SAF Sues New Jersey for "Justifiable Need"

[yellowfin]

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.

I'm really hoping this will work out precisely this way and continue to work, and that it'll be brought to wherever there there are abuses of gun rights to work towards eradicating all anti gun laws which can be eradicated. Thereafter or even while doing so I hope they'll prosecute LE, politicians, and bureaucrats for civil rights violations, not just sue them.

 

[Afield]

I'm really hoping this will work out precisely this way and continue to work, and that it'll be brought to wherever there there are abuses of gun rights to work towards eradicating all anti gun laws which can be eradicated. Thereafter or even while doing so I hope they'll prosecute LE, politicians, and bureaucrats for civil rights violations, not just sue them.

Yeah. 42USC1983 provides that governments have to pay when they lose. At least thats the way i understand it. That was a big driver getting firms behind race-based civil rights in the old days. It's actually a great example of law motivating capitalism to get the result of justice.

 

[hvymax]

You'll excuse me if I'm getting a "mixed message" on this. Some seem to bristle in judgement. Kinda comes with being a noob to just about any Forum.

Your additional information to my add-on inquiry is appreciated, and there's some of it I'd like to respond to; as has been noted, this thread is careening off-topic, so I relocated that to a more appropriate thread I started last night, and in which you will appear as if by sorcery. (I may be new to this Forum, but I've been around the 'Net a bit over the past 16 years.)

Memo to "hvymax:" Such invidious characterizations! May your trigger control exceed your impulse control by a multiple of 10X.

I must say I am not very PC and if there is a stereotype to play on I am on it like a bad smell. I was ever so slightly toasty last night but that probably kept me from having even more fun. I was wondering will there be any Yutes involved in this case?

 

[Gray Peterson]

The reason it's a facial challenge is because the New Jersey Judiciary has repeatedly ruled that pure "self defense" is not considered "good and substantial" for the purpose of the law. Even if a judge issued a license for "self defense" only good cause, say, a judge up in the rural northwestern part of the state, the state almost always appeals the case up to the Appellate Court and the license is struck down.

There is a laundry list of cases which deal with this issue.

From the September 2005 edition of the Gottlieb-Tartaro Report:

NEW JERSEY APPEALS COURT OVERTURNS GUN PERMIT FOR SEA CAPTAIN
A state Superior Court Judge awarded Captain Salvatore Atanasio Jr. the
right to carry a concealed gun while guiding cruise ships along New Jersey’s
coast, but a state appeals panel overturned the judge’s decision and took the
right away.

Superior Court Judge John Pursel in Warren County cited Atanasio’s extensive background as a ship’s master and noted that large sea vessels could be
vulnerable to attacks by terrorists.

The permit was termed a maritime equivalent of airline pilots arming themselves to protect their cockpits, but the Appellate Division of Superior Court found “no justifiable need” for Captain Atanasio to arm himself.

Extreme hostility towards to the 2A, as the judges are the issuers of the licenses, and the appellate courts have hammered the superior court judges when they issued even under extraordinarily circumstances. You godsdamned right this needs to be a facial challenged.

 

[Patrick]

Extreme hostility towards to the 2A, as the judges are the issuers of the licenses, and the appellate courts have hammered the superior court judges when they issued even under extraordinarily circumstances. You godsdamned right this needs to be a facial challenged.

Right said. Thanks for the background. Nothing in NJ surprises me. I've always gotten bad vibes when in that state.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Right said. Thanks for the background. Nothing in NJ surprises me. I've always gotten bad vibes when in that state.

Agreed. As soon as this case is final and we've won the battle, I will be applying for a carry license in New Jersey, just out of spite.

 

[press1280]

The reason it's a facial challenge is because the New Jersey Judiciary has repeatedly ruled that pure "self defense" is not considered "good and substantial" for the purpose of the law. Even if a judge issued a license for "self defense" only good cause, say, a judge up in the rural northwestern part of the state, the state almost always appeals the case up to the Appellate Court and the license is struck down.

There is a laundry list of cases which deal with this issue.

From the September 2005 edition of the Gottlieb-Tartaro Report:

NEW JERSEY APPEALS COURT OVERTURNS GUN PERMIT FOR SEA CAPTAIN
A state Superior Court Judge awarded Captain Salvatore Atanasio Jr. the
right to carry a concealed gun while guiding cruise ships along New Jersey’s
coast, but a state appeals panel overturned the judge’s decision and took the
right away.

Superior Court Judge John Pursel in Warren County cited Atanasio’s extensive background as a ship’s master and noted that large sea vessels could be
vulnerable to attacks by terrorists.

The permit was termed a maritime equivalent of airline pilots arming themselves to protect their cockpits, but the Appellate Division of Superior Court found “no justifiable need” for Captain Atanasio to arm himself.

Extreme hostility towards to the 2A, as the judges are the issuers of the licenses, and the appellate courts have hammered the superior court judges when they issued even under extraordinarily circumstances. You godsdamned right this needs to be a facial challenged.

Yet the precedent case in NJ (Siccardi v. State 1971) found that a permit could be issued for someone who had documented threats or previous attacks, and at the same time said someone wanting it to protect property alone would not qualify. The reverse it seems is true today, with the majority of the few permits issued going toward people protecting property(armored car drivers, ATM servicepeople, security personnel). The NJ courts aren't even following their own precedent. It's judicial anarchy at it's worst.

 

[Patrick]

Agreed. As soon as this case is final and we've won the battle, I will be applying for a carry license in New Jersey, just out of spite.

You know, that's a fine idea. I'll be right behind you in line.

Also NY. I have a small property there.

 

[Patrick]

Yet the precedent case in NJ (Siccardi v. State 1971) found that a permit could be issued for someone who had documented threats or previous attacks, and at the same time said someone wanting it to protect property alone would not qualify. The reverse it seems is true today, with the majority of the few permits issued going toward people protecting property(armored car drivers, ATM servicepeople, security personnel). The NJ courts aren't even following their own precedent. It's judicial anarchy at it's worst.

No. You misread all those cases. The precedent is simply "no guns for you." The details are irrelevant to that end goal. So in their own way, NJ remains consistent.

Spoken in sarcasm...

 

[megaman]

I guess we will have to excuse Dean New York is notorious for crassnes and ignorance as fundamental civil rights. At least he's not from Joysey.

Not trying to be a troll here, but there is nothing wrong from being from Jersey.
next time you MD'rs drive up here, please keep out of our left lane!
You cant just hang out there, we drive fast up here...

 

[Patrick]

Not trying to be a troll here, but there is nothing wrong from being from Jersey.
next time you MD'rs drive up here, please keep out of our left lane!
You cant just hang out there, we drive fast up here...

And make left turns from the right lane. Legally.

You are all backwards. Must be all those chemicals in the water.

Welcome aboard.

 

[krucam]

This one FINALLY showed up on PACER for NJ District Court.

Internet Archive Docket: http://ia600301.us.archive.org/16/items/gov.uscourts.njd.249720/gov.uscourts.njd.249720.docket.html

Case: 2:10-cv-06110

I'd been trying since this broke on the 22nd. 3 additional files have been uploaded in addition to the initial Complaint, all procedural. Summons to the Defendants, 2 Corporate Disclosure statements from the Plaintiffs.

They'll all be available on the Docket shortly....hopefully. My uploads on the Chicago Second Amendment Arms last evening took hours. Dunno...

Docket as it appears right now:

Date Filed # Docket Text
11/22/2010 1 COMPLAINT against RICHARD COOK, PAULA T. DOW, EDWARD A. EREJIAN, RUDOLPH A. FILKO, RICK FUENTES, FRANK INGEMI, PHILIP J. MAENZA, THOMAS A. MANAHAN ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 3433093.) NONE., filed by FINLEY FENTON, GREGORY C. GALLAHER, JEFFREY M. MULLER, SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC., DANIEL J. PISZCZATOSKI, LENNY S. SALERNO, ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY RIFLE & PISTOL CLUBS, INC., JOHN M. DRAKE.(ld, ) (Entered: 11/30/2010)

11/30/2010 2 SUMMONS ISSUED as to RICHARD COOK, PAULA T. DOW, EDWARD A. EREJIAN, RUDOLPH A. FILKO, RICK FUENTES, FRANK INGEMI, PHILIP J. MAENZA, THOMAS A. MANAHAN Attached is the official court Summons, please fill out Defendant and Plaintiffs attorney information and serve. Issued By *LEROY DUNBAR* (ld, ) (Entered: 11/30/2010)

11/30/2010 3 Corporate Disclosure Statement by SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.. (JENSEN, DAVID) (Entered: 11/30/2010)

11/30/2010 4 Corporate Disclosure Statement by ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY RIFLE & PISTOL CLUBS, INC.. (JENSEN, DAVID) (Entered: 11/30/2010)

As always, updated information on these 30+ cases is available at my 2A summary page in my sig.

 

[Patrick]

As always, updated information on these 30+ cases is available at my 2A summary page in my sig.

Norton posted your thread to the top of the sticky list on the National 2A forum...

 

[krucam]

Norton posted your thread to the top of the sticky list on the National 2A forum...

Wow...thanks, I guess...no pressure there!

Kidding aside, thanks Norton and Patrick. Consider it a passion I enjoy....I'll serve it well...

