Constitutional challenge to part of New Jersey's gun carry law rejected

[mggtz 3]

In In re Matter of Denial of Application of George J. Downing Permit to Carry, No. A-5108-09 (App. Div. April 25, 2011), George Downing appealed the trial court’s denial of his application for a carry permit. The trial court ruled that he failed to prove “a justifiable need to carry a handgun,” as required by N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4c. Downing did not challenge the trial court’s factual determination on appeal, and he conceded that the statute did not restrict the possession in one’s own home of firearms. Instead, he challenged the constitutionality of N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4c, arguing that its limitation on who may carry a firearm in the State violated the Second Amendment of the federal Constitution. Downing relied on District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), to support his position.

 

The Appellate Division first noted that Downing’s basis for requesting a carry permit was “generalized fears for personal safety,” which does not rise to the level of N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4c’s “justifiable need to carry a handgun.” The Appellate Division then found that Downing had not proven that N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4c was unconstitutional. The court explained that the statutory provision did not in any limit the use of handguns or firearms within the home, which was the type of restriction found to be unconstitutional in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. __ (2010), and Heller. Concluding its analysis, the Appellate Division reasoned that “N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4c provides reasonable gun control limitations on a person’s ability to carry a firearm in New Jersey, which is ‘clearly within the police power of the State and must be accepted by the individual though it may impose a restraint or burden on him.’” Accordingly, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

 

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/

[Caine 147]

[CageFighter 236]

[Dan 177]

Wow didn't know about this one.

 

Few fun facts:

 

a) it was a New Jersey court that dismissed the appeal, so surprised on that one

b) they used Burton v. Sills as the precedent, which is a flawed argument based on pre-2A incorporation ideology

c) they used the tired and twisted argument that McDonald and Heller were both about possessing a gun in the home ONLY

 

N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4 provides reasonable gun control limitations on a person's ability to carry a firearm in New Jersey, which is "clearly within the police power of the State and must be accepted by the individual though it may impose a restraint or burden on him." Burton v. Sills, 53 N.J. 86, 106 (1968), appeal dismissed, 394 U.S. 812, 89 S. Ct. 1486, 22 L. Ed.2d 748 (1969). Affirmed.

My link

[Zed's_Dead 16]

I don't know if Mr. Downing is a lawyer, but he argued the case himself. Rarely a good idea, even if you are a lawyer. I think litigants are sometimes too close to the issue and don't see both sides of the issue clearly enough to make a convincing argument against their adversary's points.

[BRaptor 68]

I think the reason we didn't hear about this one is because it was a standard appeal of a CCW denial.

 

From what I gather, the guy applied to his PD for a concealed carry permit, got denied, appealed to the Superior Court of NJ, denial affirmed, appealed to NJ Appellate Division, denial affirmed. This decision isn't surprising at all, it's a NJ state court affirming NJ state laws. It should have no impact on the SAF v. Mueller Federal District case that we're following so closely.

 

However, this guy may be on a faster track to get to the Supreme Court of the United States (or at least to ask for certiorari faster than SAF v. Mueller). I think all he has to do, now, is get the NJ Supreme Court to affirm the denial and I think he can then appeal to the US Supreme Court (someone correct me if my procedure is wrong). I doubt they grant this guy cert, though. They wouldn't want such an important question argued by this one guy, alone (yes, I know there are amicus briefs, but he still has to go through oral arguments).

[mggtz 3]

“N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4c provides reasonable gun control limitations on a person’s ability to carry a firearm in New Jersey, which is ‘clearly within the police power of the State and must be accepted by the individual though it may impose a restraint or burden on him.’”

 

 

Are they serious???? Completely unacceptable. The right to keep and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. How do judges come to these decisions? They should be ashamed of themselves.

[YankeeFan 49]

No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

 

 

New Jersey F******G SUCKS!

[Dan 177]

“N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4c provides reasonable gun control limitations on a person’s ability to carry a firearm in New Jersey, which is ‘clearly within the police power of the State and must be accepted by the individual though it may impose a restraint or burden on him.’”

 

 

Are they serious???? Completely unacceptable. The right to keep and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. How do judges come to these decisions? They should be ashamed of themselves.

 

That was from a 1969 decision. The SAF suit is attacking the core of all the arguments I listed above in my previous post.

[PDM 91]

This means absolutely nothing. It is a state court decision and there should no expectation that a NJ state court would recognize that Heller/McDonald provide a constitutional right to carry outside the home when no Federal Court has so held (at least not explicitly).

[djg0770 481]

This means absolutely nothing. It is a state court decision and there should no expectation that a NJ state court would recognize that Heller/McDonald provide a constitutional right to carry outside the home when no Federal Court has so held (at least not explicitly).

 

yet.

[BCeagle 12]

If I didnt think I would choke at oral argument, I would offer to do the case pro bono.

 

Actually, I feel so strongly on the issue, I bet I could do well.

[mipafox 438]

New Jersey will be the last. Or, perhaps, never.

 

You guys have been following Illinois, right? Illinois? LOL, that would be some stuff. Governer would veto but it appears they are close to what it would take to overturn. In NJ, you have the worst of both of those. Throw in the third aspect of the evil courts of NJ. This dogma and evil runs deeper and is more pervasive in NJ than any other place that is considered a state or territory of the Great United States of America. Legislative, Judicial, Executive, Citizenry, and Politically. We have people on this very forum posting questions on whether or not hollow points are legal in this state or that state LOL. Brainwashed, rinse-cycled, and dried. Present company excluded.

[RLTW 3]

Heller & McDonald has nothing to do with Conceal Carry. Did either have Conceal Carry laws? Was either about Bearing arms outside the house? No & No!

[BRaptor 68]

Heller & McDonald has nothing to do with Conceal Carry. Did either have Conceal Carry laws? Was either about Bearing arms outside the house? No & No!

 

You're right, Heller and McDonald were not about carrying. But I don't recall reading anyone's post saying that Heller & McDonald were about carry laws.

 

The two decisions directly address purchase/possession of handguns in the home. However, thier logic and some of the wording in the cases leaves me with an extremely strong idea that carrying is also Constitutionally protected. There are extremely strong arguments that carrying is protected by the Second Amendment. The best argument the states can present is the "Police Power" argument of "general safety." However, states have completely failed to prove that restricting carry of firearms increases safety at all. I, personally, feel that "Police Power" is one of the weakest arguments a state can present against a specifically enumerated right of its citizens. I don't recall a state "Police Power" in the US Const.

[RLTW 3]

I was referencing the judges referral in his decision, not anyone else that posted

[mipafox 438]

 

New Jersey will be the last. Or, perhaps, never.

 

You guys have been following Illinois, right? Illinois? LOL, that would be some stuff. Governer would veto but it appears they are close to what it would take to overturn. In NJ, you have the worst of both of those. Throw in the third aspect of the evil courts of NJ. This dogma and evil runs deeper and is more pervasive in NJ than any other place that is considered a state or territory of the Great United States of America. Legislative, Judicial, Executive, Citizenry, and Politically. We have people on this very forum posting questions on whether or not hollow points are legal in this state or that state LOL. Brainwashed, rinse-cycled, and dried. Present company excluded.

 

 

How bout it.

[Albanian 121]

This is what happens when people give humans super human abiltities. Most think those in court are arbitors of morality and what is right and wrong. Fact is they are just people like you and me. Basically I am saying they can be, and are often wrong and not to mention not very intelligent. Subject to the bias humans have.

[wooly bugger 1]

I think it's a really bad idea to represent yourself in these cases. You will lose, and the precedent will hurt future cases.

 

I don't see how Heller helps in any way. The court explicitly said that their ruling didn't consider possession outside of the home.

[stronski 0]

The fact that any judge, legislator or gun-control activist believes that shooting a firearm is primarily an in-home activity validates either their stupidity or their unconstitutional views on freedom and liberty.

