SAF Sues New Jersey for "Justifiable Need"

[swinokur]

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.

they are called (use any one) liberals, progressives, marxists etc.

they are a bunch of elitists who have made it their business to control your life.

i believe the end of that is coming, albeit too slowly for those of us who still value freedom. NJ needs a good buggering anyway.

 

[Patrick]

they are called (use any one) liberals, progressives, marxists etc.

they are a bunch of elitists who have made it their business to control your life.

i believe the end of that is coming, albeit too slowly for those of us who still value freedom. NJ needs a good buggering anyway.

Yes. And they were also called "judges" and even conservative judges should have (in the past) voted against the right to carry in MD. Simply put, the 2A was not incorporated. It did not exist. A judge who ruled that it did would have been "activist" in the way he/she made law from whole cloth. It is not the venue of a state judge to rule on unincorporated federal constitutional provisions.

But today is different. For the same reason a so-called "conservative" judge should have ruled against public carry in 2006, a "liberal" judge should rule in favor today. That is how it works.

One hopes.

I know I give the judiciary too much credit. But still, I like to think they are a good last refuge of law, from the law when we need it.

 

[K-Romulus]

What is interesting is that Duane Morris is one of the largest law firms in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Morris

Ranked number 72 in size.

 

[Patrick]

What is interesting is that Duane Morris is one of the largest law firms in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Morris

Ranked number 72 in size.

"Duane Morris claims that it is unique among large law firms by maintaining an active contingency fee practice. Contingency fees contributed $15 to $20 million to the firm's gross revenue in 2009."

 

[MDFF2008]

It sounds to me like a grandious waste of time and resources.

If the government can prove their case by proving just 1 example, it's too damn easy.

 

[Inigoes]

"Duane Morris claims that it is unique among large law firms by maintaining an active contingency fee practice. Contingency fees contributed $15 to $20 million to the firm's gross revenue in 2009."

It sounds to me like a grandious waste of time and resources.

If the government can prove their case by proving just 1 example, it's too damn easy.

Sounds like the win is in the bag.

Big companies do not gamble on long shots, only sure things

 

[Patrick]

It sounds to me like a grandious waste of time and resources.

If the government can prove their case by proving just 1 example, it's too damn easy.

Actually, it's not as bad as it sounds.

First, the NJ laws are exceptionally onerous. Judges in the judicial are responsible for giving permits and act as processors of the executive, who is implementing the laws of the legislative. So one judge to rule them all.

Also, NJ laws in general are horrible when it comes to 2A. I have not gone through the whole thing in detail, and strictly speaking this is only a high-level overview of the arguments yet to be made. But on first blush this is not a waste of time.

And there still is a challenge to the laws as-applied.

From a strategy point of view, the complaint pretty much calls for NJ to argue 2A to defeat the facial challenge (not a given), and at the same time the SAF is still pursuing the standard as-applied logic of our other cases. In essence, the SAF has upped the ante but not really given anything away.

What it does do is put more pressure on the state to make the fight. MD/NY have done all they can to avoid the fight over 2A. Here NJ gets some incentive to bring out their best arguments against our rights, because if they win they get to claim victory on at least half the challenge.

But it would still leave the rest of the as-applied challenge intact (though perhaps weakened in some ways depending on the findings of the facial challenge).

Note this is a more risky challenge as it is subject to an easier motion to dismiss. But the NJ laws are so strict, I have a feeling it won't be as easy as some wish it to be. When I get time to outline the exact arguments I will try. Until then, maybe someone else will walk us through it...

Play Devil's Advocate: can someone here find an example when the NJ laws would be constitutional? That's what I intend to do when I get time.

And don't let any of this fool you: there will be tons of procedural challenges, challenges to SAF standing, ripeness complaints and maybe even Younger abstention arguments. NJ will try to draw this out.

 

[krucam]

The plaintiffs in this one are just plain "juicy"...

Muller, Store owner, kidnapped by Hell's Angels at gunpoint, he escapes and suspects are arrested. Their fate is currently pending before the courts. He fears his life may be in danger if he moves forward to testify. Denied.

Piszczatoski, FBI employee, USCG Warrant Officer, desires a permit due to announced threat (from FBI) by Muslim terrorists against FBI employees. Denied.

Drake, owns a business that owns and services ATM's, often working on open ATM's in public locations. Denied.

Gallaher, building contractor who came to a site one morning just after thieves stole his equipment. Police said they may have ties to organized crime and was probably lucky he didn't arrive while they were still there. Denied.

Salerno, electrician who works all hours at all locations including some rough areas during the course of his job. Denied.

Fenton, part-time Deputy Sheriff. A qualified Law Enforcement Officer according to LEOSA. The State decided that LEOSA only protects full-time employees. Denied.

It is a "Complaint for Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law". Color of Law will be our friend sooner rather than later. In this case, they are going directly for the throat against everyone who has wronged the Plaintiffs by violating their rights (guaranteed in McDonald) solely on the premise of established policy and upholding existing policy, based upon our other new friend, 42USC1983.

They go directly at 6 NJ Laws in entirety that are deemed Unconstitutional, saying they "Vest Uncontrolled Discretion in the Hands of State Officials".

For reference purposes, Woollard in MD is only attacking one sentence within one law.

Nothing on Pacer yet for this one...perhaps later and I'll have a Docket and it will then be on my 2A cases page. This one will be interesting...thanks for the catch Patrick, I didn't have time to really read it at work and you're just better at it than the rest of us...just sayin'.

 

[ezliving]

Fantastic lineup of plaintiffs. They really did their homework.

 

[tdt91]

I should hope that by now ALL MDshooters are members of SAF!!!

If you are not, WHY? It's ten bucks.

 

[Patrick]

Those are awesome plaintiffs.

You bring up the other side of the context in this case - unlike previous suits that somewhat narrowly challenge a law or regulation, this case attempts to lay waste to basically the entire NJ permitting scheme. If this were decided in favor of plaintiffs as-is, I am not sure NJ would have anything left because it goes after not only the criteria for permit award, but also the process used.

MD is lucky. All they would need to do is ignore a line of law and continue the process as-is, less the obtrusive investigations and subjective evaluations. NJ would have to start from near scratch and come up with a new process.

Gansler should feel lucky. He can eventually claim "Hey, I defended the legislative intent of MD law right up until the Federal Courts deemed it offensive. But it was only a single line and we fixed it."

NJ won't have it so easy.

This is a bold challenge.

This one will be interesting...thanks for the catch Patrick, I didn't have time to really read it at work and you're just better at it than the rest of us...just sayin'.

Thanks, but keep in mind I was turned down for an honorary degree in Constitutional Law from some diploma mill in the Bahamas. The bastards even kept the $39.99 I sent them. But on the upside, I used the credit card number I lifted from your wallet last time we went shooting. So no loss to me.

 

[krucam]

I should hope that by now ALL MDshooters are members of SAF!!!

If you are not, WHY? It's ten bucks.

See the Karma link in my Sig...maybe only a day or two left at this rate!

And...I'm REALLY hoping the FBI guy isn't the named Plaintiff in this case...

 

[GNLaFrance]

It sounds to me like a grandiose waste of time and resources. If the government can prove their case by proving just 1 example, it's too damn easy.

Large, successful law firms don't get to be large and successful by taking on lost causes. I'm willing to bet they know what they're doing here.

 

[Patrick]

Large, successful law firms don't get to be large and successful by taking on lost causes. I'm willing to bet they know what they're doing here.

Hopefully laying the groundwork for a series of successful civil rights cases involving large punitive awards. These guys apparently take cases on contingency. That's lawyer-speak for "on commission."

The experience here would translate into a lucrative practice down the road. They could mine money from the likes of CA, IL, DC and NJ for years.

Somehow I think MD would back down fast in the face of such a barrage. Our legislature just doesn't have the stomach to see the dollars get taken away.

But somewhere, right now, there are government officials denying 2A rights who just $hat a brick because a group of shark-lawyers have made them a target.

Seriously, these guys are not civil rights advocates every day. Whatever compassion they have for our plight, they are a firm that seeks money on a daily basis. Their laser focus on recalcitrant governments should scare the hell out governors and legislatures nationwide. They have the resources to fight and make people pay.

Like I have said many time, the SAF will define our rights. Firms like this will then go for the jugular and cement that right forever. There is nothing a legislature loves more than your money. They will do whatever it takes to keep it, including let you defend yourself.

 

[Trapper]

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.

I'd like to address these two "issues" if you will.

For the first, in the face of the text of the second ammendment, I can see no "compelling" argument for a permitting system for carry.

For the second, the Supreme Court looked favorably on those cases in the face of permit-less open carry. I don't believe any reasonble person could say that the second ammendment allows for the restriction of both open and concealed carry, simultaneously. In all of those cases, open carry required no permit, and therefore upheld the constitutional right. In most (if not all) of the current cases, open-carry is banned (as in Maryland), and concealed carry might as well be.

