SAF Sues New Jersey for "Justifiable Need"

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • krucam

    Ultimate Member
    http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=346

    :party29:


    SAF SUES N.J. OFFICIALS FOR 'DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS' ON PERMIT DENIALS


    For Immediate Release: 11/22/2010

    BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against several New Jersey officials for deprivation of civil rights under color of law.


    SAF is joined in the lawsuit by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. and six private citizens whose applications for permits to carry have been denied generally on the grounds that they have not shown a “justifiable need.” One of the plaintiffs 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 the FBI in New Jersey who is fearful of attack from a radical Islamic fundamentalist group. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys David D. Jensen and Robert P. Firriolo with the firm of Duane Morris, LLP in Newark.


    Named as defendants in the case are three Superior Court judges, Philip J. Maenza, Morris County; Rudolph A. Filko, Passaic County and Edward A. Jerejian of Bergen County, plus Col. Rick Fuentes, superintendent of the State Police, Hammonton Police Chief Frank Ingemi and New Jersey Attorney General Paula T. Dow.


    “Law-abiding New Jersey citizens have been arbitrarily deprived of their ability to defend themselves and their families for years under the state’s horribly-crafted laws,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The law grants uncontrolled discretion to police chiefs and other public officials to deny license applications even in cases where the applicant has shown a clear and present danger exists.


    “If being a kidnap victim, or part-time law enforcement officer, or the potential target of a known radical group does not clearly demonstrate a justifiable need,” he continued, “the defendants need to explain what would. Do citizens need guns to their heads or knives to their throats before the state considers their need to be justified?


    “Supreme Court rulings have made it clear that the Second Amendment prohibits states from completely banning the carrying of handguns for self-defense,” Gottlieb said. “Nor may states deny citizens the right to carry handguns in non-sensitive places or deprive them of the right to carry in an arbitrary and capricious manner. That’s what is happening today in New Jersey, and we intend to stop it.”


    The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

    I'll do some more digging on this after work. All the more reasons to support SAF with your $$...this stuff takes money...

    EDIT: Complaint (thanks Yellowfin) is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/43640855/SAF-New-Jersery-Case-Final-Complaint
     
    Last edited:

    joppaj

    Sheepdog
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Apr 11, 2008
    46,459
    MD
    These guys are throwing stuff so fast that the Brady's MUST be tying themselves in knots.
     

    boricuamaximus

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 27, 2008
    6,237
    These guys are throwing stuff so fast that the Brady's MUST be tying themselves in knots.

    For real. They keep it up, I might have to donate to the Brady Bunch just see them squirming for a little longer before the crushing end to their ways.
     

    BigDuphis

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 15, 2009
    2,609
    Pikesville
    They seem to be taking the throw as much poo at the fan as possible, and some is bound to stick where you want it approach.
     

    md_rick_o

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 30, 2008
    5,112
    Severn Md.
    For real. They keep it up, I might have to donate to the Brady Bunch just see them squirming for a little longer before the crushing end to their ways.

    :lol::lol:

    Seriously though, how can anyone look at this stuff a think gun control/denial is the right thing constitutionally. I know the idiots don't bother to think they just knee jerk react to GUNS OH NOOOOO. but there are people out there that seem to believe we don't have any right to self defense in any form.
     

    kohburn

    Resident MacGyver
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 15, 2008
    6,796
    PAX NAS / CP MCAS
    They seem to be taking the throw as much poo at the fan as possible, and some is bound to stick where you want it approach.

    I wouldn't go that far. All of their suets have been well thought and and strategic. However they do seem to be ramping up the rate of fire.

    The way it is staged now once they get a win the case law will start to cascade down through the other suits reinforcing them and making it a no-brainer for the judge(s) to rule on.
     

    joppaj

    Sheepdog
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Apr 11, 2008
    46,459
    MD
    It seems like they set these up so that the big precident setters will go first. Those will be used in these later rounds. This could be a massive snowball effect once it gets rolling.
     

    BigDuphis

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 15, 2009
    2,609
    Pikesville
    I wouldn't go that far. All of their suets have been well thought and and strategic. However they do seem to be ramping up the rate of fire.

    The way it is staged now once they get a win the case law will start to cascade down through the other suits reinforcing them and making it a no-brainer for the judge(s) to rule on.

    Don't get me wrong, I didn't intend to demean their efforts. I was just noting that it has become quite the blitzkrieg from so many different sides.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    It seems like they set these up so that the big precident setters will go first. Those will be used in these later rounds. This could be a massive snowball effect once it gets rolling.

    Ding Ding Ding!

    I think we have a winner.

    This seems like a sign of confidence to me. Wisconsin and Illinois are next. I cannot see Hawaii, only because of the logistical issues getting to a District Court out there. Too bad. I'd travel there to cover the case, even though Honolulu can be a pain.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Ding Ding Ding!

    I think we have a winner.

    This seems like a sign of confidence to me. Wisconsin and Illinois are next. I cannot see Hawaii, only because of the logistical issues getting to a District Court out there. Too bad. I'd travel there to cover the case, even though Honolulu can be a pain.

    You'll note from the complaint that Gura isn't representing this one. The cards have been laid out well.

    WI will probably go Shall-Issue on their own next year with their new governor. IL would be ripe for the picking...we need a Carry case in the 7th Ckt.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    Holy Cow

    Uh...this is a facial challenge to the entire NJ handgun permitting system. That's big.

    A facial challenge essentially means that "there are no circumstances under which the law or restriction can be legal." That means the SAF is arguing that the law is always illegal, under all circumstances, at all times and in every case. Literally it means "on its entire face, the law is wrong." I know a lot of folks here will say "well, duh", so let me explain why this is a big deal...

    So far all the challenges filed (Woollard, for instance) have been as-applied, meaning that the laws "as applied" to the plaintiff's are wrong. Woollard has zero use of the word "facial" in its complaint. Making a facial challenge to the entire set of code that governs permitting in NJ is a lot different than saying "as applied, this law is unconstitutional."

    The difference: when you challenge a law in its application, you need only prove that the law is wrong in the single context of your plaintiff. So if you make an argument for your case, you win.

    When you challenge a law facially, you need to prove that the law is invalid in all cases, even those cases in which your plaintiffs are not a party. If the law can be demonstrated valid in even one case, you lose.

    So successful facial challenges are rare even though the challenges themselves are common - a lot of lawyers/plaintiffs with little real experience file them all the time. They lose all the time, too. It's typically a sign of a doomed case. They are usually swept aside in short order.

    The upside of a facial challenge: reduced discovery. You cannot reasonably depose every potential plaintiff in the case, so there is a limit on what you can do. It also puts the onus on the defendant to defend their laws. The government gets an "easy out" -- all they need to do is describe a single instance in which their laws are constitutional and they win. Case over. Done.

    Defendants typically love facial challenges because they can be dealt with cleanly, quickly and decisively. As the defendant, I just find a valid case and walk away. I get to "prove" my innocence any way I want rather than investigate and argue the merits of my restrictions against a single (or select few) plaintiffs who were specially chosen to present the maximum headache to me. The many facial challenges are usually handed to the less experienced attorneys because they can be handled with ease (not this case, though).


    The Upshot:

    This is a massively ballsy move.

    What it does is force the 2A issues right to the front of the argument. It literally opens the door to an easy defense on the part of the government - all they need to do is talk about how their restrictions on 2A are legal, even once. But if NJ fails to find/argue that point, they lose in all cases. That's the nature of facial challenges: all or nothing.

    FWIW, the SAF also bring an as-applied "backup" challenge. But the obvious main argument is the facial challenge. From anyone but the SAF (even the NRA), I would have responded derisively and ignored the case from then on. But this one seems like it might have legs.


    Every time I think I've seen it all, those kids at the SAF toss another one at me. This is downright entertaining stuff. Glad I signed up for the season pass.


    EDIT: Welcome Snowflakes readers.

    The permit system is under challenge, not the need for a permit. So while a lot of mess could be held unconstitutional in this case, the need for a permit is not being challenged. There is no such thing as "Constitutional Carry" and this suit would not prohibit NJ from arresting people who do not have a valid permit. All it does is remove the subjective analysis and unconstitutional process used in the permitting process. In that respect it is like the challenges in other states (like MD) - only more broad and definately more "in your face".
     
    Last edited:

    joppaj

    Sheepdog
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Apr 11, 2008
    46,459
    MD
    Oh wow. Is this the same as stating that the law is unconstitutional?
     

    joppaj

    Sheepdog
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Apr 11, 2008
    46,459
    MD
    Unconstitutional in all cases, at all times, in all manner or implementation.

    It is a big "You Suck!". Fitting it was filed in New Jersey. :lol2:

    Wow... Ok, that's a big brass balls kind of move
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    If won, we're then talking "Constitutional Carry" ala VT/AK/AZ?

    It doesn't challenge "manner of carry", only the manner in which they determine the need for a permit.

    "Constitutional Carry" in the form most pro-carry people describe it probably does not exist. The argument for a permitting system for public carry is compelling enough to allow it, so long as it meets other constitutional requirements (in the process of being defined). And beyond the question of carry permits, in Heller the Supreme Court looked favorably on four cases in which a state determined a method of carry (open at that time) and banned the other (concealed). This wasn't a vote for OC, but rather a note that some manner of choice is possible at the state level. Banning one is still constitutional.

    What will probably fall is permits for guns in the home. The Supreme Court all but asked for that question in the Heller decision. But small potatoes for now.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,483
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom