SAF/NJ Lawsuit

Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
8,704
Likes
1,504
Location
Central Ma.
NEW JERSEY CONTINUES TO
TRASH SECOND AMENDMENT
IN RIGHT TO CARRY LAWSUIT

NJ Attorney General Argues That The Second Amendment
Right to Bear Arms Does Not Apply Outside the Home and
That the Public Needs to be Protected From Those Legally Carrying!

On March 16, the New Jersey Attorney General filed its final lower court response in the recently-filed lawsuit challenging New Jersey’s extreme and subjective handgun carry laws.

As in its previous papers, the Attorney General again trashed the Second Amendment, arguing that the right to bear arms does not apply outside the home, and that New Jersey’s carry laws are constitutional and necessary to protect the public from those who legally carry firearms.

The federal lawsuit, filed in November of last year by Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, the Second Amendment Foundation, and six individual plaintiffs, challenges New Jersey’s unconstitutional “justifiable need” standard for issuance of handgun carry permits – a nearly impossible standard to meet that has all but eliminated the right to self defense with a firearm in the Garden State.

“It is now crystal clear that the State of New Jersey has no intention of ever respecting the right to defend yourself with a firearm outside the home, and will have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into compliance with the Heller and McDonald decisions,” said ANJRPC President Scott Bach. “With this lawsuit, we intend to do just that, even if we have to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Bach.

SAF founder Alan Gottlieb added, “ With the help of our members and supporters we will fund this legal action all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court just like we did with McDonald vs. Chicago. This case will impact states all across the country.”
.
The case is now submitted for consideration by a U.S. District Court Judge, who could rule as early as September. Appeals are anticipated regardless of the decision.

SAF will keep you apprised of major case developments as they occur. Please watch for future alerts.

Join The Fight!
Support SAF Efforts to Restore
The Second Amendment in every state.
 

Bill Nance

Banned
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
4,091
Likes
845
Location
God's Country, WA
I'm pretty sure the suit will fail. I cannot imagine the SC ruling that states HAVE to allow CC. It's far beyond Heller's narrow ruling.

I wish them luck, but I don't think they're going to get anywhere on this.
 
Rating - 45.5%
1   6   4
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
7,842
Likes
1,881
I hope they bury them (figuratively), and this decision ends up being another heller. Rock and roll jersey. Your state smells awful but we're in your corner anyways....we should support these guys, our future rides on theirs.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
1,353
Likes
67
I'm pretty sure the suit will fail. I cannot imagine the SC ruling that states HAVE to allow CC. It's far beyond Heller's narrow ruling.

I wish them luck, but I don't think they're going to get anywhere on this.

The suit has to deal with one clause in the law. "Justifiable Need". So unless I am a celebrity or carry large sums of money I cannot claim "justifiable need" to get a CCW permit. In Ma. you have nothing called justifiable need so you can apply and get a CCW permit.
 

jar

Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
6,370
Likes
699
Location
Needham, MA
I don't necessarily agree. I can shoot my brothers handgun in NJ. It's a felony for him to even touch mine in NY. Also you can have 15 round mags in Jersey. Not saying I like Jersey but those 2 items are definitely better.

Really? What makes it a felony for him to touch your handgun? How does anyone get training?
 
Rating - 100%
22   0   0
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
920
Likes
81
Location
MA
Really? What makes it a felony for him to touch your handgun? How does anyone get training?
I believe in NY state you need a permit to even touch a handgun, this is what I was told when asking why FFL's in NY will not let you handle a handgun. Long guns are a different story.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
 

PaulD

NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
12,180
Likes
1,255
^ I duno about that Cali, IL and NY suck too

California is actually better in most ways. No AG BS (though they do have a roster), their AWB isn't as open for interpretation and there's less corruption in their court system. It's splitting hairs I suppose but I think I'd take CA's gun laws over ours.
 

jar

Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
6,370
Likes
699
Location
Needham, MA
California is actually better in most ways. No AG BS (though they do have a roster), their AWB isn't as open for interpretation and there's less corruption in their court system. It's splitting hairs I suppose but I think I'd take CA's gun laws over ours.
What's open to interpretation about the MA AWB? The CA AWB actually prevents having a proper AR. You're stuck with either fixed mags or some bizarro world stock/grip setup.
 

