New Jersey Carry Lawsuit

wolfwood · Jun 13, 2016

Hi guys

I just filed a new law suit with a couple other people. It is a law suit similar in theory to the New Hampshire lawsuit that recently was won on. There also is a 2a component. I am attaching the complaint to this post.

In case you live in New Jersey or otherwise would like to support the lawsuit my clients set up a fundraising page.
I am drafting a preliminary injunction which will be filed in short order.

https://gogetfunding.com/po6fightingfor2arightsinnj/

this is one of my two clients

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=31&v=F_8lR5vNC_Q

Master_P · Jun 13, 2016

Interesting. Is the goal to get 3CA to state simply that 2A applies outside the home, based on the second prayer for relief?

It always amused me that carry permits in NJ must receive approval from a judge - especially because Heller said:

The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government – even the Third Branch of Government – the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.

That's exactly what NJ is doing. A state court reviews each LTC Application on a case-by-case basis.

press1280 · Jun 13, 2016

Hmmm....not sure about this one. I definitely want you to win (I myself applied and was denied for lack of "justifiable need"), but the lawsuit seems to only seek a not so rigid interpretation, not a flat out elimination of justifiable need.
The legislature essentially handed control over to the judiciary in NJ.

I thought Almeida was already in a SAF lawsuit like 2 years ago. What happened to that one?

wolfwood · Jun 13, 2016

press1280 said:
Hmmm....not sure about this one. I definitely want you to win (I myself applied and was denied for lack of "justifiable need"), but the lawsuit seems to only seek a not so rigid interpretation, not a flat out elimination of justifiable need.
The legislature essentially handed control over to the judiciary in NJ.

I thought Almeida was already in a SAF lawsuit like 2 years ago. What happened to that one?

I've got to work with Drake which is already precedent. I don't really deal with the clients to much I just deal with the paperwork.

swinokur · Jun 13, 2016

Hope Ryan_J sees this.

press1280 · Jun 13, 2016

wolfwood said:
I've got to work with Drake which is already precedent. I don't really deal with the clients to much I just deal with the paperwork.

The NJ Supreme Court hasn't yet spoken on this post Heller, was there a reason this goes back through the 3rd Circuit where the caselaw is already settled?

wolfwood · Jun 14, 2016

press1280 said:
The NJ Supreme Court hasn't yet spoken on this post Heller, was there a reason this goes back through the 3rd Circuit where the caselaw is already settled?

Well that's the thing the case law is not settled on the ultra vires claim. I am sort of banking on that. Other than that I don't really know how to practice in New Jersey State court. Some one who knows how to can file there

DC-W · Jun 14, 2016

press1280 · Jun 14, 2016

wolfwood said:
Well that's the thing the case law is not settled on the ultra vires claim. I am sort of banking on that. Other than that I don't really know how to practice in New Jersey State court. Some one who knows how to can file there

Has a Federal Court ever struck down a state statute based on ultra vires? This would seem more of the purview of the state, rather than Federal Courts, like as was in the NH case.

wolfwood · Jun 14, 2016

press1280 said:
Has a Federal Court ever struck down a state statute based on ultra vires? This would seem more of the purview of the state, rather than Federal Courts, like as was in the NH case.

We aren't asking for the law to be struck rather the administrative interpretation of the statute. However yes this has been before but you do have a point. It is possible that this question gets certified to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Doctor_M · Jun 14, 2016

Good luck!! You have right on your side (not that it matters much in NJ). Wish you the best.

wolfwood · Aug 18, 2016

We got one of our clients his permit. We have two total. One of the County's involved just filed that our PI is moot against them because they issued our client a permit at the very last minute. They are right. The deadline to file a response is tomorrow and our client got his permit today. Shortly after they officially issued it to him they filed the attached letter to the court.

press1280 · Aug 18, 2016

wolfwood said:
We got one of our clients his permit. We have two total. One of the County's involved just filed that our PI is moot against them because they issued our client a permit at the very last minute. They are right. The deadline to file a response is tomorrow and our client got his permit today. Shortly after they officially issued it to him they filed the attached letter to the court.

Glad he got his permit. Just wondering how this helps others who haven't been threatened.

n1hook · Aug 18, 2016

Reply from Dutch expected democrat illogic.

August 18, 2016

Mr. Thomas Richard Scherrer
9820 Homeland Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21234

Dear Mr. Scherrer:

One of the best parts of my job is hearing from constituents. Like you, I believe in the Second Amendment and the right of all Americans to have a gun for whatever reason they choose. I also understand the frustration of many who feel that gun control is a knee-jerk reaction for many lawmakers in the wake of tragedy.

But for other Americans, gun control is now an issue of national security and I agree that we can do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of potential terrorists and the mentally ill. The vast majority of Americans now support universal background checks and prohibitions on gun purchases from those on the “no fly” list. That is why I am supporting these common sense reforms, as well as renewing the ban on the most dangerous military-grade weapons. While it will not prevent mass shootings, it will help reduce casualties.

I believe we owe it to the American people to do whatever we can to help save lives and I am willing to support reasonable, measured reforms to that effect while still upholding the Second Amendment. Please continue to share your thoughts with me. To stay current on issues that are facing Congress and your community, please visit my website at www.dutch.house.gov and sign up for my periodic e-mail newsletter. I also encourage you to follow me on Facebook and Twitter.

Sincerely,

C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger
Member of Congress

ryan_j · Aug 22, 2016

swinokur said:
Hope Ryan_J sees this.

I have been following Al's case, as he is a personal friend. Well, more of an acquaintance but you get the picture.

First off congrats to him on getting his permit. I did expect him to eventually pull it off from the beginning.

press1280 said:
Glad he got his permit. Just wondering how this helps others who haven't been threatened.

I think that this is a strategic move, or rather, a desperate move by the superior court to moot out the case and cut their losses. They pretty much did the same thing with Jeff Muller who was the pet store owner who got kidnapped (by the mob, case of mistaken identity). He got his permit for 2 years and was denied upon renewal. There is a chance that after 2 years Almeida will also be similarly denied when the lawsuits are weakened or gone away.

The other guy, Mike Tumminelli was still denied. I don't know what will happen to him.

NJ has moved to moot out/dismiss the case now.

I think all of this is strategic so the state can fight the litigation again when we have a fully Hillary packed court so they can get the decision they need to kill concealed carry forever. I hope this is not the case but it seems so.

ryan_j · Aug 22, 2016

press1280 said:
The NJ Supreme Court hasn't yet spoken on this post Heller, was there a reason this goes back through the 3rd Circuit where the caselaw is already settled?

The NJ Supreme Court took a case when Drake was also being considered. It was Pantano, who is a landscape supply company owner who deals in large cash transactions. His local police chief approved him but the judge denied him. He appealed to the NJ Supreme Court who initially granted the case. This was when CJ Rabner was up for reappointment. How it works in NJ is that supreme court justices initially serve a small term, I think 7 years then are reappointed until mandatory retirement (age 70).

His reappointment was a fight between Chris Christie, the senate President (Steve Sweeney) and the Democrat legislature. Eventually Christie caved and reappointed him. He also caved and appointed another liberal supreme court justice later on. He had no choice because Sweeney was not giving his appointees a hearing. We had vacancies open for 6 years. Sweeney said he was not going to let Christie reshape the court.

Eventually when Rabner was reappointed and confirmed, he dismissed Pantano's CCW case as improperly granted (DIG). Scott Bach, executive director of ANJRPC theorized that Pantano's case was initially granted to interfere with the Drake case.

eventhorizon · Aug 25, 2016

I saw this in the headlines yesterday.

Christie in gun bill vetoes: Make it easier to carry concealed weapons in N.J.

press1280 · Aug 25, 2016

eventhorizon said:
I saw this in the headlines yesterday.

Christie in gun bill vetoes: Make it easier to carry concealed weapons in N.J.

I still am not understanding how Christie's executive direction changes anything? I don't see County judges all of a sudden handing out permits.

And the vetoed bills seem to be just the same as the law currently is. The legislature has effectively handed permits to the whim of the judiciary, who will never issue permits in numbers because it's Jersey and they "Got theirs".

wolfwood · Sep 2, 2016

we filed a response to the government's motion to dismiss today

ryan_j · Sep 4, 2016

press1280 said:
I still am not understanding how Christie's executive direction changes anything? I don't see County judges all of a sudden handing out permits.

And the vetoed bills seem to be just the same as the law currently is. The legislature has effectively handed permits to the whim of the judiciary, who will never issue permits in numbers because it's Jersey and they "Got theirs".

ANJRPC is saying that it's the first time a NJ governor has ever called for shall-issue and it can be hung over the legislature. Also with the conditional veto and pocket veto they can't override him.

As for what the law is, the law ONLY says that justifiable need is needed to obtain a permit to carry. Statute NEVER says what that is. The only place that says it is the admin code which is made by the state police. They don't even follow the siccardi decision fully. They just made up something. This bill was to enshrine that regulation in law passed by the legislature.

New Jersey Carry Lawsuit

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Certified Mad Scientist

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics