|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 25, 2010, 03:20 PM | #1 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
NJ Carry: Drake v. Filko (Muller v. Maenz)
Last Monday (Dec. 20th), the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. See this PDF document.
What makes this different than all the other challenges that the SAF has used, prior to filing this case, is that this is a facial challenge to a specific portion of the law. the "lawsuit challenges the unrestrained discretion that New Jersey law vests in State and local officials to deny a “Permit to Carry” a handgun for lack of “justifiable need to carry a handgun.” N.J.S.A. § 2C:58-4(c), (d)." There are two means to challenge contested law. The first (and easiest, therefore the most used) is an as-applied approach. This merely says that the law, as applied in this specific instance, is wrong. The second approach, is a facial challenge. This approach is very difficult. What a facial challenge says is that in all cases, the law is wrong. Not just this case, but in every case. To defend against a facial challenge, all it is required is for the defense to prove that in one case, the law holds. What you will see in this MSJ, is the most complete (to date) exposition on what the Court said in both Heller and McDonald. In doing this, the brief goes into how the 2A is most like the 1A. Both of these amendments encompass protections for individual actions, while the other amendments provide for procedural protections against government actions. The brief argues that because the 1A and 2A are so similar, that similar courses of judicial scrutiny must apply. In the case of NJ law on carry permits, the law in this case should be accorded no scrutiny at all, as it clearly runs afoul of the right, as expressed in the two preceding SCOTUS cases. The law in question amounts to complete and unbridled discretion to say whether or not a citizen can exercise the right to carry at all. This would be similar to a law that said a citizen must obtain a license to go to church, but only a church recognized by the licensing authority; or that a citizen must have a license to publish, but only what the licensing authority wants published. No court would give such a law any scrutiny at all. Nor should the court accord this law any scrutiny, as it is a complete denial of the fundamental right to carry: Quote:
Quote:
|
||
December 25, 2010, 09:13 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 5, 2000
Location: AoW Land, USA
Posts: 1,968
|
Al,
I belief that the discretion to deny (or very rarely approve) a permit has been openly expressed that no ordinary citizen will be approved by more than one public official that is charged with "Approval". I will see if I can find sources, however it might take sometime. I think anything that documents such would be very helpful to the case. I am thankful that you are following this case, as it will greatly affect my ability to legally carry in my home state. |
December 25, 2010, 09:47 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Any state that grants any public official such unfettered discretionary authority ought also require that official to publish, on a regular basis, statistical reports indicating the number of requests authorized and denied, as well as the reasons for denial. Authority without accountability is, in my opinion, one of the gravest dangers we face.
|
January 12, 2012, 09:37 PM | #4 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
Application for Amicus Michigan Coalition was filed on Feb. 22, 2011. That's just weird. Why on earth does a judge grant amici briefs, almost a year after filing and after the hearing in which a Cross Motion to Dismiss (#25) and a Motion for Summary Judgment (#12) were heard and submitted (10-27-2011)? |
|
January 13, 2012, 03:23 PM | #5 |
Member
Join Date: September 21, 2010
Posts: 26
|
Defendant MTD was granted today.
http://www.archive.org/download/gov....49720.40.0.pdf On to the 3rd Ckt we go
__________________
Mark C. DFW, TX Last edited by krucam; January 14, 2012 at 12:08 PM. Reason: typos |
January 13, 2012, 03:23 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
This case certainly does cuts to core. If the question of unbridled discretion can't be won, I dare say the war will have been lost.
|
January 13, 2012, 03:26 PM | #7 | |
Member
Join Date: September 21, 2010
Posts: 26
|
Quote:
__________________
Mark C. DFW, TX |
|
January 13, 2012, 07:05 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Speak of the devil. Lo and behold, a decision.
|
January 13, 2012, 07:47 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,295
|
The use of the word "devil" is appropriate. Dismissed, and a law that allows so many limitations that nobody is legally allowed to be armed is held to be OK with Heller and MacDonald. OK, NJ, better get your mob buddies to open the war chests if Mr Gura turns his sights on you.
|
January 13, 2012, 08:16 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
When a court gets it wrong, we can only hope for it to be so blatantly wrong as this this. No right to keep and bear outside the home, indeed. The 2A was apparently about indoor militias.
|
January 13, 2012, 08:44 PM | #11 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
This Judge, like so many others has twisted the core right, identified in Heller, from being the right to self defense, to a right to possess and carry guns.
