for a single carry permit. Instead, Jillard's case (and Mark Cheesman's which was heard separately) puts the rule making process itself under a microscope, thus exposing the "House of Cards" it truly is!

Historian & 2nd Amendment ally Jay Factor, himself a CNJFO member, has spent countless hours researching written gun law all the way back PRIOR to the founding of this country. He's looked under every rock, found hand-bound leather volumes of common law & terms applied in olde English that date back prior to the founding of this great country, and wrote the suit for Jillard & Cheeseman. Never before has such a suit been undertaken!

The Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners continues to support this MISSION OF FREEDOM FIGHTERS! The entire scheme of #JustifiableNeed needs to be overturned so folks like Carol Bowne, the Berlin, NJ woman stabbed to death in her own driveway, have a fighting chance! For more info on #JustifiableNeed, go to: www.JustifiableNeed.com . To follow this coming Monday's posting, go to: https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/futureopinions.html…
To donate to the Cheeseman/Jillard legal battle, go to: www.gofundme.com/restore-carry-nj . To join CNJFO, buy swag to support us or make a tax-deductible donation, go to: www.cnjfo.com .

Image may contain: 1 person, standing
Image may contain: 10 people, people smiling, people sitting, table, drink and indoor
Image may contain: 3 people, outdoor

Mods, please roll the previous thread on this same subject into this one, as this thread provides background & insight into the heart of the matter at hand.  Thanks, Rosey

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, sota said:

Ok... I'm feeling neutron start dense right now, so can someone dumb it down for me?

It's NJSC that has the case, and they're going to probably vote FOR the state?

Which means next stop SCOTUS?

Although it's posted as being from the Supreme Court (NJ) on the website link in my previous post, Cheeseman has just informed me that in fact it's actually in the Appeals Court, but since NJ considers them the same, for me to "leave the story as-is"  :) 

So I hope that unconfuses you, me & everybody else!

Here's what Mark posted a few minutes ago:

"Appeals court how to file argument of denial . Re permit to carry a handgun.
1 Two copies to police chief
2 Two copies to county PROSECUTOR.
3 Five copies to NJ appeals court.
4 Two copies to municipal court Judge.

We filed a 63 page argument.

Now double that , Cheeseman / Jilliard .

Wait for county to reply.

When county replies you have 10 days to reply again.
Same process same entity's get our reply to county. We filed a 13 page reply .

By now county officials and police chiefs and judges know who we are and what are objective is.

We have shown case law and documents that support our argument. Case by case determinations were thrown out long ago by Heller.
We prove justifiable need was never legislative intention.

We show the Siccardi rule is bad law.

How this has been missed in previous years and cases is beyond my understanding.

I stand by and will not waiver from our original argument. Why would I listen to attorneys who have failed. Key is convincing the judges.
I ask Jay Factor I get an answer with proof.

If I have to argue this myself in court . So be it".

Rosey

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so torn as to whether I want to see victory here or defeat.  Victory will probably fall on deaf ears.  I don't see this state complying.  Defeat could probably mean on to the US Supreme Court.  Although the highest court has never looked better for us that would be a long drawn out process.  Not to mention expensive for Mr. Cheeseman. 

 

Tuesday counts!!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Go!Go!Go! Our team!

If we win, WE WIN!  If we lose this one, WE STILL WIN AT SCOTUS since this case ties straight into Heller!

POUR ON THE COAL BABY!  "Go!Go!Go!" is RIGHT!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Smokin .50 said:

If we win, WE WIN!  If we lose this one, WE STILL WIN AT SCOTUS since this case ties straight into Heller!

POUR ON THE COAL BABY!  "Go!Go!Go!" is RIGHT!

Palin used to say”drill baby drill!”

ima gonna coin” auger them into the ground”

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Lemme ask this:

If we "win" what does that mean for me personally? Can I or should I immediately file for a carry permit?

If "we" win the first thing we should do is send Mark Cheeseman a case of his favorite.  Then apply.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

Didn’t the legislature codify their intent into law this year?

Yep, they sure did!  Right after they were served with Cheeseman-Jillard, lol!  Talk about a knee-jerk reaction, lol!  :) 

"They can't sue us if we make it doubly redundant & apply it the same UNCONSTITUTIONAL way!"

Share this post


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

If "we" win the first thing we should do is send Mark Cheeseman a case of his favorite.  Then apply.

GREAT IDEA Bob!  I think he drinks Becks.  I'll buy the 1st case!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the money shot:

 "Given that the justifiable need requirement does not infringe upon a clearly enumerated right, and, even if it did, it has been upheld under traditional judicial scrutiny."....

So in other words because they've gotten away with being wrong and infringing before they can do it again. This is why anything below a scotus ruling will never work.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More good ones:

In Wheeler, we addressed New Jersey's justifiable need requirement in the
wake of Heller and McDonald and determined the justifiable need requirement
was constitutional. 433 N.J. Super. at 616. We stated:

Based upon the broad reasoning of Heller and
McDonald, "we think the Second Amendment right to
carry a handgun for the purpose of lawful self-defense
exists or extends beyond the home. Nevertheless, we
have no reason to decide that question. We are
confident that New Jersey's "justifiable need" standard
would not impermissibly burden the right. We can
reject this challenge to the carry permit law on that
ground.

