PDA

View Full Version : NJ carry permit denial case


press1280
05-04-2010, 5:38 PM
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a5202-08.pdf

A pro se appellant submits 300 pages of arguments. In the end he gets denied but some of the opinion is telling. The judge admits NJ's precedents are in jeopardy due to McDonald. He also does what DC's attorneys are trying to do in Palmer. He(the judge) tries to frame it as a "concealed weapons" case, and cites the line from Heller that concealed weapons were banned under state analoges, totally ignoring open carry was always protected under the 2A or state equivalent.

CCWFacts
05-04-2010, 7:04 PM
A pro se appellant submits 300 pages of arguments.

I wish there were some way to stop these kind of people. To me, they are worse than the Brady Campaign, and certainly more dangerous. They're not on our side. They are on the side of their own egos.

Gray Peterson
05-04-2010, 9:21 PM
A better case will be filed post-McDonald. Trust me on that.

hoffmang
05-04-2010, 9:39 PM
I doubt the pro-se was able to articulate that carry permits may be ok where unpermitted open carry is legal, but that isn't New Jersey.

Federal courts is where we'll succeed over the long haul.

-Gene

1JimMarch
05-05-2010, 2:06 AM
In the guy's defense, let's look at what he "flushed out of hiding":

The police agency did NOT just deny him. First they made him do range testing (unknown costs), then sent him to a shrink (no doubt more costs), THEN sat on his app for two years, then denied him.

This wasn't just a denial, this was the absolute maximum abuse the agency could throw at him.

Post-McDonald, when this gets to a federal court, he or anybody else can cite this level of abuse as being ACCEPTABLE to the state court system.

Y'all may see this as a loss. I see it as a very interesting "scouting mission" ahead of the main advance...one that may very well in the long run help matters.

wildhawker
05-05-2010, 2:46 AM
Scouting for information you already have may be an interesting but nevertheless inefficient approach.

If we have 1, we have 1000 instances of egregious civil rights violations. Proving 1001 doesn't get you any more than proving the first 1000 does.

In the guy's defense, let's look at what he "flushed out of hiding":

The police agency did NOT just deny him. First they made him do range testing (unknown costs), then sent him to a shrink (no doubt more costs), THEN sat on his app for two years, then denied him.

This wasn't just a denial, this was the absolute maximum abuse the agency could throw at him.

Post-McDonald, when this gets to a federal court, he or anybody else can cite this level of abuse as being ACCEPTABLE to the state court system.

Y'all may see this as a loss. I see it as a very interesting "scouting mission" ahead of the main advance...one that may very well in the long run help matters.

press1280
05-05-2010, 3:07 AM
In the guy's defense, let's look at what he "flushed out of hiding":

The police agency did NOT just deny him. First they made him do range testing (unknown costs), then sent him to a shrink (no doubt more costs), THEN sat on his app for two years, then denied him.

This wasn't just a denial, this was the absolute maximum abuse the agency could throw at him.

Post-McDonald, when this gets to a federal court, he or anybody else can cite this level of abuse as being ACCEPTABLE to the state court system.

Y'all may see this as a loss. I see it as a very interesting "scouting mission" ahead of the main advance...one that may very well in the long run help matters.


I agree. It gives us a look at how the judges are trying to push back against Heller and subsequent cases. That way cases that come after know what they need to address. Plus, at this court level, the guy can't do any damage. If he tries to move it up the food chain, then he could start setting a bad precedent.
But of course McDonald is certainly needed to have any chance of winning.

Gray Peterson
05-05-2010, 10:30 AM
OK, just to make it so that everyone is very clear what's going on here. Read the caption of the case up top. "In the Matter of the Application Of" should have made it clear to the more legal minded, but not so with everyone else:

In New Jersey, it is the county/vicinage courts that issue permits to carry handguns. Though the PD sat on the application for two years, it is only a "recommendation" to the local judge. This is an appeal of the judges decision.

It is the New Jersey Judiciary system who is the oppressor here.