Jump to content
joejaxx

SAF v NJ (MULLER et al v. MAENZA et al)

Recommended Posts

I don't want to sound negative but hasn't SCOTUS said that states can impose reasonable restrictions on gun laws and the court hearing this case could side with the state on the grounds that this is a reasonable law?

 

Or as a lawyer friend of mine puts it. "No court is going to require a state to issue permits if it doesn’t already have its own ccw statute."

 

Your thoughts!

 

I would agree if the suit was about nj being a "no issue' state...nj being a "may issue" might be seen as reasonable restriction

but the "justifiable need" requirement is the target in this case..lets say our side wins and they remove the justifiable wording..

NJ will still have "May issue" on the books..could'nt they just deny for public safety reasons just like they could for an fid

can someone explain how winning this case will make nj go "shall issue" without legislation that changes may to shall...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to sound negative but hasn't SCOTUS said that states can impose reasonable restrictions on gun laws and the court hearing this case could side with the state on the grounds that this is a reasonable law?

 

Or as a lawyer friend of mine puts it. "No court is going to require a state to issue permits if it doesn’t already have its own ccw statute."

 

Your thoughts!

 

Yes, they said that. Now, please show me where they defined a "reasonable restriction".

 

And too many lawyers suffer from rectal-cranial inversion. Your friend might want to have that looked at...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to sound negative but hasn't SCOTUS said that states can impose reasonable restrictions on gun laws and the court hearing this case could side with the state on the grounds that this is a reasonable law?

 

Or as a lawyer friend of mine puts it. "No court is going to require a state to issue permits if it doesn’t already have its own ccw statute."

 

Your thoughts!

 

NJ is a false "may issue" state, for all intents and purposes it is pretty much a "no issue". The other posters pointed out the reasons why (justifiable need, morale character).

 

In essence the state has full autocratic-like authority as to decide who and who does not get permits. Last I heard we are supposed to live in a democratic republic.

 

That is the essence as to why NJ's laws are unreasonable, and by no means fits "reasonable restrictions".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see the judges that are listed as plaitifs on the stand so they can be asked if they received any instructions from the AG's office on who they should/shouldn't issue permits to.

 

Yea really, seems many anti-gunners are anti-gun for everyone except their bodyguards, friends, and politically connected. They love to rule by "exceptions"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to sound negative but hasn't SCOTUS said that states can impose reasonable restrictions on gun laws and the court hearing this case could side with the state on the grounds that this is a reasonable law?

 

Or as a lawyer friend of mine puts it. "No court is going to require a state to issue permits if it doesn’t already have its own ccw statute."

 

Your thoughts!

 

No, "SCOTUS" never said such a thing either in Heller or McDonald.

 

The majority opinion in Heller doesn't discuss a state's ability to regulate firearms (as it shouldn't, it was a decision based on federal law).

 

McDonald's majority opinion also doesn't mention a state's ability to regulate firearms. There is a portion of Justice Alito's opinion (which Justice Thomas didn't join) that discusses "reasonable" regulation. However, that portion didn't garner a 5th vote to become the voice of SCOTUS. Thus, it's not controlling.

 

McDonald was only about incorporation of the 2A to the states through the 14A and that is all the majority decided. The 2A is incorporated and the majority opinion went no further. Frankly, fighting over "reasonable" is not what I want, anyway. I want SCOTUS to decide that--like most other rights that are fundamental to our liberty--strict scrutiny applies to a state's regulation of 2A rights. Then, these unnecessary and ineffective laws start falling.

 

The majority opinion did find that the right to keep and bear arms is "among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty." Moreover, and interestingly, the majority opinion's wording in Heller, which helps define the 2A right, discusses the handgun ban infringes the right to keep. Arguably, SCOTUS didn't include the phrase "and bear," because they have a different definition for that different word and intend to apply "bear" in a different context (I'm thinking carry).

 

I've got money that says, if anything, SCOTUS might split the 2A into two rights: 1) "Keep" in the home and 2) "Bear" outside the home. It will then apply two different standards to the two different rights. Statutes regulating the right to "Keep" will be reviewed under strict scrutiny and (I hope and pray) that statutes regulating the right to "Bear" outside the home will be reviewed at least under intermediate scrutiny.

 

In the end, any lawyer that says "No court is going to require a state to issue permits if it doesn’t already have its own ccw statute" is looking at what the courts do in Constitutional decisions through the wrong end of the telescope. If SCOTUS believes it is right, and SCOTUS decides a right to carry is covered by 2A/14A, then the default is that we have a right to carry and states may only impose upon that right in a manner in accordance with the US Const. Thus, SCOTUS won't force a state to write a CCW statute; SCOTUS will say the default is Open or CCW and that the state statute is invalid as unconstitutional and the default (Carrying either open or CCW) is back in place. Try that one on your lawyer friend and see if he can spot and appreciate the difference. If he can't, the conversation/logic is lost on him.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good analysis.

 

McDonald can be distilled down to the following 15 words:

 

"The right to keep and bear arms for... self-defense... is fully applicable to the states."

 

...not, partially, i.e. only in the home or only at work or only with justifiable need. Self-defense is the justifiable need. Paula Dow will not be able to escape this.

 

 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 08–1521

OTIS MCDONALD, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

[June 28, 2010]

 

JUSTICE ALITO announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect toParts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SCALIA, JUSTICE KENNEDY, and JUSTICE THOMAS join, and an opinion with respect to Parts II–C, IV, and V, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SCALIA, and JUSTICE KENNEDY join.

 

Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___ (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home. The city of Chicago (City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws that are similar to the District of Columbia’s, but Chicago and Oak Park argue that their laws are constitutional because the Second Amendment has no application to the States. We have previously held that most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the States. Applying the standard that is well established in our caselaw, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All sounds good... so does anyone know.. now we've had the motion for summary judgement and the responding motion to dismiss, what happens next, and when will it happen?

 

Many thanks

G

 

Taken from joejaxx's post:

 

• 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.

 

It looks like they're right on schedule. The only question is when will the court decide the motions? And what will they decide? (not really a question, I know what a NJ judge will say...even a federal one).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gov.uscourts.njd.249720.25.4.pdf in the brief from Dow..

on page 4 ...simply put; she says if nj allows citizens to carry,,violent gun crimes will increase...

to me she's saying no law abiding person can be trusted ,,she wrote;while some may carry for self protection others will committ crime

plaintiffs say judges have complete discretion and she argues they dont then says judges determine if applicant meets the requiremenmts

all i read from her is; judges dont but they do..and you can but you cant.......end of rant....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant help but read their reply and think to myself WTF is going through their head. do they really believe that crap or did they just realize they cant win but they have to save face with the rest of the anti crowd in this state to save their own jobs

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant help but read their reply and think to myself WTF is going through their head. do they really believe that crap or did they just realize they cant win but they have to save face with the rest of the anti crowd in this state to save their own jobs

I was thinking the SAME thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NJ knows they are UNconstitutional and a Lost Cause. Am wondering from you folks, what sorta shady tactic they might use to circumvent NJ's unconstitutionality? Knowing NJ, my guess is, IF the SCOTUS forces some kinda reconcilliation based upon Law, NJ will throw into the fray, MANY-MANY myriads of grey area legislations (restrictions) upon it's citizenry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant help but read their reply and think to myself WTF is going through their head. do they really believe that crap or did they just realize they cant win but they have to save face with the rest of the anti crowd in this state to save their own jobs

 

 

It's called grasping at straws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NJ knows they are UNconstitutional and a Lost Cause. Am wondering from you folks, what sorta shady tactic they might use to circumvent NJ's unconstitutionality? Knowing NJ, my guess is, IF the SCOTUS forces some kinda reconcilliation based upon Law, NJ will throw into the fray, MANY-MANY myriads of grey area legislations (restrictions) upon it's citizenry.

Count on it :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens after march 9th?

 

It will likely be listed for oral argument before the Judge. At that point, both sides will give present their case for summary judgment/dismissal. In all probability, the judge will reserve decision given the import of the case and issue a written opinion somewhere down the line. My best guess is that both motions will be denied and the case will ultimately proceed to trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any response yet today?

 

Letter from Plaintiffs requesting a 2-day enlargement of the briefing shcedule, on consent re 11 Scheduling Order. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(JENSEN, DAVID) (Entered: 02/16/2011)

 

PDF is not up with the contents of the letter yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in normal people terms, they need two more days?

 

Yes:

 

REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER that pltfs will reply in support of summary judgment & oppose Defts' cross-motion no later than 2/18/11; etc. Signed by Judge William H. Walls on 2/17/11. (sr, ) (Entered: 02/17/2011)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes:

 

REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER that pltfs will reply in support of summary judgment & oppose Defts' cross-motion no later than 2/18/11; etc. Signed by Judge William H. Walls on 2/17/11. (sr, ) (Entered: 02/17/2011)

Thank you sir. Crap I was looking forward to see what their response was going to be, I guess they procrastinate their homework just as much as I do :icon_e_biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...