[Id. at 597.]

In accordance with Heller, we analyzed New Jersey's justifiable need
requirement under intermediate scrutiny and determined that:

Intermediate scrutiny was appropriate here. The
"justifiable need" component of the carry permit law
does not target protected conduct. It is an effort to
protect the public and accommodate those who have an
objective reason to anticipate a need to use a gun in
self-defense. The law targets the dangers of misuse and
accidental use of handguns that unquestionably have serious, injurious consequences wholly outside the
purview of self-defense.

57 minutes ago, Screwball said:

Can anyone quote the PDF?

It's 9 pages long.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheeseman's case was separated, and re-worded slightly by putting some of the paragraphs in a different order.  He was just told his decision was made, but they wouldn't tell him over the phone!  Additionally, Cheeseman was told just today that it may take a few days or a few months for the Appeal Court to write their decision!  Note that a different set of independent judges heard the Cheeseman case, so maybe Cheeseman won his case & the Goobermint needs months to write the notice so as to enable themselves to put in place more hurdles for permitting?  

The above is all conjecture on my part, but Cheeseman did get a wierd phone call with that crazy DELAY emphasized.

As you can imagine, it's all over his Facebook pages.

More details as they become available.

Rosey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

IN THE MATTER OF DENIAL OF A PERMIT TO CARRY A HANDGUN FOR JOHN JILLARD. _____________________________

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2346-17T1

Submitted October 25, 2018 Decided November 5, 2018 Before Judges Simonelli and O'Connor.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester County.

John Jillard, appellant pro se.

Charles A. Fiore, Gloucester County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent State of New Jersey (Dana R. Anton, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM
Appellant John Jillard appeals from the December 14, 2017 Law Division

order, which denied his application for a permit to carry a handgun pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(d) for failure to demonstrate justifiable need. On appeal, Jillard does not challenge the court's determination that he failed to satisfy the

justifiable need requirement or the general comportment with the Second Amendment1 or Supreme Court precedent. Rather, he contends that District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) precludes New Jersey's "case-by-case" inquiry of the justifiable need requirement.2 We disagree.

Findings by the trial court reviewing the denial of an application to carry a handgun in public are binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence. In re Application of Borinsky, 363 N.J. Super. 10, 23 (App. Div. 2003). However, we are not bound by the court's interpretation of the Constitution, State v. Wheeler, 433 N.J. Super. 560, 572 (App. Div. 2013), or the court's evaluation of whether an applicant met the "justifiable need to carry a handgun" standard of N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4, which we review de novo. Borinsky, 363 N.J. Super. at 23-24.

A private citizen, such as Jillard, who desires to carry a handgun in public must "demonstrate[] that he is not subject to any of the disabilities set forth in [N.J.S.A.] 2C:583c . . . that he is thoroughly familiar with the safe handling and use of handguns, and that he has a justifiable need to carry a handgun."

  1. 1  U.S. Const. amend. II.

  2. 2  We decline to address Jillard's additional contentions raised for the first time

in his reply brief. Goldsmith v. Camden Cnty. Surrogate's Office, 408 N.J. Super. 376, 387 (App. Div. 2009).

2

A-2346-17T1

N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(c). The justifiable need requirement of N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(d) has been found constitutional by the federal court in Drake v. Filco, 724 F.3d 426, 440 (3d Cir. 2013), cert. denied in Drake v. Jerejian, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 2134 (2014), and by this court in Wheeler, 433 N.J. Super. at 616.

The person applying for a carry permit must submit a certification of justifiable need, specifying "the urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun." N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.4(d)(1); see also State v. Preis, 118 N.J. 564, 566 (1990) (holding that a permit to carry a handgun in public may "be issued only to those who can establish an urgent necessity for protection of self or others―as for example, in the case of one whose life is in danger as evidenced by serious threats or earlier attacks").

"The [justifiable need] requirement is of specific threats or previous attacks demonstrating a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by other means." Preis, 118 N.J. at 571 (citing Reilly v. State, 59 N.J. 559, 562 (1971); In re Application of X, 59 N.J. 533, 534-35 (1971)). "Generalized fears for personal safety are inadequate, and a need to protect property alone does not suffice." Id. at 571 (citing State v. Siccardi, 59 N.J.

3

A-2346-17T1

549, 557-58 (1971)). The applicant must show an objective need for the defensive use of a handgun to obtain a carry permit. Wheeler, 433 N.J. Super. at 614. The court must consider justifiable need on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 576

Jillard argues that Heller precludes New Jersey's case-by-case justifiable need inquiry. See McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (deeming the holding in Heller applicable to the states by way of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment). Jillard cites the following passage from Heller to argue that New Jersey's case-by-case justifiable need inquiry is unconstitutional:

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of governmenteven the Third Branch of Governmentthe 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. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.

[554 U.S. at 634-35 (emphasis added).] However, this passage must be understood in context.

