NJ right to carry case - Almeida

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!
  • ryan_j

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 6, 2013
    2,264
    Thanks.

    And I really do mean that states need to work together, which is why I hang out here!
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    I think maybe I misheard you guys, but someone said the next stop was the NJ Supreme Court? I thought it was the appeals court?

    Good show! I can't believe the judge is still holding to the 1970's Siccardi testimony that people are in less danger if they DON'T carry. The fact that 44 states have rejected this reasoning somehow doesn't register in NJ.
     

    ryan_j

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 6, 2013
    2,264
    I think maybe I misheard you guys, but someone said the next stop was the NJ Supreme Court? I thought it was the appeals court?



    Good show! I can't believe the judge is still holding to the 1970's Siccardi testimony that people are in less danger if they DON'T carry. The fact that 44 states have rejected this reasoning somehow doesn't register in NJ.


    It's the appellate division of the NJ superior court. Yes what was said on the show (not by me) was incorrect.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    I did listen to the show. I was hoping someone would opine why this is materially different than Drake, or Patano?

    It probably isn't, other than the fact Almeida possesses the best "justifiable need" out of the 3 cases (except for the original plaintiff in Drake, who was granted a permit eventually). He was threatened directly, which is a criteria for a permit.
    More bites at the SCOTUS apple.
     

    ryan_j

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 6, 2013
    2,264
    Almeida's justifiable need fits N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.4(d) perfectly:

    "urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun."

    He is more like Jeff Muller who was granted a permit.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Almeida's justifiable need fits N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.4(d) perfectly:

    "urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun."

    He is more like Jeff Muller who was granted a permit.

    They have Jeff Muller's permit grant as a model, will they now say Almeida's threat is tied only to his job-IOW, if he quits and runs into this banger on the street, that all of a sudden the threat is removed?
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,487
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom