NJ right to carry case - Almeida

ryan_j · Jun 21, 2014

Deserves its own thread since SAF is involved and this is being appealed.

press1280 · Jun 21, 2014

ryan_j said:
Deserves its own thread since SAF is involved and this is being appealed.

Ryan- do you have any docs on this, such as opinions from the denying judges? Also this is now being appealed to the NJ appellate court (not NJSC), correct? And how is SAF involved, since this is a Nappen case (will Gura/Jensen appear)? Sorry for all the questions.

Interesting that the SAF is involved at this point. I seriously doubt the NJSC would grant review after they changed their mind on Pantano (although Almeida's "justifiable need" is better than Pantano's IMO). Not to mention Pantano will have their shot at SCOTUS review before Almeida is even through the NJ court system.

ryan_j · Jun 21, 2014

I don't have a copy of the opinion but I will get it when it becomes available. But they basically agree with the prosecutor.

SAF is going to take it if/when it goes to SCOTUS, as in petitioning for a writ of certiorari.

It has to go through the appellate division first and then to NJSC (if they grant certiorari).

Yes it is a long shot but it is a shot nonetheless. The key as you said is that Almeida's justifiable need matches NJ's definition exactly yet he was denied. This is almost like muller who was granted a permit to make him go away.

ryan_j · Jun 21, 2014

The judge basically agreed with the prosecutor lock, stock and barrel.

press1280 · Jun 21, 2014

Once again, the NJ Courts reading too much into cert grants/denials:

"Due to the fact that the Supreme Court denied a petition of writ for certiorari in the Drake matter earlier this month, the state submits the Applicant's constitutional challenges to our state's firearm laws are without merit."

MDFF2008 · Jun 21, 2014

press1280 said:
They may interpret that in their minds, however case law is clear ,"The denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times." US v. Carver 1923.
To say a case is without merit when the Supreme Court and the NJSC haven't addressed it is BS. Sure they may not agree but "without merit" is usually reserved for criminal defendants trying to beat a felon-in-possession rap with a 2A defense. Not to mention other courts have held the opposite.

You expect judges to follow the law though...

ryan_j · Jun 21, 2014

Hopefully Peruta will be settled when this case gets higher up. I want to see how they will address a circuit split that is miles deep.

press1280 · Jun 22, 2014

ryan_j said:
The judge basically agreed with the prosecutor lock, stock and barrel.

Was there ever an opinion rendered for when Jeff Muller finally got his permit? Or just behind closed doors,"Here's your permit, now disappear"?

As I understand NJ's appellate courts, they don't operate on a territorial basis like most states and the Federal Circuits. Thus, appellate court opinions are binding upon future appellate courts (unless the state or US Supreme court undercuts it), so there's almost no chance of a "split" in the appellate courts of NJ. So, Almeida could potentially sail through quickly (with a loss) by conceding the court precedent is against him. Gives us another bite of the apple at SCOTUS quickly. If SCOTUS passes on Pantano, it obviously would seem Almeida goes the same way. But, the other cases still alive causing deeper splits may get this one through.
I'm betting the SAF got involved because it gives them another shot at SCOTUS and they're not having to spend much on it, with Nappen doing the work in NJ state court. All the losses have to be wearing on SAF's funds.

ryan_j · Jun 22, 2014

I believe they just approved his permit with the application form noted as such. If you look at the briefs for Drake that is how they are disposed of.

Brooklyn · Jun 22, 2014

gprimr1 said:
You expect judges to follow the law though...

Not in NJ. :innocent0

ryan_j · Jun 22, 2014

There has been so much judicial gymnastics here by the gang in the black robes you would swear you're watching quidditch in a Harry Potter movie.

Gryphon · Jun 23, 2014

Oh here we go again . . .

Update: And he is . . . going . . . going . . . gone :whack:

Again

press1280 · Jun 23, 2014

Gryphon said:
Oh here we go again . . .

Update: And he is . . . going . . . going . . . gone Again

I missed it but was it another reference to homosexual activity?

press1280 · Jun 23, 2014

ryan_j said:
There has been so much judicial gymnastics here by the gang in the black robes you would swear you're watching quidditch in a Harry Potter movie.

What gets me (among many things in NJ) is that they're telling Almedia to get "armed security". The NJ courts have repeatedly said that protecting property alone isn't sufficient "justifiable need". So how does "armed security" get a permit in the first place? Armored car companies don't do this type of work AFAIK.

ryan_j · Jun 23, 2014

Armed security companies have to have a private detective license and to obtain one you need either 5 years experience in an organized police department as a law enforcement officer or you need to have worked for a private detective agency for 5 years. In short it's a blatant admission that they are reserving the right to be armed in public to people who are either former law enforcement officers or who have some connection to law enforcement.

Also they make the process for obtaining a SORA card (security officer registration) much easier for former law enforcement officers. As a result most of them are former law enforcement officers.

It all goes back to the Siccardi decision. Read it. It explains a lot.

ryan_j · Jun 23, 2014

http://www.leagle.com/decision/197160459NJ545_1360

press1280 · Jun 23, 2014

ryan_j said:
Armed security companies have to have a private detective license and to obtain one you need either 5 years experience in an organized police department as a law enforcement officer or you need to have worked for a private detective agency for 5 years. In short it's a blatant admission that they are reserving the right to be armed in public to people who are either former law enforcement officers or who have some connection to law enforcement.

Also they make the process for obtaining a SORA card (security officer registration) much easier for former law enforcement officers. As a result most of them are former law enforcement officers.

It all goes back to the Siccardi decision. Read it. It explains a lot.

Bingo. The whole racket IMO needs to be blown up. I'd rather have SCOTUS give us shall issue, but if that doesn't happen I'm not opposed to having all of these "exceptions" exposed and all on equal ground. Let's see if those police unions in NJ are so willing to vote for Dems if they lose their illegal perks.

Gryphon · Jun 23, 2014

press1280 said:
I missed it but was it another reference to homosexual activity?

And then some. I don't mind the guy expressing his views, but pick an appropriate forum!

ryan_j · Jun 28, 2014

I will be on gun for hire radio this week with al Almeida talking about the case, national reciprocity and moving forward in general. Www.gunforhireradio.com

ryan_j · Jun 29, 2014

Good show in the studio yesterday.

Take a listen:
http://gunforhireradio.com/podcasts/GFH_Episode_161.mp3

NJ right to carry case - Almeida

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

I stand with John Locke.

Ultimate Member

inveniam viam aut faciam

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

inveniam viam aut faciam

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics