Almeida update

[Newtonian 453]

Second Amendment Foundation backing Almeida lawsuit: http://goo.gl/KwikVx

 

Why does it seem like all these guys live within 4 miles of me? The guy in Fredon, Almeida, and the guy who was kidnapped across from Dominick's Pizza. And why, in the most conservative part of the state, don't a few permits get approved every so often?

 

I like the bow-tied Gottlieb. His idea of using some concessions on universal background checks as a , bargaining chip for full permit reciprocity was brilliant but the nutty NRA viewed it as selling out.

 

But in no way do I approve of these tactics:

 

"The court documents in this case suggest an appalling lack of regard for the danger Almeida faces while trying to manage his properties," Gottlieb observed.

 

If they win the case what will they have gained for us? Another token permit. One guy. One f-ing permit. One case which if it accomplishes anything actually strengthens our state's "justifiable need" policy. The system will stand up and point to how the process worked.

 

Meanwhile our gun rights organizations continue to reinforce the status quo. "Yes, Almeida does have a justifiable need! He does! He really, really does! WWaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!"

 

Winning this case is the equivalent of convincing Isis not to pull out your last fingernail before burning you alive.

 

 

[jackandjill 683]

I will reinforce what I said earlier... the effort has to be from ALL SIDES - legal, political, social etc.  This accomplishes more than you can see at this time.  I quote from the same link...

 

"People have threatened to kill him, there was an attempted carjacking, he's been chased by people, and what did the authorities suggest? That he hire security or find other ways to conduct his business. That kind of additional expense would literally put him out of business."

 

a) By today's JN standards, getting written threats is not enough. Imagine the day when written or verbal threat would be considered a JN. Imagine how many women, physically weak or abused can protect themselves with CCW if a verbal / written threat is an acceptable JN ?

 

b) By today's JN standards, getting physically beaten up, carjacked, kidnapped etc is not good enough for JN. Imagine how many people benefit if someone was issued CCW on that grounds ?

 

So on and so forth. You get the idea. 

 

At this point NJ legal system is closely guarding the CCW. Chipping it away in any fashion, to whatever extent, no matter how small it is, helps larger cause. 

[ogfarmer 138]

Albert will probably be along at some point to update his posts on this forum.

 

He is a member,  http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/user/7452-almeida422/

[Newtonian 453]

I will reinforce what I said earlier... the effort has to be from ALL SIDES - legal, political, social etc.  This accomplishes more than you can see at this time.  I quote from the same link...

 

"People have threatened to kill him, there was an attempted carjacking, he's been chased by people, and what did the authorities suggest? That he hire security or find other ways to conduct his business. That kind of additional expense would literally put him out of business."

 

a) By today's JN standards, getting written threats is not enough. Imagine the day when written or verbal threat would be considered a JN. Imagine how many women, physically weak or abused can protect themselves with CCW if a verbal / written threat is an acceptable JN ?

 

b) By today's JN standards, getting physically beaten up, carjacked, kidnapped etc is not good enough for JN. Imagine how many people benefit if someone was issued CCW on that grounds ?

 

So on and so forth. You get the idea. 

 

At this point NJ legal system is closely guarding the CCW. Chipping it away in any fashion, to whatever extent, no matter how small it is, helps larger cause. 

The "all fronts" argument is bogus because there are no other fronts that are being pursued with any measurable success. These fantasy legal maneuverings are all that ever happens.

 

This particular effort has no legs. If it works it only applies -- maybe -- for the next guy who claims to fight off hordes of savages while emptying atm machines. It has nothing to do with me. It doesn't address the fundamental deficiencies in NJ gun policy. It's a one-off solution for one guy that validates the status quo, the politicians and judges who are incapable of understanding clear-language laws written at the 3rd grade level. 

 

Let me raise a point, a totally insensitive one at that: His protestations and claims notwithstanding, is Mr. A out of business? Is he dead? Was he left on a corner to die last night god forbid? No. He doesn't have to be in that business, in that territory. That is what NJ will argue. Maybe they win, maybe not, but I don't give a crap.

 

They (you? Are you a participant?) are not chipping away at anything. Don't flatter yourself. You're merely reinforcing the B.S. Getting Almeida a carry permit, and arguing based on NJ's ridiculous standard, means you acknowledge justifiable cause. 

 

We are wasting time and effort, diluting time and resources that should be directed towards un-electing assholes in the assembly and state senate. 

 

I don't give a crap whether he gets his permit or not. I really, truly don't care. Won't affect any of us in any shape manner or form. It's like winning the lottery. I donated to Allen because of her circumstances. I'm sure he's a great guy but I would not give a dime to Almeida. 

 

Emptying ATMs in Newark is no justification one way or another for having a carry permit. When you believe it does you're already fighting the wrong battle. I have the same goddamned rights as he does whether I ever set foot in Newark again, which I hope I don't. 

 

Individuals and organizations supporting this lawsuit will never receive another dime of my patronage.

[jackandjill 683]

OK. Good reading your comments.

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

 

...Individuals and organizations supporting this lawsuit will never receive another dime of my patronage.

 

Newtonian - maybe you don't agree with where they've decided to pitch their battle, or their tactics, but they're still the enemy of your enemy even if you don't want to call the SAF your friends.

 

Maybe you could try to not spit on them...

 

Myself, I just joined SAF, specifically because they announced they're backing the Almeida case.  When's the last time the NRA put themselves directly behind an individual case in NJ?

 

No reason that the SAF can't mix it up in this case while AT THE SAME TIME NJ gun owners work the election levers to bring heat on our oppressors.

[Newtonian 453]

Newtonian - maybe you don't agree with where they've decided to pitch their battle, or their tactics, but they're still the enemy of your enemy even if you don't want to call the SAF your friends.

 

Maybe you could try to not spit on them...

 

Myself, I just joined SAF, specifically because they announced they're backing the Almeida case.  When's the last time the NRA put themselves directly behind an individual case in NJ?

 

No reason that the SAF can't mix it up in this case while AT THE SAME TIME NJ gun owners work the election levers to bring heat on our oppressors.

I'm not unfriendly to them. I used to belong to the NJ2AF. They mean well, but any organization whose centerpiece strategy is jury nullification has its head...somewhere, let's leave it at that.

 

What SAF is doing for Almeida is great for Almeida. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with us or our rights. It validates "justifiable need." It doesn't even help the next guy who empties ATMs in Newark because he'll have to go to court too, as if Mr. Almeida never existed. The guy who was kidnapped in Newton a few years back finally got a permit. It probably cost him a fortune. Did it help us? Did it help Almeida? 

 

This case might as well be about the inviolable, constitutional, and god-given rights to smoke in elevators or ride a horse down Main St. in Keansburg. 

 

If they were litigating on Joe Citizen's behalf without bowing to the travesty of justifiable need I would support them. 

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

...What SAF is doing for Almeida is great for Almeida....

 

They need a plaintiff, just like Heller v. D.C. needed one.

 

Did Heller v. D.C. end up only benefiting Heller?

 

Not sure why you're so myopic on this - at *worst* it might just benefit Almeida.

 

I see no other organization doing anything as far as active litigation on the justifiable need issue in NJ, and I don't understand the reason for crapping on the one that is because it's not your "ideal" case.

[Newtonian 453]

They need a plaintiff, just like Heller v. D.C. needed one.

 

Did Heller v. D.C. end up only benefiting Heller?

 

Not sure why you're so myopic on this - at *worst* it might just benefit Almeida.

 

I see no other organization doing anything as far as active litigation on the justifiable need issue in NJ, and I don't understand the reason for crapping on the one that is because it's not your "ideal" case.

Read the last sentence of my post. This is not a "case" at all. This is one guy up against some administrative crap. This process cannot create law as Drake might have. Once this is over you start all over again for the next person. It is non-transferable. How many times do I have to say that?

[WP22 1,558]

...