 

Any denial of this fact by the judiciary; that the right to keep and bear arms inside and outside your home is an attempt to delay and discourage the law-abiding from legally exercising their God-given right of self defense.

[Stonecoldchavez 92]

Is it legal to write a judge and tell them they are a dickhead, or is that contempt of court?

 

I hate to think that these pricks who play such an active role in the trampling of our rights can be insulated from the court of public opinion.

 

Not unless you want the State Police to come knocking on your door.

 

This is why Christie wants to change the make-up of the Supreme Court.

[Stonecoldchavez 92]

This is what happens when people give humans super human abiltities. Most think those in court are arbitors of morality and what is right and wrong. Fact is they are just people like you and me. Basically I am saying they can be, and are often wrong and not to mention not very intelligent. Subject to the bias humans have.

 

If you only knew about Judges.....they wear the black robes.....they can conceal carry.......they are above reproach.

[Handyman 5,682]

Not unless you want the State Police to come knocking on your door.

 

This is why Christie wants to change the make-up of the Supreme Court.

 

Seriously? On what grounds? 

 

I'm not going to threaten the guy, just tell him I regard him to be about as smart as a sack of hammers.

[Anselmo 87]

Seriously? On what grounds? 

 

I'm not going to threaten the guy, just tell him I regard him to be about as smart as a sack of hammers.

 

On what grounds do you think he's misinterpreting the law?  Or actually, on what grounds do you think the original ruling was not based on the law?  There is some political pressure on judges to uphold the status quo but on what basis would there be to rule the NJ CCW law unconstitutional?  Does the 2A extend outside the home?

 

I just don't see much upside to sending hate mail to a sitting judge.

[quikz 34]

Didnt Jesus warn us about these NJ "judges"??

 

Yep, time to VOTE and take the garbage out of NJ. Piece - by - piece.

[Handyman 5,682]

On what grounds do you think he's misinterpreting the law?  Or actually, on what grounds do you think the original ruling was not based on the law?  There is some political pressure on judges to uphold the status quo but on what basis would there be to rule the NJ CCW law unconstitutional?  Does the 2A extend outside the home?

 

I just don't see much upside to sending hate mail to a sitting judge.

 

 

I think the upside is making sure they actually get some hate mail. I'm sure all of our elected officials get plenty, and they seem to survive. These sacrosanct pricks put on their fancy robes and probably spend their whole lives insulated from public opinion. If they do not see fit to uphold the constitution, they are no better than the rest of the political scumbags that infest our state (and increasingly, our nation).

[mipafox 438]

You guys did catch the part where I predicted Illinois would get Shall Issue CC before NJ, right? Two years ago. That was the reason I bumped this thread. It really is stunning.

[Stonecoldchavez 92]

Seriously? On what grounds? 

 

I'm not going to threaten the guy, just tell him I regard him to be about as smart as a sack of hammers.

 

Yes, Seriously. All threatening letters are reported to the State Police for investigation. Write him if you want, just don't make any threats to him, his family, or the courts.

[Stonecoldchavez 92]

I think the upside is making sure they actually get some hate mail. I'm sure all of our elected officials get plenty, and they seem to survive. These sacrosanct pricks put on their fancy robes and probably spend their whole lives insulated from public opinion. If they do not see fit to uphold the constitution, they are no better than the rest of the political scumbags that infest our state (and increasingly, our nation).

 

Once they receive tenure (after their first 7 years they have to be reappointed) there is nothing that can be done against them. They can be brought up on Ethics charges but more often than not nothing serious ever happens to them other than a public reprimand or writtten admonition. That is why I call them the MIBR (Men in Black Robes). They can interpret the law as they see fit. They try to do right by the law to some degree as not to get overturned on appeal. But the Supreme Court level in the state the act like they are the kings.

[wooly bugger 1]

Not unless you want the State Police to come knocking on your door.

 

This is why Christie wants to change the make-up of the Supreme Court.

I didn't know this. Is he trying to pack the court, like FDR tried?

Are state court judges for life above a certain level or all reappointed? I vaguely remember a controversy where he didn't reappoint someone and was called a racist for it.