Quote:
That being said, I firmly believe that no district court is going to read Heller in the proper manner. We should be used to this by now... Yet it rankles, nonetheless. The SAF already has a press release on the upcoming appeal. |
|
January 13, 2012, 08:58 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
It is fascinating that in all of their hand-wringing about public safety, that the right to defend oneself from criminal attack is given ZERO weight. Zip. Nada. Not even worth mentioning.
|
January 13, 2012, 09:22 PM | #13 | |
Member in memoriam
Join Date: April 26, 2002
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,649
|
Quote:
__________________
No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes. |
|
January 14, 2012, 12:46 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
I do not like the conclusion in this case, but I do like the scope of the decision. The judge could have just ruled that the Second Amendment does not extend outside the home, but he went further and volunteered a level of scrutiny if the Second Amendment extended beyond the home. On appeal, higher courts will not only have to deal with the scope of the Second Amendment, but will be forced to explicitly address the appropriate level of scrutiny. Without voluntarily including the scrutiny conclusion, higher courts would have been able to punt the scrutiny question back to lower courts on remand. Since I think that the scope issue is more apt to make its way to SCOTUS, this decision at least keeps the scope and scrutiny issues tied together.
|
January 14, 2012, 12:55 AM | #15 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
Great line
Quote:
|
|
January 14, 2012, 02:10 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
|
|
February 27, 2012, 09:50 PM | #17 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Well, the date for the opening brief on appeals has been set.
Quote:
|
|
February 28, 2012, 09:15 AM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
|
There's a big push by some of us in NJ to get CC from "May issue" to "Shall issue".
There was a big write in campaign and petition that is still going on. In fact, the New Jersey Assembly Law & Public Safety Committee has gotten so bombarded by emails that they've put in a spam filter to filter them out. So then the fax, snail mail, and phone calls have started. It may take a few years, but eventually we'll get NJ to denounce communism and join the rest of the country |
February 28, 2012, 09:44 PM | #19 | |
Member in memoriam
Join Date: April 26, 2002
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,649
|
Quote:
__________________
No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes. |
|
February 29, 2012, 07:12 AM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
|
April 9, 2012, 08:54 PM | #21 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The opening brief for Piszczatoski (was Muller v. Maenza) was filed today.
There are 127 pages, including the appendix. The body of the brief begins on pp 17 and ends on pp 73, of the PDF. That's 54 pages (for those that are counting). I'll have more to say, when I get a chance to read and digest the brief. At first glance, it seems to be much like the final reply brief in Kachalsky. |
April 10, 2012, 03:21 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
|
I'm really hoping we can some wins here in NJ that actually effect a law change, but man it's hard to be optimistic in the state.
|
April 12, 2012, 09:01 AM | #23 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Having read the opening brief, I'm of the opinion that we are finally seeing what Alan Gura has been working up to.
If you were to read the opening brief and the reply brief in the Kachalsky (2nd Circuit) case, and then contrast those with this brief, you will see that all the points are made and highlighted. This point is more apparent in the opening brief in Moore v. Madigan (7th Circuit). I believe we will see much the same in the responding brief in the Woollard case (4th Circuit), when the final stages of dealing with the Stay is dealt with by Judge Legg. Note: We won in Woollard and MD has already filed for appeal. They will get first and last say in the briefing. Gura will only get a response. What we are seeing is the same basic argument in three States (and three different circuit courts of appeal) that deny the right to carry, and hence the right to self defense. They will either create a circuit split, encouraging the Supreme Court to grant Cert or they will all agree with Gura and create a persuasive precedent the other circuits cannot avoid (are you listening 9th Circuit?). |
June 1, 2012, 08:56 PM | #24 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Piszczatoski v. Maenz (New Jersey, 3rd Circuit).
Another 30 day extension granted for New Jersey to respond to the appeal. [quote]05/21/2012 Open Document ECF FILER: Motion filed by Appellees Attorney General New Jersey, Rudolph A. Filko, Edward A. Jerejian, Thomas V. Manahan, Esq. and Superintendent New Jersey State Police for Extension of Time to file Brief until/for 30 days. Certificate of Service dated 05/21/2012. (DI) 05/21/2012 Open Document ORDER (Clerk) granting Motion for extension of time to file brief by Appellees Attorney General New Jersey, Superintendent New Jersey State Police, Rudolph A. Filko, Edward A. Jerejian and Thomas V. Manahan, Esq. until June 28, 2012, filed. (TMK)[/quot] |
June 1, 2012, 09:12 PM | #25 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,436
|
Is New Jersey essentially saying "We acknowledge that we have no case but please help us string out the status quo for as long as possible"?
Last edited by Aguila Blanca; June 1, 2012 at 10:36 PM. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|