 

I see no other organization doing anything as far as active litigation on the justifiable need issue in NJ, and I don't understand the reason for crapping on the one that is because it's not your "ideal" case

I'm asking because I don't know but is Mr. Almeida's argument that justifiable need is unconstitutional or should Mr. Almeida get a CCW because he satisfies the justifiable need requirement?

If it is the former, great for all of us. If it the latter, great for him.

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

Here is one filing that is available online:

 

https://www.facebook.com/download/623496711073452/Albert%20Almeida%20brief%20CCW.pdf

 

As far as I can tell the action is to grant Almeida a CCW, but arguments about the unconstitutionality of justifiable need are raised frequently in the complaint.

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

Read the last sentence of my post. This is not a "case" at all. This is one guy up against some administrative crap. This process cannot create law as Drake might have. Once this is over you start all over again for the next person. It is non-transferable. How many times do I have to say that?

 

If nothing else it can build case history.  You're not going to convince me this is a net negative.  From what I can see of the SAF they don't do lots of "one-offs".

 

And the SAF themselves say:

 

 

..."This is part of our ongoing effort to have New Jersey carry laws declared unconstitutional," said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb...

[WP22 1,558]

It surprised me how heavily the filling relied on Heller and MacDonnald and went after the justifiable need requirement.

 

My pessimistic side says that even if Mr. Almeida gets his CCW, the court will grant it based on the circumstances of his case and not based on the broader issues raised by the filling.

Regardless, I don't see any downside to this case but see a lot of potential upside. If nothing else, it's another rock thrown at the wall. Eventually that wall will crumble.

 

Newtonian, if you didn't read the filling, you should.

[1LtCAP 4,262]

It surprised me how heavily the filling relied on Heller and MacDonnald and went after the justifiable need requirement.

 

My pessimistic side says that even if Mr. Almeida gets his CCW, the court will grant it based on the circumstances of his case and not based on the broader issues raised by the filling.

Regardless, I don't see any downside to this case but see a lot of potential upside. If nothing else, it's another rock thrown at the wall. Eventually that wall will crumble.

 

Newtonian, if you didn't read the filling, you should.

they will grant it to simply make the case go away.

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

they will grant it to simply make the case go away.

 

And it will be the 2nd time, that I know of, that a CCW application had to go to appeals and then was granted coincidentally after it started to gain national attention.  At some point that starts to get embarrassing for the state.

 

"NJ doesn't inhibit the right to carry; look, it's just that 100% of non-LEO/security guard/politically connected applications have to go through an initial denial/appeals process before justifiable need is demonstrated"

 

Even if it's just building a case history, it's still something.

[diamondd817 826]

You want to fight justifiable need? Get 500 people to apply for a carry permit using "self defense" as their justifiable need. When you get the 500 denials, have those 500 people file a single lawsuit.

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

You want to fight justifiable need? Get 500 people to apply for a carry permit using "self defense" as their justifiable need. When you get the 500 denials, have those 500 people file a single lawsuit.

 

A nascent effort along those lines is underway (and it appears, also by Mr. Almeida):

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/74413-nj-carry-license-survey/

 

Have you filled out the survey diamondd817?

[diamondd817 826]

A nascent effort along those lines is underway (and it appears, also by Mr. Almeida):

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/74413-nj-carry-license-survey/

 

Have you filled out the survey diamondd817?

Yes I did. Still waiting.

[NEAHS 11]

The "state" claims a 90% or higher approval rate for carry permits. Only 1300 people have applied, and 1200 have been approved so far. That means all we have to do is get 100,000 of us to apply and 90,000 of us will be granted our permits. Right?

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

The "state" claims a 90% or higher approval rate for carry permits. Only 1300 people have applied, and 1200 have been approved so far. That means all we have to do is get 100,000 of us to apply and 90,000 of us will be granted our permits. Right?

 

As soon as you remove the set of people who are applying because they're employed as security/armored car guards or with law enforcement history that percentage goes way down.

[Newtonian 453]

You want to fight justifiable need? Get 500 people to apply for a carry permit using "self defense" as their justifiable need. When you get the 500 denials, have those 500 people file a single lawsuit.

This is more along the lines of what the 2A organizations should be doing. But it takes imagination which they lack. They've been so successful working within the system in sane states, they continue to do so here.

 

Almeida, the kidnapped fellow, etc. getting permits is the worst thing in the world for us. It allows the state to counter constitutional objections with "Hey, we do grant permits. Why just the other day we gave one to Almeida. Justifiable need works in New Jersey!!" BAD.

 

Imagine analogous restrictions on something we take for granted like driving at night. Let's say NJ made it blanket illegal to do so unless commuting to work or based on very narrowly defined "justifiable need" such as being diabetic and frequently running out of food. Would you be cheering for your neighbor to get the JN exemption when you could not? Would you support the rotten system that requires such an exemption by falling all over yourselves to demonstrate it, like 2AS is doing with Almeida? 

 

It occurred to me that these organizations would cease to exist the day NJ became like 42 other states. They'd be forced to get their kicks from arguing the legality of issuing Glocks to four year olds in Kindergarten. 

[NEAHS 11]

As soon as you remove the set of people who are applying because they're employed as security/armored car guards or with law enforcement history that percentage goes way down.

Yeah, we know this, so does the state. I was being sarcastic.

 

But if we could find 100,000 people that were not afraid of big bad NJ. That percent would change dramatically  and prove that NJ is a no issue state.

 

I've been ready to submit my app with the other 99,999 people to prove NJ wrong.

[diamondd817 826]

 

It occurred to me that these organizations would cease to exist the day NJ became like 42 other states. They'd be forced to get their kicks from arguing the legality of issuing Glocks to four year olds in Kindergarten.

This. I have said this before. These organizations make their money off the fear and emotions of NJ's law abiding citizens. I'm not so sure they really want to change anything.

[Newtonian 453]

This. I have said this before. These organizations make their money off the fear and emotions of NJ's law abiding citizens. I'm not so sure they really want to change anything.

I'm not quite that cynical. I don't think anyone except the lawyers gets rich from this stuff. Even then there must be some pro bono work involved. The incentives are complicated. Your dentist may sincerely want your teeth to be perfect, but if everyone's teeth were perfect he'd be mixing latte's at StarBucks. 

 

Regardless, we are going backwards instead of forward despite their efforts. This case is but one example IMO of the "leaders" setting us back. 

[1LtCAP 4,262]

This. I have said this before. These organizations make their money off the fear and emotions of NJ's law abiding citizens. I'm not so sure they really want to change anything.

kinda like drug companies. there is plenty of money in treating diseases. not so much in curing them.

[JC_68Westy 1,024]

You want to fight justifiable need? Get 500 people to apply for a carry permit using "self defense" as their justifiable need. When you get the 500 denials, have those 500 people file a single lawsuit.

I completely agree.  How many denials compared to the 1200 or so permits.  Are people really afraid of having to answer yes to whether or not they have been denied a permit to carry?  I am willing to give it a shot. 

[PD2K 115]

I hope he wins the case.

 

But I have to agree with Newtonian's point/query: how exactly does this case help the rest of us citizens get a CCW?

[revenger 473]

I believe the court case for the kidnapped guy is coming up real soon,    it will be interesting to see if he gets to retain his permit after the case.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

I'm asking because I don't know but is Mr. Almeida's argument that justifiable need is unconstitutional or should Mr. Almeida get a CCW because he satisfies the justifiable need requirement?

If it is the former, great for all of us. If it the latter, great for him.

Yes, I think this is the crux of the issue, and I believe it's what Newtonian is saying.  Who cares if Mr. Almeida is able to prove he has justifiable need.

That doesn't change anything for the rest of us.  What we need is for the courts to rule that self defense is enough reason for a CCW permit,

as provided in the Second Amendment:  The right to BEAR arms.

[Newtonian 453]

I believe the court case for the kidnapped guy is coming up real soon,    it will be interesting to see if he gets to retain his permit after the case.

Only if he can demonstrate that he's been kidnapped again, this time by Martians.