Deserves its own thread since SAF is involved and this is being appealed.
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.
The judge basically agreed with the prosecutor lock, stock and barrel.
You expect judges to follow the law though...
Oh here we go again . . .
Update: And he is . . . going . . . going . . . gone Again
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.
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.
I missed it but was it another reference to homosexual activity?