Promising news from NJ re: Right to Carry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
48
Just got this in my email inbox a little while ago. As a former "inmate" of NJ, this is certainly some promising news from the Garden State with respect to 2A rights, for a change:

ANJRPC SUES TO BRING DOWN

NJ’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL

HANDGUN CARRY LAW!



Today, ANJRPC joined in an historic federal lawsuit challenging provisions of New Jersey law that effectively deny law-abiding citizens the civil right to defend themselves with a firearm outside the home.

The suit, brought together with The Second Amendment Foundation and six private citizens, challenges the constitutionality of New Jersey ’s extreme and subjective "justifiable need” standard for issuance of handgun carry permits – a nearly impossible standard to meet that has all but eliminated the right of self defense with a firearm in the Garden State . A copy of the complaint is available here http://www.anjrpc.org/link.asp?ymlink=380050&finalurl=http%3A%2F%2Fanjrpc%2Esite%2Dym%2Ecom%2Fresource%2Fresmgr%2FDocs%2FNJ%5FRTC%5FComplaint%2Epdf

"The fundamental right to defend yourself does not evaporate when you walk out your front door,” said ANJRPC President Scott Bach. "The U.S. Supreme Court has recently made it clear that this right belongs to all Americans. This lawsuit will ensure that New Jersey finally stops denying its citizens this basic freedom.”

40 states currently have laws recognizing the right of law abiding citizens to carry a handgun for self defense, 28 of which have been enacted in just the last two decades. Despite the mountain of evidence showing that sustained reductions in violent crime rates result after enactment of these laws, New Jersey has refused to modernize its own laws, instead choosing to imperil its citizens and force them to remain defenseless victims against armed criminals who don’t follow the law.

"It’s no mystery why violent crime rates plummet wherever Right to Carry laws are enacted” said Bach. "Criminals go somewhere else when they think their victims might be armed. When predators can’t tell the difference between the sheep and the wolves, the whole flock is safer.”

New Jersey ’s outdated gun laws – including its carry laws – are based on the false premise that the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege to be granted by the state – or not. The U.S. Supreme Court has recently held the exact opposite – that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental individual right belonging to all Americans that cannot be prohibited by state or local governments.

One of the plaintiffs in the new lawsuit is a kidnap victim, another is a part-time sheriff’s deputy, a third carries large amounts of cash in his private business and another is a civilian employee of a law enforcement agency. The fact that such persons are unable to qualify for a New Jersey carry permit underscores how arbitrary and unreasonable the Garden State ’s laws are. " New Jersey ’s carry laws are blatantly unconstitutional,” said Bach. "We intend to change that.”
 
I have always held that NJ is too far lost to recover itself, and that reform will need to be imposed upon it externally, like a Jim Crow state. Such lawsuits are the first glimmer of morning in NJ.

I sincerely hope that the legal team lines up their ducks and does it right, the risk of bad precedent looms large.



Incidentally, I am *very* happy to see Scott Bach at the reins of the ANJRPC. Back before I escaped across the river, as far as defense of gunrights went, the ANJRPC was spineless, toothless, and useless.
 
Good to see these suits spreading. One in San Diego CA just went to trial on the concealed carry issue. The statue allows it, but the head LEO denies everyone except his friends and cronies. The plaintifs argued for equal rights for all and seek 'shall issue' v 'may issue'. They expect a Decision in three to four weeks. It is in Federal court. I expect it to go up to the ninth circuit on appeal. I hope you all prevail in NJ also.
 
Yeah but what I worry about is to get around a court ruling that says you can't pick and choose who you give permits to under the may issue system, instead of going to a shall issue system, I think they will just go to a no issue system. Then you gotta try another lawsuit. Still we need to keep pushing. So far gun rights have the momentum, we need to use it.
 
Originally posted by geekWithA.45:

I sincerely hope that the legal team lines up their ducks and does it right, the risk of bad precedent looms large.

I'm wondering where Evan Nappen is on this one. Seems like something he would have wanted to be a part of, considering the extent of his experience with NJ gun laws.

Regardless, I share your apprehension. I hope it all works out for my former home state - it would be great to go back and visit, and be able to carry.
 
Maybe the next thing will be to repeal the stupid ban on hollow point ammo for commoners in NJ.
 
The judge will be assigned randomly by the clerk of the court blah blah blah procedural stuff.

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_New_Jersey


It is going to be one of the judges listed in the link above from either the Article III group or the Seniors (though less likely due to semi retired status and reduced case load)

If we assume (usually a bad idea) that by who nominated them, Republican or Democrat, that they would follow in their leanings on gun rights then we would hope that none of those nomiated by Clinton get assigned this case.

Dennis Cavanaugh, Katharine Hayden, Faith Hochberg and Joel Pisano were all appointed by Clinton may be bad for a gun rights victory.

So any of the other nominated by Bush, Bush senior or Reagan may be either balanced or in favor of gun rights.

I have no idea on any of the Judges leanings just speculating, at 1 am, since I can't sleep due to restless thoughts of freedom actually coming to this socialist state bouncing around in my head.
 
NJ Accountant wrote: "I have no idea on any of the Judges leanings just speculating, at 1 am, since I can't sleep due to restless thoughts of freedom actually coming to this socialist state bouncing around in my head.'

That kind of thing will happen to a guy!
 
Maybe the next thing will be to repeal the stupid ban on hollow point ammo for commoners in NJ.
Hollow point ammunition is perfectly legal in New Jersey. You can buy it, you can transport it, you can hunt with it. You can shoot it at the range or in your home. It's just illegal to commit a crime with it.

Now here's where things get interesting. Read the complaint here and take notice of the line:

declaratory judgment that N.J. Stat. § 2C:58-4(c)-(d) and N.J. Admin. Code
§§ 13:54-2.3(a), 13:54-2.4(d)(1), 13:54-2.5, and 13:54-2.7(b) are facially invalid
under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments

Take note of "facially invalid." This means that the law is entirely invalid "on it's face." This is what you might consider a "nuclear option" because ANJRPC is NOT saying: "in this case, these six people were deprived of their rights, we want redress," they are saying that the entire handgun carry permitting system is wrong for everybody.

It's a little bit easier to prove that a law "as applied" in a specific case for a plaintiff is wrong. But in a facial challenge, now you have to prove that the law is invalid in ALL cases... even cases in which your plaintiffs are not involved. If the defense can prove that the law was valid in even one single case : BOOM! You lose.

This is a very, VERY bold approach. My guess is that the ANJRPC and SAF know that they have a good case, but I don't think that they intend to argue it. ANJRPC and SAF are gambling that the state will blink first. We have a few days until the mainstream media pick up on this story. It will start with a few "This Is Not Right For New Jersey" editorials in the Star Ledger and the Record. Once the state assembly realizes that out of state interests with lots of money are going to muscle their way in and change New Jersey's laws, they will dust off State Senator Van Drew's conceal carry reformed legislation and push it through.

Our Governor Christie has his eye on the White House and he will sign it.

But let's see how it goes... the sense of urgency in the state legislature has to be there, and they are too busy banning bullying and "toxic" plastic water bottles to do much of anything right now. This case may give them that sense of urgency.
 
cl4de6 has it exactly correct. In legal terms, this is indeed the nuclear option. It is risky, because it puts all the eggs in one basket.

Granted that an as-applied challenge is also there, as a back-up. But this may not carry the day, if the case fails the facial challenge. It depends largely upon how the wording of the facial challenge fails.

That's the bad news.

The good news is that the law firm that is handling this case is one of the best in the world. These guys are real sharks and are after the money. While they don't normally handle civil rights litigation, they must be seeing $ollars in other (related) cases, with a win here. Also note that while Alan Gura is not directly involved, he is said to be in contact with them.

Additionally, as the other 2A cases are decided, there will be an impact on how this case is ultimately litigated.

NB: There are currently cases in the 11th Circuit; 10th Circuit; 9th Circuit; 7th Circuit; 5th Circuit; 4th Circuit; 2nd Circuit; DC Circuit; and now the 3rd Circuit.
 
Originally posted by cl4de6:

Our Governor Christie has his eye on the White House and he will sign it.

I respectfully disagree. Chris Christie is no real friend to the 2A - he has been quoted as affirming NJ's strict gun laws, including NJ's AWB. I'm not so confident he will go along, but then again he has NO political capital among the libs in the legislature, so realistically, he's got nothing to lose. Still, I just don't see him changing his colors on the issue.
 
Lets call Christie what he is a NJ Republican which basically means fiscally conservative Democrat in any none socialist state, he is no friend of gun rights or freedom. At best he wants to reduce spending otherwise his views fall in line with the NJ system including turning a blind eye to the rampant corruption and lies promulgated in NJ regarding among other things gun policy.

If he has his eye on a national executive position he will need to gain support from at least some gun rights groups, or at least tacit approval, to have any chance, this will be his chance to show he has changed his anti gun ways and I am fairly sure he knows it.
 
Christie is going to have to pull a full Zumbo to gain credibility on firearms.

As long as he stays safe in NJ, he knows darned well that he'll never have to.

If he really wants national office, then he's going to have to perform Big Amends.
 
I was confused at first, but I see you mean Patriot as in "Patriot Act."

Back on topic, I hope you guys get our win in court. Here in Cali we are hoping for a favorable outcome.
I thought the meaning was more patriot vs traitor and thought geez, we really have to insult those who disagree with us and label them in such ugly terms? I mean as much as you think your point of view is valid, they equally have the right to have their views and that don't make them any less patriotic than you are. I wish we all in this country can realize we all here together as one country with all similar desires, just different views and ways of how to get there. This whole right left thing is just dumb as a door knob. Now with that said, here is to hoping the supreme court puts to bed this denial of people's rights. Let the people have their guns please. I don't see blood running down streets of 2A friendly states. Glad I don't live in the people's republic of NJ. :eek:
 
Last edited:
label them in such ugly terms

Which term do you consider ugly?
"Patriot" is not an insult to anyone other than a Giants fan, and a "Liberal" is proud of his or her beliefs.

More to the point, as an advocate it is crucial to "know" your judge.
Certain arguments just don't work with people on one side or the other of the Right/Left spectrum.

That said, anyone know to whom this case was assigned?

P.S., Tom Palmer, the name plaintiff in the D.C. Right-to Carry case, is Gay, and he drives a Smart car, but he's a Patriot:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/20/AR2010022003376_3.html?sid=ST2008031702809
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top