Thanks for your time and thoughts.

 

[Patrick]

For the first, in the face of the text of the second ammendment, I can see no "compelling" argument for a permitting system for carry.

First, I want to be clear it is not my argument...

It looks foregone to me. I see a challenge to the permit being likely and even possible. But "the right" is predicated on the assumption that those not eligible will not carry a gun. That eligibility needs to be determined somewhere. If they determine it post-arrest, the argument can (and will) be made that the charges are invalid because the state should have told the person they could not carry. No permit means no communication. It would be a Due Process issue - how can you be held to account if you were unaware of your classification?

But that argument holds a distant second to the main point: the government will say they have a "compelling interest" in keeping the ineligible from carrying arms. The SAF has pretty much acknowledged the issue, as have several other experts. There are First Amendment amalgams (publisher requirements, permits to demonstrate, etc.). The key is that the permit must be non-subjective and the system to deliver them constitutional.

There is a reason the SAF is challenging the systems and laws that issue permits, rather than the need for one at all. If you consider it, the argument for so-called "Constitutional Carry" is straightforward: no permits required. But I am afraid to say it is a losing argument.

Be assured: nobody is giving up ground right now. Even if the SAF does not challenge permits, someday soon someone will. And I would love to be wrong.

 

[Trapper]

Yes. And they were also called "judges" and even conservative judges should have (in the past) voted against the right to carry in MD. Simply put, the 2A was not incorporated. It did not exist. A judge who ruled that it did would have been "activist" in the way he/she made law from whole cloth. It is not the venue of a state judge to rule on unincorporated federal constitutional provisions.

While I can agree with you for other states, based on the legal-screwing named "Slaughterhouse", for MD I must disagree. The MD Constitution clearly defaults to and includes the Federal Constitution on this issue. It was even argued at the MD Constitutional Convention that an analogue was unnecessary as the MD Constitution included the reference to the U.S. Constitution.

It was just some lawmaker or judge (I haven't researched where we got screwed) who screwed us out of our rights, and a lack of protest that cemented it.

Thanks again, for all the insight.

 

[joppaj]

Fantastic lineup of plaintiffs. They really did their homework.

Yeah they did.

I should hope that by now ALL MDshooters are members of SAF!!!

If you are not, WHY? It's ten bucks.

Agreed.

 

[Patrick]

While I can agree with you for other states, based on the legal-screwing named "Slaughterhouse", for MD I must disagree. The MD Constitution clearly defaults to and includes the Federal Constitution on this issue. It was even argued at the MD Constitutional Convention that an analogue was unnecessary as the MD Constitution included the reference to the U.S. Constitution.

It was just some lawmaker of judge (I haven't researched where we got screwed) who screwed us out of our rights, and a lack of protest that cemented it.

Thanks again, for all the insight.

Yeah, I've always been curious how they took incorporation of the US Bill of Rights and turned it into a "literary flourish" years later.

The sad fact is that once the Supreme Court of the state speaks about their own constitution, it's pretty much the end of the discussion, no matter how bad they messed it up.

And yeah, Slaughterhouse is a mess.

Don't get me wrong on any of this...I see things your way. Just trying (like you) to help everyone understand how things got where they are and - more importantly - what we need to do to dig out.

 

[Trapper]

First, I want to be clear it is not my argument...

It looks foregone to me. I see a challenge to the permit being likely and even possible. But "the right" is predicated on the assumption that those not eligible will not carry a gun. That eligibility needs to be determined somewhere. If they determine it post-arrest, the argument can (and will) be made that the charges are invalid because the state should have told the person they could not carry. No permit means no communication. It would be a Due Process issue - how can you be held to account if you were unaware of your classification?

The eligability is already determined at purchase. If you cannot purchase a gun, you cannot carry a gun. End of argument. While I find the 7-day wait to be onerous, I don't have an issue with the background check (I do, but I'm willing to get past it for an instant check).
I think there needs to be some way for people to determine whether or not they are prohibited, without committing "purgery" by unknowingly lying on the form. However, I see the background check before purchase as the method for communicating the prohibition to the prohibited.

One thing that really bothers me about many laws is that the law-abiding have encumberances and fees foistered upon them in order for the law-breaking to be found. I say, fine the law-breakers and leave everyone else alone.

Also, I realize your are just giving the information and your observations of the possibilities, that is why I'm trying to let you know that I'm not personally attacking you when I question the logic of some of your statements. I realize that most of them are based on the facts of what happens, not what you'd like to have happen.