PaulD

NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
12,180
Likes
1,255
What's open to interpretation about the MA AWB? The CA AWB actually prevents having a proper AR. You're stuck with either fixed mags or some bizarro world stock/grip setup.

In CA, you can also use a bullet button which suffices as a "fixed mag". Using a bullet button allows you to have a collapsible/folding stock.

The CA AWB also says that post ban mags can't be sold or transferred. However, I believe it has a loophole that allows buying "rebuild kits" of parts made after '94.

Also, I believe CA has no storage laws and you don't need a license to actually buy a firearm. In other words, the local chief has no power to take away your 2A rights.
 

jar

Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
6,370
Likes
699
Location
Needham, MA
In CA, you can also use a bullet button which suffices as a "fixed mag". Using a bullet button allows you to have a collapsible/folding stock.

The CA AWB also says that post ban mags can't be sold or transferred. However, I believe it has a loophole that allows buying "rebuild kits" of parts made after '94.

Also, I believe CA has no storage laws and you don't need a license to actually buy a firearm. In other words, the local chief has no power to take away your 2A rights.

You can't put a pre ban mag in a BB rifle, 10 rounders only. Assembling said rebuild kits is in CA is a felony, so they only purpose they serve is taking them to shoot out of state. Pre-ban mags can't be sold or transferred either, if you didn't own them in 2000, you're stuck.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
81,674
Likes
67,283
California is actually better in most ways. No AG BS (though they do have a roster), their AWB isn't as open for interpretation and there's less corruption in their court system. It's splitting hairs I suppose but I think I'd take CA's gun laws over ours.

CA is also "possession free by default" (at least on the stuff that is legal there) meaning you can have rifles, shotguns, and handguns in your home with no permit above and beyond the DROS garbage you have to go through when you buy them.

Their laws on what you can own are far worse, though, but they have less of an avenue of attack vs basic ownership rights. (EG, a CLEO with a hair up his ass can't steal your guns without due process, like they can in MA).

No carry except for LEOSA and the handful of counties that will issue permits.

I'd take an MA "solid politically green" town (eg, one you can know probably won't flip) any day of the week over what they're dealing with.

I'm also going to avoid the fact that, at least in the bay area, a lot of the gun stores and the ranges there are a pure 110% bone job, even compared to MA. A friend of mine was looking for a SOCOM-16 once, which is CA legal.... any store he went to within an hour or so of his
house in the bay area, the guns were all like $100 to $150 over what you would pay for it at FS.

-Mike
 

PaulD

NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
12,180
Likes
1,255
You can't put a pre ban mag in a BB rifle, 10 rounders only. Assembling said rebuild kits is in CA is a felony, so they only purpose they serve is taking them to shoot out of state. Pre-ban mags can't be sold or transferred either, if you didn't own them in 2000, you're stuck.

To be frank, I've had too much scotch to counter this.

I do read the calguns web sight and I've seen posts that counter this right now. Of course, this is all splitting hairs as I said.

As far as a "real AR" though, in some ways I'd rather have the bullet button and a collapsible stock, that that's personal preference.
 

PaulD

NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
12,180
Likes
1,255
Good points. I think all things considered, I'd rather "possession free by default" vs. the arbitrary and capricious licensing we have. It's just trading 6*suck for 12*.5*suck though. Also, some towns in MA have gone from green to not so green it seems based on some posts here.



CA is also "possession free by default" (at least on the stuff that is legal there) meaning you can have rifles, shotguns, and handguns in your home with no permit above and beyond the DROS garbage you have to go through when you buy them.

Their laws on what you can own are far worse, though, but they have less of an avenue of attack vs basic ownership rights. (EG, a CLEO with a hair up his ass can't steal your guns without due process, like they can in MA).

No carry except for LEOSA and the handful of counties that will issue permits.

I'd take an MA "solid politically green" town (eg, one you can know probably won't flip) any day of the week over what they're dealing with.

I'm also going to avoid the fact that, at least in the bay area, a lot of the gun stores and the ranges there are a pure 110% bone job, even compared to MA. A friend of mine was looking for a SOCOM-16 once, which is CA legal.... any store he went to within an hour or so of his
house in the bay area, the guns were all like $100 to $150 over what you would pay for it at FS.

-Mike
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
2,225
Likes
315
Location
Plymouth, MA
I'm pretty sure the suit will fail. I cannot imagine the SC ruling that states HAVE to allow CC. It's far beyond Heller's narrow ruling.

I wish them luck, but I don't think they're going to get anywhere on this.

I have to disagree, they're saying carry in general, not just ccw, that being the case I feel they have a great chance.

Does our right to life and defense of your life end at your door step?

No, it doesn't, that is an unreasonable infringement.

So I feel that this could be a big step forward, states that don't have any form of carry would now be forced to let a licensed person (if that state has licensing) to either be able to open carry or ccw.

I think this is going to be interesting.
 

Mass-diver

NES Member
Rating - 100%
31   0   0
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
5,959
Likes
1,183
Location
South Shore, MA
To be frank, I've had too much scotch to counter this.

I do read the calguns web sight and I've seen posts that counter this right now. Of course, this is all splitting hairs as I said.

As far as a "real AR" though, in some ways I'd rather have the bullet button and a collapsible stock, that that's personal preference.

To each his own, but, I much prefer our guns laws over cali. If you live in a green town, it's mostly just your pocket book that gets hurt. Pre-ban ARs and pre ban mags are readily available (if you have the $) and it's the same thing with pistols not on the AG list, if you want to pay a little more you can get any pistol you want.

On the other hand, my buddy in NH texted me a picture of his SCAR the day......
 

jar

Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
6,370
Likes
699
Location
Needham, MA
I do read the calguns web sight and I've seen posts that counter this right now. Of course, this is all splitting hairs as I said.

As far as a "real AR" though, in some ways I'd rather have the bullet button and a collapsible stock, that that's personal preference.

I'm primarily a competition shooter, so having real detachable hi-cap mags and a real pistol grip is my primary concern. If your priorities are different that's understandable. Which part are you saying I'm wrong about? I've picked up a lot following calguns for litigation info, but I wouldn't bet on being right to the degree I would with MA.

Good points. I think all things considered, I'd rather "possession free by default" vs. the arbitrary and capricious licensing we have. It's just trading 6*suck for 12*.5*suck though. Also, some towns in MA have gone from green to not so green it seems based on some posts here.

Agree 100% that they both suck. That was drgrant's point about 'politically green', namely towns where a change in police chief wouldn't be enough to flip them.
 

PaulD

NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
12,180
Likes
1,255
I'm primarily a competition shooter, so having real detachable hi-cap mags and a real pistol grip is my primary concern. If your priorities are different that's understandable. Which part are you saying I'm wrong about? I've picked up a lot following calguns for litigation info, but I wouldn't bet on being right to the degree I would with MA.

I think I'm going to have to address this one at a later date. That said, I'm not saying you're wrong but there have been various articles I've read that makes me think that's it's not necessarily worse there. Part of it is that there's no CLEO who can take away your license. Also, there are counties in CA where getting a CCW isn't really any worse than MA, though these aren't the counties anyone wants to live in.

Some of my thoughts would require me to go do some searches, which (scotch) I'm not going to do now.
 

jar

Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
6,370
Likes
699
Location
Needham, MA
No ownership permit is definitely the big advantage that CA has. I have no worries about that in my town, so I don't think the other crap is worth the tradeoff.

Anyway, I'm hopeful that a bunch of this stuff is going to change for the better in both places over the next year or two thanks to post-McDonald litigation that's in process.
 

PaulD

NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
12,180
Likes
1,255
No ownership permit is definitely the big advantage that CA has. I have no worries about that in my town, so I don't think the other crap is worth the tradeoff.

Anyway, I'm hopeful that a bunch of this stuff is going to change for the better in both places over the next year or two thanks to post-McDonald litigation that's in process.

