Jump to content
ChrisJM981

Thomas R. Rogers and ANJRPC v. Gurbir S. Grewal, et al

Recommended Posts

What follows is a quote from remarks given by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, an well known follower and commentator on the US Supreme Court and very much a liberal,  This bodes well for constitutional carry:

Think of the ages of the conservative justices. Clarence Thomas is 70. Samuel Alito is 68. John Roberts is 65. Brett Kavanaugh is 53. Neil Gorsuch is 51. It’s certainly easy to imagine these five justices sitting together for another decade or two. So, I think the bottom line is when you think about the U.S. Supreme Court, now and for the foreseeable future, is that if you are politically conservative, this is a time to be jubilant. Conservatives have long wanted a solid, staunch conservative majority. They now have it on the High Court. If you’re politically liberal, maybe the most encouraging thing I can say is perhaps the Supreme Court will continue to decide fewer and fewer cases.

Share this post


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

I have no doubt NJ asks for another extension and probably gets it as well.

The writing is on the wall and they no it.  I would imagine once this gets going it would be hard to stop.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ray Ray said:

The writing is on the wall and they no it.  I would imagine once this gets going it would be hard to stop.  

Oh i agree... but NJ will drag their feet kicking and screaming the whole way.  And their way will be to delay as long as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The State filed its brief today.  Here is the link:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-824/96857/20190419122517548_18-824 BIO.pdf

It's disappointing to acknowledge that the State did a good job in offering reasons to SCOTUS not to grant cert. in this case (as opposed to addressing the merits).  NJ argues first that there is an insufficient split in the Courts of Appeals, dissecting the details of the Young case in the 9th Cir.; Moore in the 7th Cir; and to a weaker extent even Wrenn out of the D.C. Cir.  Next, it points out that Rogers lacks a factual record that in fact shows what small percentage of applicants receive NJ concealed carry permits.  We all know it's a ridiculously small percentage but NJ points to the wholesale absence of any evidence in the record.  It further argues that the Court should pass on Rogers in favor of a Massachusetts case, Gould v. Morgan, which also is waiting for a decision on cert. but has not yet been briefed fully.  NJ also asks the Court to deny cert. here or hold off pending its decision in the NY Assoc. case.  NJ pulled out all the stops to offer reasons to delay and dodge a decision here.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still infringement regardless. There is no inference of “need” in the 2A let alone “justifiable need”. 

They can cite all the cases they wish but the fact remains that NJ has instituted a de facto ban on carry and should be struck down. 

I think cert will be granted and Grewal et al will not prevail. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chic013 said:

Still infringement regardless. There is no inference of “need” in the 2A let alone “justifiable need”. 

They can cite all the cases they wish but the fact remains that NJ has instituted a de facto ban on carry and should be struck down. 

I think cert will be granted and Grewal et al will not prevail. 

I can't wait for ANJRPC's response. In the meantime I'll start researching handguns for carry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Princetonian58 said:

Next, it points out that Rogers lacks a factual record that in fact shows what small percentage of applicants receive NJ concealed carry permits.  We all know it's a ridiculously small percentage but NJ points to the wholesale absence of any evidence in the record. 

This is such a smug argument. The state has a monopoly on that information and it knows it.   Though it would be interesting to hear if the plaintiff requested the information and the state declined or gave an excuse. Or did they not even ask. 

Share this post


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

This is such a smug argument. The state has a monopoly on that information and it knows it.   Though it would be interesting to hear if the plaintiff requested the information and the state declined or gave an excuse. Or did they not even ask. 

Problem is nobody applies for the carry permits. So there is no records of large numbers of denials. This was argued successfully by the State in one of these lawsuits about 6 or 7 years back.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, diamondd817 said:

Problem is nobody applies for the carry permits. So there is no records of large numbers of denials. This was argued successfully by the State in one of these lawsuits about 6 or 7 years back.

