July 23, 201313 yr http://www.ammoland.com/2013/07/nj-supreme-court-to-hear-2a-case-on-justifiable-need-njs-excuse-for-denying-concealed-carry-permits/#axzz2Zti9JMTa Trenton, NJ - -(Ammoland.com)- For the first time in 45 years the New Jersey Supreme Court has granted a hearing related to Second Amendment rights, on the case of Richard Pantano, owner of a NJ Landscape Supply Business that handles as much as $2,000,000 in cash a year. Go get em!
July 23, 201313 yr it won't matter...he will get his and they will drop the case typical appeasement policies that give rights to those who can afford to fight for them in court
July 23, 201313 yr Author I can hope that Nappen pursues this to the end. I can also hope for a million bucks, perfect weather, beautiful women, a life of fishing and hunting, and... Well, you get the point. Back to realtor.com to look for houses outside NJ.
July 23, 201313 yr I can hope that Nappen pursues this to the end. I can also hope for a million bucks, perfect weather, beautiful women, a life of fishing and hunting, and... You had me till fishing...
July 23, 201313 yr Evan Nappen on NRA News today speaking about the decision to hear this case dropped the "My governor can eat your governor" bomb
July 24, 201313 yr it won't matter...he will get his and they will drop the case typical appeasement policies that give rights to those who can afford to fight for them in court They will likely uphold that he doesn't have justifiable need. Only reason they gave muller a permit was because he filed a federal lawsuit and the SL railed against the state. It was really bad press, and could blow the door wide open, so they caved in.
July 24, 201313 yr Didn't the NJ supreme court already uphold "justifiable need". And that's why its being argued at the federal CA3 level?
July 24, 201313 yr So protecting money could be justifiable need but protecting myself and my family just won't qualify? How much cash do my kids need to be carrying before I can defend their lives with a firearm? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
July 24, 201313 yr Damn allowing citizens to protect themselves thus making NJ safer and have a lower crime rate = NJ Politician logic
July 24, 201313 yr Didn't the NJ supreme court already uphold "justifieable need". And that's why its being argued at the federal CA4 level? Yes, I find it puzzling that they took the case.
July 24, 201313 yr So protecting money could be justifiable need but protecting myself and my family just won't qualify? How much cash do my kids need to be carrying before I can defend their lives with a firearm? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 this made me laugh...
July 24, 201313 yr Just a guess: The NJ Supreme Court has not revisited justifiable need since the Heller decision came down. They want to reaffirm their prior holdings, which were rendered when there was no US Supreme Court case clearly holding that the 2A grants an individual right. The NJ Supreme Court wants to make clear that Heller doesn't change anything in NJ and we are still all screwed.
July 24, 201313 yr it won't matter...he will get his and they will drop the case typical appeasement policies that give rights to those who can afford to fight for them in court Exactly. Just like the Muller case, they will issue him a permit to make this one go away so that they avoid exposing the absurdity to the higher court. Then they will twist this into an example that proves how the appeal process works to ensure a fair application of the law.
July 24, 201313 yr Didn't the NJ supreme court already uphold "justifiable need". And that's why its being argued at the federal CA3 level? When was that? If that case was pre-Heller then it could and should be re-examined. Could be why they took the case. If I'm not mistaken the concept of the 2nd Amendment being a collective militia right also has roots in NJ courts. Heller corrected that as well. Let's accept CCW no matter how it happens. If we get a favorable ruling with SCOTUS we may have to still fight here in NJ as dumb politicians can move the goal posts. If we get it through NJJ, they have less wiggle room.
July 24, 201313 yr Illegal voting can ruin a country, we should have a "justifiable need" to vote. Free speech could be dangerous...we should apply for our "justifiable need" to freely speak. Every citizen could possibly be a terrorist and should apply for "justifiable need" to protect against searches and seizures. Justifiable need for protection...does that mean I need to check and get approval from the courts to protect myself in ANY fashion? Can I take a course on karate or do I need to "justify the need" for such a dangerous way to protect myself? How about boxing...do I need a permit to justify the need to use my fists in such a way? How about justifying my need to use my cane for protection? Do I need to get a court ordered approval to "justifiably need" these items/tactics to defend myself? None of these items or tactics are listed or guaranteed rights, but the "Right to Bear ARMS" is....so I will ask once again. Do I need a court order to simply justify my need to defend myself in any way?
July 24, 201313 yr Just a guess: The NJ Supreme Court has not revisited justifiable need since the Heller decision came down. They want to reaffirm their prior holdings, which were rendered when there was no US Supreme Court case clearly holding that the 2A grants an individual right. The NJ Supreme Court wants to make clear that Heller doesn't change anything in NJ and we are still all screwed. I hate to say it but you might be right.
July 24, 201313 yr Just a guess: The NJ Supreme Court has not revisited justifiable need since the Heller decision came down. They want to reaffirm their prior holdings, which were rendered when there was no US Supreme Court case clearly holding that the 2A grants an individual right. The NJ Supreme Court wants to make clear that Heller doesn't change anything in NJ and we are still all screwed. Maybe, but they could do that by just upholding their existing decision and not taking the case.