FWIW, here's a Wiki on CA magazine laws. I

http://gunwiki.net/Gunwiki/LegalCaliforniaMagazines

The parts about "Possession of large capacity magazines is not a crime. " and "January 1st, 2000 was the deadline to import, make, had one sold to you (tricky wording, for a reason), or been given a large capacity magazine." seem relevant. In other words, since there's no permit required to own a magazine and the burden is on the state to prove you didn't own the magazine before that date, it seems they have more leeway to own newer magazines.

On the other hand, in MA, we're free to buy any pre-'94 mag assuming we have the right license (I hate that last part).

This is what leads me to the conclusion that it's up in the air as to which state is worse.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
4,702
Likes
1,143
Location
Brookline, NH
I do read the calguns web sight and I've seen posts that counter this right now. Of course, this is all splitting hairs as I said.

As far as a "real AR" though, in some ways I'd rather have the bullet button and a collapsible stock, that that's personal preference.

The other thing CA has going for it is a dedicated group of gun rights lawyers who have come up with a long term strategy to roll back gun laws, and have helped organize a grass roots organization which will support that effort (calguns foundation)

The state also has a dedicated state-level NRA office..unique in the country I believe.

The effort in CA to eliminate gun laws is extremely well-organized and coordinated, unlike anything down there in MA, NJ, etc. I predict you will see surprising (to anyone who's not following CA gun issues) and significant court rulings come out of the state.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
8,219
Likes
5,675
Location
My forest stronghold
I'm pretty sure the suit will fail. I cannot imagine the SC ruling that states HAVE to allow CC. It's far beyond Heller's narrow ruling.

I wish them luck, but I don't think they're going to get anywhere on this.

Don't be too quick to come to this conclusion. There are good, active right-to-carry actions in the district courts of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, & 9th circuits and they are all just as narrowly focused as the NJ case is. SCOTUS actually left the door wide open for carry. It was not directly addressed in Heller / McDonald because the plaintiffs didn't raise it. However, they were clear that to "keep" and to "bear" were distinct individual concepts.

The other thing CA has going for it is a dedicated group of gun rights lawyers who have come up with a long term strategy to roll back gun laws, and have helped organize a grass roots organization which will support that effort (calguns foundation)

The state also has a dedicated state-level NRA office..unique in the country I believe.

The effort in CA to eliminate gun laws is extremely well-organized and coordinated, unlike anything down there in MA, NJ, etc. I predict you will see surprising (to anyone who's not following CA gun issues) and significant court rulings come out of the state.

Don't sell NJ, NY and MA short. The folks in CA got out there first and got the ball rolling, but there don't be surprised when you start seeing some significant activity on this side of the country.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
4,702
Likes
1,143
Location
Brookline, NH
Knuckle Dragger said:
Don't sell NJ, NY and MA short. The folks in CA got out there first and got the ball rolling, but there don't be surprised when you start seeing some significant activity on this side of the country.

I'm not selling them short, just stating what you acknowledge (ie CA got there first), and that CGF has been very proactive. In fact, from what I understand there has been some level of discussion (coordination?) between Calguns foundation and the org in MA.

One big minus for CA: Check gunbroker and look at how often you see "No sales to California". This is in part due to CFLC requirements (use google if you don't know), but also the uninformed assumption that there's nothing in California but hippies and liberals. The gun grabbers knew what they were doing on this one: take advantage of gun dealer and gun owner natural paranoia to have a greater impact on sales of legal firearms to California than the letter of the law prohibits (CFLC prohibits none, but requires extra documentation). Then, just sit back and let out-of-state dealers do the gun grabber's dirty work for them.
 

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
92   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
20,004
Likes
5,149
Location
Stoughton
Don't be too quick to come to this conclusion. There are good, active right-to-carry actions in the district courts of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, & 9th circuits and they are all just as narrowly focused as the NJ case is. SCOTUS actually left the door wide open for carry. It was not directly addressed in Heller / McDonald because the plaintiffs didn't raise it. However, they were clear that to "keep" and to "bear" were distinct individual concepts.

This was discussed at the time of the Heller decision. Like most decisions Heller was decided on the most narrow terms possible and the people with the most knowledge on the subject agreed that it was the first step on the road to restoration of the right to bear arms as spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Given the disparity in the Circuit Courts, some of these cases are bound to make it to the Supreme Court.
 
Top Bottom