Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, SJG said:

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.

What does that mean?  It’s not precedent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

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

EEEEEEEE  GADDDDDDDDS!  Are you suggesting corruption?  Collusion?  Russian INFLUENCE?  :) 

I'm personally not ready to go all the way down that rabbit hole just YET!  Courts employ stenographers to take official minutes.  In order for what you inferred to happen, a LOT of records have to be changed ILLEGALLY (they call it tampering), which is a CRIME in & of itself!  Does someone really wanna go to JAIL for this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Smokin .50 said:

EEEEEEEE  GADDDDDDDDS!  Are you suggesting corruption?  Collusion?  Russian INFLUENCE?  :) 

I'm personally not ready to go all the way down that rabbit hole just YET!  Courts employ stenographers to take official minutes.  In order for what you inferred to happen, a LOT of records have to be changed ILLEGALLY (they call it tampering), which is a CRIME in & of itself!  Does someone really wanna go to JAIL for this?

In this state anything is possible.

Share this post


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

EEEEEEEE  GADDDDDDDDS!  Are you suggesting corruption?  Collusion?  Russian INFLUENCE?  :) 

I'm personally not ready to go all the way down that rabbit hole just YET!  Courts employ stenographers to take official minutes.  In order for what you inferred to happen, a LOT of records have to be changed ILLEGALLY (they call it tampering), which is a CRIME in & of itself!  Does someone really wanna go to JAIL for this?

Just pin it on Menendez. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/11/first-circuit-rules-there-is-no-right-to-bear-arms-outside-the-home/#axzz5W1ilyw00

 

From ammoland,      so what is happening is the frustration that the left has and the lower courts are going to go against every carry case in the US.    

this is the lefts payback for Kavanaugh,  A vacancy couldn't open up soon enough.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

So they assume that Jillard doesn’t understand and apply Heller appropriately, via an assumption on justifiable need.  They did not provide their objective standrd that defines the basis of their assumptions and faith in defining and employing justifiable need, including the fact that it may be determined on a case by case basis with variable human involvement.  

What a terrible ruling, and misunderstanding of the statistics and reality of the situation!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judges Marie P. Simonelli and Amy O'Connor have twisted words and concepts in order to toe the Progressive line and keep the law abiding gun owners of NJ from carrying for their own protection in blatant disregard to the rulings of the US Supreme Court.

May they burn in Judicial Hell, although that would be a redundancy.

And now it's on to the NJ Supreme Court.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Judges Marie P. Simonelli and Amy O'Connor have twisted words and concepts in order to toe the Progressive line and keep the law abiding gun owners of NJ from carrying for their own protection in blatant disregard to the rulings of the US Supreme Court.

May they burn in Judicial Hell, although that would be a redundancy.

And now it's on to the NJ Supreme Court.

 

  I thought this was NJ supreme court

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It means that the App Div. concluded that the legal arguments made in this case had no merit because prior published court opinions had already shot down the argument made and therefore there was no reason to submit this opinion for publication. More than likely the co-plaintiffs' case will meet the same fate assuming that the same argument was made. Of course, that is just an educated guess.  Again, unless the NJ Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme court decides a new case which sets forth new precedent, nothing will change. It would be nice though to try an open carry argument, and even though justifiable need would still need to be demonstrated, the considerations are different and at least 1/2 of the arguments the State makes would not apply

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that ticks me off with their ruling is that they agree and allow your right to self defense while standing one foot INSIDE your house, but then claim you DON'T have the right to self defense one step OUTSIDE your house.

Has that point ever been challenged?

Sounds hypocritical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Sniper22 said:

The thing that ticks me off with their ruling is that they agree and allow your right to self defense while standing one foot INSIDE your house, but then claim you DON'T have the right to self defense one step OUTSIDE your house.

Has that point ever been challenged?

Sounds hypocritical.

Well, scotus has judged repeatedly that police are not liable for your demise or lack of protection. So who’s responsible for and or liable for your protection.

the republic is going bananas 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a historical basis for this, that goes back to revolutionary times, and the militia.

It is well known that the continental army traveled throughout the county, fighting the British. It is also known that the civilian militia would assist the standing army.

The part that was lost to history, is that the militia would fight the British from inside apartment building and condominiums where they resided. Due to this reason, the courts have determined that people do not need the use a firearm outside of their house for defense.

Share this post


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

Well, scotus has judged repeatedly that police are not liable for your demise or lack of protection. So who’s responsible for and or liable for your protection.

the republic is going bananas 

Apparently, in their eyes, we aren't either.

Who's left?

Share this post


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

No - and the goal of the case is not for Cheeseman or Jillard to get their individual permits, it’s to get NJ’s case-by-case process of evaluating permits ruled unconstitutional.

Yes.  He's also suing for the 14th which says we're all to get equal treatment of rights under these amendments.  A case by case process doesn't allow for that. You're either a criminal or not.  If not then your deciding factor for carrying should not be at the discretion of a Judge or Chief. 

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...