4

A-2346-17T1

In Heller, the Court was confronted with a "catch-22." The District of Columbia's firearms laws prevented ownership of unregistered handguns while simultaneously prohibiting the registration of handguns (and imposing other burdensome restrictions, such as requiring that firearms be kept disassembled or trigger-locked even in the home). Id. at 574. The Court held that "the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." Id. at 635. The Court recognized the Second Amendment confers the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense and the District of Columbia's firearms regulations effectively eviscerated that right. Id. at 635; see McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 791 (2010) (noting that "n Heller, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense").

In the passage Jillard cited, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, chastised Justice Breyer's dissent for advocating that restrictions on an enumerated right should be subject to a case-by-case interest-balancing analysis. Heller, 554 U.S. at 634-35. Although the Court did not identify the standard of review it used in determining the subject firearms laws were unconstitutional, it

5

A-2346-17T1

nevertheless sought to protect the core right enumerated by the Second Amendment from judicial hindsight where the amendment itself "is the very product of an interest balancing by the peoplewhich Justice Breyer would now conduct for them anew." Id. at 635. Conversely, Justice Breyer believed that "any attempt in theory to apply strict scrutiny to gun regulations will in practice turn into an interest-balancing inquiry," and merely sought to "adopt such an interest-balancing inquiry explicitly." Id. at 689 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (speculating that the majority's unnamed inquiry was strict scrutiny).

Judicial quibbling aside, Heller did not hold, as Jillard suggests, that firearms regulations may not utilize subjective, case-by-case justifiable need inquiries. See id. at 634-35. Rather, the Court mandated that any inquiry into the regulation itself must be conducted in accordance with traditional forms of judicial scrutiny. Id. at 636.

Further, contrary to Jillard's repeated assertions, the Court did not deem possession of a concealed firearm outside of the home an enumerated right even subject to the above disagreement. See id. at 635. The Court, in conducting an historical review of the Second Amendment, recognized that Nineteenth- Century American courts frequently upheld regulation of concealed weapons, id. at 613, 627 (citations omitted), and that "nothing in [the Court's] opinion

6

A-2346-17T1

should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms . . . ." Id. at 626-27, 627 n. 26 (providing regulations concerning possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, among other regulations, as "examples," but not as an "exhaustive" list).

In Wheeler, we addressed New Jersey's justifiable need requirement in the wake of Heller and McDonald and determined the justifiable need requirement was constitutional. 433 N.J. Super. at 616. We stated:

Based upon the broad reasoning of Heller and McDonald, "we think the Second Amendment right to carry a handgun for the purpose of lawful self-defense exists or extends beyond the home. Nevertheless, we have no reason to decide that question. We are confident that New Jersey's "justifiable need" standard would not impermissibly burden the right. We can reject this challenge to the carry permit law on that ground.

[Id. at 597.]
In accordance with Heller, we analyzed New Jersey's justifiable need

requirement under intermediate scrutiny and determined that:

Intermediate scrutiny was appropriate here. The "justifiable need" component of the carry permit law does not target protected conduct. It is an effort to protect the public and accommodate those who have an objective reason to anticipate a need to use a gun in self-defense. The law targets the dangers of misuse and accidental use of handguns that unquestionably have

7

A-2346-17T1

serious, injurious consequences wholly outside the purview of self-defense.

[Id. at 607.]
Without reiterating Wheeler's thorough analysis, we found New Jersey's justifiableneedrequirement"easilypasse[d]musterunderthatstandard." Id.at 610. Like the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits that had previously upheld laws conditioning issuance of carry permits on "need," we found "the state's interest sufficiently important and the fit between the need-based standard and the interest in order and safety in public places adequate to pass muster under the intermediate level of scrutiny . . . ." Id. at 615 (citing Drake, 724 F.3d at 439; Woolard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, 880 (4th Cir. 2013); and Kachalsky v. Cty. of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 98 (2d Cir. 2012)).

In sum, we held the justifiable need requirement comported with the Second Amendment and Supreme Court precedent. Given that the justifiable need requirement does not infringe upon a clearly enumerated right, and, even if it did, it has been upheld under traditional judicial scrutiny, our holding in Wheeler should not be disturbed on the basis of Jillard's meritless misunderstanding of Heller. Simply put, Heller precluded untethered subjective judicial inquiries into firearm regulations to determine their constitutionality,

8

A-2346-17T1

not valid subjective case-by-case justifiable need inquiries under constitutional firearm regulations.

Affirmed.

9

A-2346-17T1

Share this post


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

Cheeseman's case was separated, and re-worded slightly by putting some of the paragraphs in a different order.  He was just told his decision was made, but they wouldn't tell him over the phone!  Additionally, Cheeseman was told just today that it may take a few days or a few months for the Appeal Court to write their decision!  Note that a different set of independent judges heard the Cheeseman case, so maybe Cheeseman won his case & the Goobermint needs months to write the notice so as to enable themselves to put in place more hurdles for permitting?  

The above is all conjecture on my part, but Cheeseman did get a wierd phone call with that crazy DELAY emphasized.

As you can imagine, it's all over his Facebook pages.

More details as they become available.

Rosey

Or maybe since their decision isn’t public they need to figure out how to “change” their decision to align with Jillard’s. 

  • Like 1

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...