nolocontendere

I don't know if there is going to be an appeal yet. We are still reviewing our options.

I want y'all to be able to roll around with what I get to carry everyday. I've spent a bunch of my own money on this

Good question. I don't know the answer. We will have to see. Right now they are illegal, so opening it up will make NJ have to come to the table to tell us what they think.

NJ will most likely try to attach justifable need to make it permitted carry. We are ready for that..

That's a good question, but look through the code and find me where it says you can't carry a taser or stun gun. My only reference is that they are illegal. If they are now legal, where does it say I can't carry it?

Oh. And stay tuned for some more NJ fun with lawsuits.

1: both 2: mass case was carrying and lambert was possession 3: NJ stun gun ban goes away.

This is our case. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

I'm just a regular guy that wants to make it right for y'all. And I love guns.

fixed!

My pleasure! (I answered in your post after each number. Hopefully you can read it properly) eta: color for my answers

Thanks John. I've been in touch with both Scott and Dan. As an aside, I'm also running for NRA board of directors. I'll be on the ballot in 2017 and would love to earn you vote. You will also find that I don't attack anyone and I let my pleadings speak for themselves. It is counterproductive to attack folks that believe differently, but I will stand flat footed and tell someone they are wrong. I am always open to debate. I am never open to being told to sit at the back of the bus. I told Dan I would get al his permit. I've done that. My next step is Mike's. So, hold on for that. Then I'm going to dismantle NJ taser ban, and you will have a time when you'll be able to at least carry, without a permit, a taser until the legislature adds that to justifiable need, then I'll take that down next.

When I can get to a computer instead of my iPhone I will address your questions to the extent I can!

I try to be as transparent as possible to the extent I can. I'm not the only one here. Alan and Ryan are on my team. And we are all working to get NJ some form of carry. My number is publicly available if anyone wanted to call as well.

And no (ha) I don't approve postings. Obviously.

Jackson MS. And nope. Not first. Economy. I can post up the ticket info if you want to see it.

Most people that hear about this case say it's a lost cause. You're writings suggest you know more than you are saying. I don't know who you are from Adam, but we've already gotten al his permit. Something I was told would never happen. And yes, I've been told from other than POS members that NJ is a lost cause. On ar15.com, lots of posters (who are not POS member) said that exact thing. And while we are bound by drake, if you've read our PI and once you read our response, you will have a better understanding of your this will benefit all of NJ and not just the plaintiffs.

Everyone knows. I have been labeled dangerous. The case has been called dangerous. We are bringing some groups together but nj is a tough nut to crack Whether one will ride in towards the end will still be seen. I have my beliefs, based on past experience. The problem is that nobody believes anyone can win in NJ so it's struck as a lost cause. I just don't see things that way and I put my money and time on on the line.

I'm not even sure what you mean. I have all the funded money in my trust account. None of us have been paid one dollar. Since extremely few people in NJ are interested in this case and putting any money up, we are saving it for travel and expenses instead of paying ourselves. I flew up there a while back out of my own pocket ($712 plane ticket) to meet every one and answer questions.

No one can afford to throw money against the wall except for bloomberg. We are spending considerable amounts of our time for you in NJ. Not because we are making thousands of dollars, because it is a fight worth bringing and we believe in it. So, donate, don't donate, it's going forward regardless. Obviously it would be nice to make some of this money that the other attorneys are making, but it's not about the money. And, look at what has been raised. 8K. Three attorneys doing this since April 2016. You think that's enough to cover all of our time? lol

He received his permit because Judge Conforti granted it. Judge Conforti is a defendant in a federal case. Albert's permit application was essentially the same as the first, only with more threats. He has no restrictions. It is so bad where you live that the Attorney General's office didn't know who actually issued the damn permits. That is not a joke. I had a nice long convo with one of them this morning and that very question arose. Albert's case met New Jersey's justifiable need standard. What you need to realize is that we have different angles of attack on this standard. The first was that Albert met it. That's the easy win. Now they want to make us go away, so they issue his permit and "mueller" him in two years and don't renew. The briefs are being written now in response to New Jersey's briefs. We defaulted Sussex county today because they simply failed to answer/defend the complaint. We will move forward with a full-on default judgment against Sussex. We will go as far as we can with the court. Just because Al got his permit doesn't change the fact that he is still in the case. You may ask how? I request that you wait until 9/2 to read about it. It will be worth your wait. Oh, and one last thing.... the funding thing that I think Nick spoke about, that we are simply going to leave once the money is out. How much money do you think we've been paid? Serious question?

Yessir. I'll be back up there soon and will answer as many questions as I can in person. Ya'll make sure to watch the taser case we brought as well. Some good things happening up there for you guys hopefully.

I argued the palmetto case in the 3rd. Just hang on until 9/2 and see what we say. I don't mean to give an evasive answer, but I have to assume the .gov defendants read this. I will tell you we have filed a motion to enter a clerks entry of default towards Sussex county today since they've pretty much ignored the complaint even though they tendered a defense to their insurance carrier. Lol. Just hang tight and see what happens. We have some good stuff to throw back at the defendants. I'll be in NJ again soon and will answer everyone's questions, to the extent I can, soon.

I'll hold off on the standing issue, as that will be presented on 9/2 in our response, but yes, we should have standing. As to your other question: we have binding third circuit precedent in our machinegun case that says exactly that and I've copied and pasted from our PI brief: "Interpreting the statute so as to include this exception would thereby swallow the rule. We refuse to conclude that with one hand Congress intended to enact a statutory rule that would restrict the transfer or possession of certain firearms, but with the other hand it created an exception that would destroy that very rule. See Abdul–Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 315 (3d Cir.2001) (rejecting an interpretation of a statute that would allow the exception to swallow the rule)" U.S. v. One (1) Palmetto State Armory PA-15 Machinegun Receiver/Frame, Unknown Caliber Serial No. LW001804, 14-CV-06569, 2016 WL 2893670, at *3 (3d Cir. May 18, 2016). Here, Defendants interpretation is also necessarily without merit because it renders N.J. Stat. § 2C:58-4©-(d) meaningless by narrowing the standard for justifiable need to a standard that is impossible to obtain. Any person can move away from their home if needed, any person could abandon his or her job if absolutely necessary, even though that person may have to expend hundreds of thousands in the process. As constructed by Defendants, the justifiable need standard cannot be met unless it is absolutely impossible to avoid one’s stalker or fall victim to an attack. This is an ultra vires construction. Further, taken to the New Jersey Court’s absurd conclusion, anyone that was previously attacked and granted a permit to carry could simply change jobs or move and thus be outside of the justifiable need standard as applied by Defendants.

John, thank you for the question. Have you read either the Complaint or the Motion for Preliminary Injunction? We reserve a facial attack on justifiable need, however, given the precedent set by Drake, only the en banc third circuit can overturn it. If we get there, we will certainly argue that justifiable need as upheld by Drake is incorrect, but until we get there, we are bound by precedent.