It’s basically the same as CA saying standard capacity mags are not in common use because they’ve been banned for 20 years.

 Artificially Chilling the market shouldn’t be a justification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not a bunch of denials?  Here's why:  Too many PUSSIES were afraid of a denial costing them the ability to apply for more P2P's!  OMG, what do I do if they ask me about a denial?

FACT:  No matter how many times Almeida was denied, he explained it all away and there was NO delay in processing P2P's.  Ever.

The Stockholm Syndrome is strong here...

  • Agree 3

Share this post


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

Why not a bunch of denials?  Here's why:  Too many PUSSIES were afraid of a denial costing them the ability to apply for more P2P's!  OMG, what do I do if they ask me about a denial?

FACT:  No matter how many times Almeida was denied, he explained it all away and there was NO delay in processing P2P's.  Ever.

The Stockholm Syndrome is strong here...

This is exactly what they want. I got friends that would be interested in owning firearms and shooting sports, but they’re too afraid/scared of applying like it a huge deal or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in a way it doesn’t matter. What’s the acceptable number of people denied due to “justifiable need”?  25% or 95%?   It would be nice to have the number just to check the box... but the real issue is the statute  itself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only got to pg16 and had to stop for now. It’s early and my laughter and yelling was waking people.  But first order of laughter was in opening his noting that for over 200 years carrying has been regulated. Did his high school even teach history?  Second it seems to be written rather elementary. As though he’s dumbing it down for them. It’s almost as it’s written by interns rather than top shelf lawyers. 

Share this post


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

I only got to pg16 and had to stop for now. It’s early and my laughter and yelling was waking people.  But first order of laughter was in opening his noting that for over 200 years carrying has been regulated. Did his high school even teach history?  Second it seems to be written rather elementary. As though he’s dumbing it down for them. It’s almost as it’s written by interns rather than top shelf lawyers. 

Its was written by clowns.  They are trying to Bozo their way around the obvious Constitutional violations.

"The history of New Jersey’s public carry law stretches back over a century. In 1905, New Jersey enacted its first permitting law, restricting the concealed carrying of firearms to those individuals who had permits to do so."

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

No, no conflict at all. /Sarcasm off

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I wanted to apply for a carry permit about 10 years ago and the local chief told me don’t bother. He said that even if he approved it the judge would deny it because I’m not an ex cop and being in the military did not matter. It would just be a waste of the application fee. With responses like that no wonder few people other than those who would certainly be approved apply. At least the chief was honest but It still sucks. But for the application numbers to be used against people wanting to carry is reprehensible. The court should make New Jersey do the paperwork for free if the application is denied, then you’ll see who tries to apply. The courts could look into who is rich, related to a public official or who is an ex cop and has a carry permit versus who is an average citizen and has a carry permit. I bet those numbers would be interesting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2019 at 6:58 PM, Smokin .50 said:

Why not a bunch of denials?  Here's why:  Too many PUSSIES were afraid of a denial costing them the ability to apply for more P2P's!  OMG, what do I do if they ask me about a denial?

FACT:  No matter how many times Almeida was denied, he explained it all away and there was NO delay in processing P2P's.  Ever.

The Stockholm Syndrome is strong here...

Ummm how many people did we have ready to fill out CCW applications to be denied? I forget who was organizing it, but we were ready to go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ChrisJM981 said:

Ummm how many people did we have ready to fill out CCW applications to be denied? I forget who was organizing it, but we were ready to go. 

Ah yes!  "Apply to be denied"!  I was part of that and it was group of us who got together for the purpose of getting a large number of people to apply for CCW so we could prove to the courts that NJ denies most ALL permits!  It was determined that the number of people who were willing to be denied was insufficient to have a positive outcome for us.

The fact is, NJ now freely admits it does not grant permits! Back then, they denied that fact. NJ will NOT change a thing unless forced by the SCOTUS, even then, they will resist, kicking and screaming all the way.

I predict that in the end, WE WILL WIN! Start looking for your CCW gun and a good holster now!:)

  • 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.



  • olight.jpg

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

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Similar Content

    • By SMOKIE901
      Can anyone who has a FLORIDA Non-Resident Concealed Carry Permit explain the details on how it is done to obtain?
    • By Smokin .50
      BREAKING!!
      CNJFO FILES AMICUS BRIEF FOR CHEESEMAN CASE!!
      by Black Wire Media Thursday July 18, 2019 www.cnjfo.com/join-us
      TOGETHER WE MAKE HISTORY! For the second time this year, and with the help & support of our members, sponsors, friends and those who contributed to our Lawsuit Fund, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners is proud to announce that on behalf of all legal firearm owners in NJ, we've officially filed a "friend-of-the-Court" brief explaining to SCOTUS why NJ GUN LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL! This brief strongly supports Mark Cheeseman's case highlighting the abuse of the NJ gun owner by subjecting him/her to the patently ILLEGAL "Justifiable Need" Rule that prevents carrying self defense weapons outside of your home or business using a "case-by-case basis" as was made ILLEGAL via the Dick Heller decision 11 years ago!
      We're proud of everyone that helped bring this amicus brief to fruition, especially our well-known 2nd Amendment Patriots, Attorneys Alan Beck and Stephen Stamboulieh. Their tireless efforts and keen insight combined with historical documentation discovered by our own member Jay Factor, resulted in this historical PLEA FOR RELIEF OF PERSECUTION!
      Please consider helping us in any way you possibly can: Join or RENEW today, make a donation or planned monthly gift, or buy an apparel item. Every dollar counts! Thanks EVERYONE for helping to make this happen! ON TO VICTORY!  
      THE ENTIRE BRIEF IS READABLE THRU THIS HOT LINK:
      https://www.scribd.com/document/418500310/CNJFO-Amicus-Brief-Filed-in-Mark-Cheeseman-carry-petition?fbclid=IwAR0k-SPnAzGR3kKbRGm8_0x1wWQNrmbso8JE1BcNtqqBZFFMcNzSYmxx_Og 


      CROSS-POSTED FROM OUR CNJFO NEWSWIRE THREAD!  ENJOY & HELP US PLEASE!
      ---Rosey
       
       
    • By NJGF
      Judge Kavanaugh and the Second Amendment
      http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/judge-kavanaugh-and-the-second-amendment/
      "....Kennedy sided with his more conservative colleagues in finding a Second Amendment right to have a handgun in the home, and there is no reason to believe that Judge Brett Kavanaugh, if confirmed, is likely to disagree"
      "....We know from his recorded dissents from the denial of review that Thomas would vote to review and overturn some existing gun laws, and we know that Gorsuch – at least to some extent – agrees with him. But it takes four votes to grant review in a case, and we do not know whether Roberts and Alito also agree with Thomas but have opted not to say so publicly, or whether they instead are content to leave the court’s gun-rights jurisprudence as it is."
      ".... just this week, the 9th Circuit struck down Hawaii’s ban on carrying weapons openly outside of the home; even if the case goes to the full 9th Circuit, the losing party is almost certain to ask the Supreme Court to weigh in."
    • By stuckinNJ
      https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171201/us-house-of-representatives-to-vote-on-hr-38-the-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-next-week
       
      please take 60 seconds to call your reps, BOTH Republicans and Dems, urging their support. It seriously takes seconds. 
      No excuses
    • By fslater
      Hi Everyone
      I just Read the article in the Political report in Shooting Illustrated about The July ruling By the US Court Of Appeals that found DC's "good reason" to be granted a CCW unconstitutional. Wouldn't the conflicting rulings between the DC Federal Court and the Jersey District Federal court force the SCOUS to a hearing to resolve the conflict? This is old news from back in July I'm just hearing about now. If its already been discussed  please direct me to the thread.
      Thanks
  • Posts

×
×
  • Create New...