July 24, 201313 yr When was that? If that case was pre-Heller then it could and should be re-examined. Could be why they took the case. If I'm not mistaken the concept of the 2nd Amendment being a collective militia right also has roots in NJ courts. Heller corrected that as well. Let's accept CCW no matter how it happens. If we get a favorable ruling with SCOTUS we may have to still fight here in NJ as dumb politicians can move the goal posts. If we get it through NJJ, they have less wiggle room. It was post Heller. Its the Muller case. We are currently waiting the decision from CA3 which was argued by Alan Gura. The same person who argued Heller. Do a search there is a 30 page thread on it.
July 24, 201313 yr It was post Heller. Its the Muller case. We are currently waiting the decision from CA3 which was argued by Alan Gura. The same person who argued Heller. Do a search there is a 30 page thread on it. Which Muller case? There hasn't been one to hit the NJ supreme court. Muller never made it beyond the superior court because he was granted a permit. The Federal Muller (et al) case is different from the case in the state courts.
July 24, 201313 yr Which Muller case? There hasn't been one to hit the NJ supreme court. Muller never made it beyond the superior court because he was granted a permit. The Federal Muller (et al) case is different from the case in the state courts. Your right. Judge Walls ruled on it and he is NJ Superior court. Justifiable need was upheld by him. We with most likely have the decision on justifiable need from the CA3 before the NJ Supreme court hears this case.
July 24, 201313 yr Exactly. Just like the Muller case, they will issue him a permit to make this one go away so that they avoid exposing the absurdity to the higher court. Then they will twist this into an example that proves how the appeal process works to ensure a fair application of the law. the key there then, would be for all of us to apply. since we know we're gonna get turned down, they can no longer say they approve X % of the applications, because with all the refusals, it would drop to about 2% or some absurdly low number. which they can't twist or spin to fit their agenda.
July 24, 201313 yr the key there then, would be for all of us to apply. since we know we're gonna get turned down, they can no longer say they approve X % of the applications, because with all the refusals, it would drop to about 2% or some absurdly low number. which they can't twist or spin to fit their agenda. Nj2as was talking of doing this. They're waiting to hear if a rejection will have any lasting effects on people's records. Ie will job prospects, p2p, nics be able to see that you were rejected.
July 24, 201313 yr 1LtCAP, on 24 Jul 2013 - 1:17 PM, said: the key there then, would be for all of us to apply. since we know we're gonna get turned down, they can no longer say they approve X % of the applications, because with all the refusals, it would drop to about 2% or some absurdly low number. which they can't twist or spin to fit their agenda. Suggested reading before applying: The United States Constitution The Amendments to the Constitution The Declaration of Independence The Articles of Confederation Common Sense - Thomas Paine The Second Amendment - David Barton The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers Complete Works - Pacific Publishing The View of the Constitution of the United States of America - William Rawle That Every Man Be Armed - Stephen P. Halbrook The Founders Second Amendment • Origins of the Right To Bear Arms - Stephen P. Halbrook New Jersey Gun Law Guide 3rd. Ed. - Evan F. Nappen & Richard Gilbert GunDigest Book of Concealed Carry 2nd Ed. - Massad Ayoob The 7 Things You Must Know Before You Draw Your Gun - Patrick Kilchermann 1947 State of New Jersey Constitution In re Preis, 118 NJ 564 (1990); Siccardi v. State, 59 NJ 545 (1971); Reilly v. State, 59 NJ (1971); In re Application of X, 59 NJ 533 (1971)
July 24, 201313 yr I hate to say it but you might be right. Even if he is right, and it is just to say nuh unh we don't wanna, it makes it cahllengeable.
July 24, 201313 yr we need ALL the pro-2A attorneys working on this case! i suggest donations pour in!
July 25, 201313 yr Here we go, yet again.... NJ Supreme Court once again will be grandstanding and setting a trap to make a mockery of individual liberties via shady, unlawful rationalisation, condensation, incrementalistic tactics, severe 'interest balancing' approach, oath violating fiasco. If they could crucify Jesus, they would do it all over again. Sheesh........
July 25, 201313 yr Even if he is right, and it is just to say nuh unh we don't wanna, it makes it cahllengeable. Well yes of course. I never said that we shouldn't fight. Just that we will know the outcome.
July 25, 201313 yr Evan Nappen on NRA News today speaking about the decision to hear this case dropped the "My governor can eat your governor" bomb He's good for that. Actually, I don't want to brag, but I am better than Nappen for mocking Christie. Neither one of us has restored RKBA to the general citizenry of NJ.
July 30, 201313 yr Your right. Judge Walls ruled on it and he is NJ Superior court. Justifiable need was upheld by him. We with most likely have the decision on justifiable need from the CA3 before the NJ Supreme court hears this case. Walls is a U.S. district court judge, not a NJ judge. Different court system.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.