 

[Patrick]

Norton's a god behind the keyboard.

 

[Fodder4Thought]

Norton's a god behind the keyboard.

Deus Ex Machina?

 

[krucam]

More procedural filings today. The docket will be updated, but I'm not going to upload the pdf's for today's filings (Items 5, 6, 7) unless someone REALLY wants to read them, AND is willing to bring me a sacrificial virgin that....oh, disregard....

12/01/2010 5 NOTICE of Appearance by ROBERT P. FIRRIOLO on behalf of ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY RIFLE & PISTOL CLUBS, INC., JOHN M. DRAKE, FINLEY FENTON, GREGORY C. GALLAHER, JEFFREY M. MULLER, DANIEL J. PISZCZATOSKI, LENNY S. SALERNO, SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC. (FIRRIOLO, ROBERT) (Entered: 12/01/2010)

12/01/2010 6 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons & Complaint served on Paula T. Dow on 12/01/2010, filed by ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY RIFLE & PISTOL CLUBS, INC., JOHN M. DRAKE, FINLEY FENTON, GREGORY C. GALLAHER, JEFFREY M. MULLER, DANIEL J. PISZCZATOSKI, LENNY S. SALERNO, SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.. (JENSEN, DAVID) (Entered: 12/01/2010)

12/01/2010 7 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons & Complaint served on Col. Rick Fuentes on 12/01/2010, filed by ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY RIFLE & PISTOL CLUBS, INC., JOHN M. DRAKE, FINLEY FENTON, GREGORY C. GALLAHER, JEFFREY M. MULLER, DANIEL J. PISZCZATOSKI, LENNY S. SALERNO, SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.. (JENSEN, DAVID) (Entered: 12/01/2010)

 

[krucam]

Joint Proposed Schedule for Events

Filed today as Item 9, it should be on the Docket shortly, but I've attached as well below: http://ia600301.us.archive.org/16/items/gov.uscourts.njd.249720/gov.uscourts.njd.249720.docket.html

Nice letterhead....

Re: Muller v. Maenza, no. 2:10-CV-6110 (WHW) (CCC)
Dear Judge Walls and Judge Cecchi:
We represent Plaintiffs in the above-captioned action. We write jointly with the New Jersey Division of Law to propose a schedule for the efficient resolution of this dispute. All parties to this case have reviewed this letter in advance of its submission and join in this request.
This lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of N.J. Stat. § 2C:58-4 and associated regulations, which concern the issuance of permits to carry handguns. Plaintiffs contend that the discretionary “need” requirements are facially invalid in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010). Defendants contend that the pertinent laws are constitutional.

Counsel for the parties have conferred and agree that this lawsuit presents purely legal issues. As such, the parties consider it appropriate for the Court to resolve the suit on the basis of motions submitted by both parties. The parties propose the following schedule:
• Plaintiffs will move for summary judgment no later than December 20, 2010;
• Defendants will oppose the summary judgment motion and cross-move to dismiss no later than January 26, 2011;
• Plaintiffs will reply in support of summary judgment and oppose Defendants’ crossmotion no later than February 16, 2011; and
• Defendants will submit a reply in support of their cross-motion no later than March 9, 2011.

In order to streamline the litigation and to minimize the burden on the Court, the parties propose combining the briefs such that each party will submit a total of two (2) briefs. Defendants' January 26 briefing will be "doubled" to 80 pages, and Plaintiffs' February 16 briefing in opposition and reply will be 55 pages. Local Rule 7.2(b) will otherwise continue to govern.

There's a bit more in the 2-page pdf, but...

This is relatively speaking, a fast-track that was mutually agreed upon. Both sides disagree and yet, are confident in their respective positions.

This should be an interesting one to follow....

 

[Patrick]

Now that's classy. Really good form on both sides.

All briefs in before mid-March and no monkey-business in between. Decision probably in the summer. Gansler should man up and do the same.

We will have lots of fun reading...we're talking 100 pages on each side, not including citations.

Ought to be "fun" reading for the court, too. So maybe we should say "late summer, early fall" is more likely.

 

[krucam]

The proposed scheduled (submitted by both parties) was approved by the Judge and is...no longer proposed...

Items 10 & 11 on the Docket will be available shortly...

• Plaintiffs will move for summary judgment no later than December 20, 2010;
• Defendants will oppose the summary judgment motion and cross-move to dismiss no later than January 26, 2011;
• Plaintiffs will reply in support of summary judgment and oppose Defendants’ crossmotion no later than February 16, 2011; and
• Defendants will submit a reply in support of their cross-motion no later than March 9, 2011.

12/20 for the Plaintiffs MSJ...