Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 10/20/2009 5:46:26 PM EST
The case is about a guy who applied for a FPID and handgun purchase permit and was denied because one of the two references he gave on the application provided a bad reference (there's more to it if you read the opinion, but that's a very brief summary). You can read the opinion here.

One part of the opinion that is of interest discusses DC v. Heller's applicability to NJ's permit process. The opinion states:

"However, the Court [in DC v. Heller] expressly indicated that its holding did
not require invalidation of statutes that require a license to
purchase or possess a firearm. Id. at ___, ___, 128 S. Ct. at
2816-17, 2819, 171 L. Ed. 2d at 678, 680-81. In fact, the Court
noted that "[r]espondent conceded at oral argument that he does
not 'have a problem with . . . licensing' and that the
District's law is permissible so long as it is 'not enforced in
an arbitrary and capricious manner[,]'" thus obviating the need
for the Court to address the validity of the specific provisions
of the District of Columbia's gun licensing statutes. Id. at
___, 128 S. Ct. 2819, 171, L. Ed. 2d at 681. Therefore, Heller
9 A-0832-08T4
has no impact upon the constitutionality of N.J.S.A. 2C:58-
3(c)(5)."

So they found that NJ's current permit issuing process is not in violation of DC v. Heller. I'm sure this isn't a shock to any of us, but for those of you who were hoping DC v. Heller might help us out this opinion certainly doesn't help.
Link Posted: 10/20/2009 6:26:34 PM EST
I'm sure this isn't a shock to any of us, but for those of you who were hoping DC v. Heller might help us out this opinion certainly doesn't help.

Not for purchase, no. But - now apply the same test to the carry permit... which IS arbitrary and capricious. According to 2C:39-5b, a permit to carry is required to possess. Of course, for that argument, any judge in NJ would simply rule that the 2A doesn't apply to the states.

For now, at least... I have no doubt that next year the USSC will return a decision that the 2A is incorporated against the states. Then let the floodgates of litigation open.
Link Posted: 10/21/2009 11:30:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By Tom488:
.

For now, at least... I have no doubt that next year the USSC will return a decision that the2A is incorporated against the states. Then let the floodgates of litigation open.

Last Saturday night at the ANJRPC Annual Dinner Evan Nappen went into detail how it will impact NJ laws .

Next year will very interesting in the State of New Jersey

Link Posted: 10/22/2009 12:12:38 PM EST
[:// <––––- my surprised face
Link Posted: 10/22/2009 12:58:54 PM EST
Originally Posted By Russell92:
The case is about a guy who applied for a FPID and handgun purchase permit and was denied because one of the two references he gave on the application provided a bad reference (there's more to it if you read the opinion, but that's a very brief summary). You can read the opinion here.

One part of the opinion that is of interest discusses DC v. Heller's applicability to NJ's permit process. The opinion states:

"However, the Court [in DC v. Heller] expressly indicated that its holding did
not require invalidation of statutes that require a license to
purchase or possess a firearm. Id. at ___, ___, 128 S. Ct. at
2816-17, 2819, 171 L. Ed. 2d at 678, 680-81. In fact, the Court
noted that "[r]espondent conceded at oral argument that he does
not 'have a problem with . . . licensing' and that the
District's law is permissible so long as it is 'not enforced in
an arbitrary and capricious manner[,]'" thus obviating the need
for the Court to address the validity of the specific provisions
of the District of Columbia's gun licensing statutes. Id. at
___, 128 S. Ct. 2819, 171, L. Ed. 2d at 681. Therefore, Heller
9 A-0832-08T4
has no impact upon the constitutionality of N.J.S.A. 2C:58-
3(c)(5)."

So they found that NJ's current permit issuing process is not in violation of DC v. Heller. I'm sure this isn't a shock to any of us, but for those of you who were hoping DC v. Heller might help us out this opinion certainly doesn't help.



Dc V Heller DOES NOT APPLY to NJ or any other state. DC is a federal Jurisdiction, not a state level case, therefore Heller only applies to Federal Laws. The Chicago case that is currently on the SCOTUS docket for this session, WILL however cover state'level cases if ot goes in our favor, which I Believe Gura is confident of. Once that is won, then we can apply THAT caselaw as it will have finally Incorporated the 2nd Ammendment to be applicable under the 14th Ammendment.
Link Posted: 10/23/2009 6:33:23 AM EST
Follow Alan Gura and the SCOTUS case here:

http://www.chicagoguncase.com/

The Schedule

Published by Alan Gura under Uncategorized

Here is what we can look forward to in the coming months…

Our opening brief is due November 16.

The city’s brief is then due December 16.

Our reply brief is due January 15.

The case is expected to be argued in February, with a decision expected by the end of June, 2010.
Link Posted: 10/23/2009 11:54:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By rkbar15:
Follow Alan Gura and the SCOTUS case here:

http://www.chicagoguncase.com/

The Schedule

Published by Alan Gura under Uncategorized

Here is what we can look forward to in the coming months…

Our opening brief is due November 16.

The city’s brief is then due December 16.

Our reply brief is due January 15.

The case is expected to be argued in February, with a decision expected by the end of June, 2010.
As always,

Thank you

Link Posted: 10/29/2009 6:32:25 AM EST
The Court is basically maintaining the status quo until the next Supreme Court ruling. They don`t want to be totally repudiated by the highest court in the land. They can say they were just following precendent.
Link Posted: 10/29/2009 7:23:07 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/29/2009 7:33:18 AM EST by rkbar15]

Originally Posted By arbob:
The Court is basically maintaining the status quo until the next Supreme Court ruling. They don`t want to be totally repudiated by the highest court in the land. They can say they were just following precendent.

If Big Daddy says NO you can't go to Little Mommy and expect her to say yes. Your relief is to appeal to Big Daddy and plead your case for reconsideration of his prior ruling. People rag on Sotomayor for her 2nd circuit ruling in Maloney v. Cuomo but she did the correct thing for a circuit judge.

You NJ guys are takin' a beatin' here: N.J. Court Says Americans Have No Right To Buy Handguns
Link Posted: 10/29/2009 8:47:51 AM EST
Originally Posted By Iggyort:

Originally Posted By Tom488:
.

For now, at least... I have no doubt that next year the USSC will return a decision that the2A is incorporated against the states. Then let the floodgates of litigation open.

Last Saturday night at the ANJRPC Annual Dinner Evan Nappen went into detail how it will impact NJ laws .

Next year will very interesting in the State of New Jersey



Iggy, you were at the meeting? I didn't see you...How'd that happen?
Link Posted: 10/29/2009 8:53:48 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/29/2009 9:13:29 AM EST by rkbar15]

Originally Posted By Iggyort:

Last Saturday night at the ANJRPC Annual Dinner Evan Nappen went into detail how it will impact NJ laws .

Next year will very interesting in the State of New Jersey


FYI, if you're not aware Nappen moved his family to NH a few years ago and has a law practice in Concord NH.

http://www.efnappen.com/


He's also on the BOD of Pro-Gun NH.

http://www.pgnh.org/

Evan Nappen, General Counsel and Director — nationally known gun-rights attorney; former Vice President, Free State Project; former member of the NRA Concealed Carry Committee; author, New Hampshire Gun, Knife, and Weapon Law






Link Posted: 10/29/2009 9:31:59 AM EST
Originally Posted By Iggyort:

Originally Posted By Tom488:
.

For now, at least... I have no doubt that next year the USSC will return a decision that the2A is incorporated against the states. Then let the floodgates of litigation open.

Last Saturday night at the ANJRPC Annual Dinner Evan Nappen went into detail how it will impact NJ laws .

Next year will very interesting in the State of New Jersey



can you elaborate for those of us not there...thx

Link Posted: 10/30/2009 2:38:51 PM EST
Originally Posted By Russell92:
The case is about a guy who applied for a FPID and handgun purchase permit and was denied because one of the two references he gave on the application provided a bad reference (there's more to it if you read the opinion, but that's a very brief summary). You can read the opinion here.

One part of the opinion that is of interest discusses DC v. Heller's applicability to NJ's permit process. The opinion states:

"However, the Court [in DC v. Heller] expressly indicated that its holding did
not require invalidation of statutes that require a license to
purchase or possess a firearm. Id. at ___, ___, 128 S. Ct. at
2816-17, 2819, 171 L. Ed. 2d at 678, 680-81. In fact, the Court
noted that "[r]espondent conceded at oral argument that he does
not 'have a problem with . . . licensing' and that the
District's law is permissible so long as it is 'not enforced in
an arbitrary and capricious manner[,]'" thus obviating the need
for the Court to address the validity of the specific provisions
of the District of Columbia's gun licensing statutes. Id. at
___, 128 S. Ct. 2819, 171, L. Ed. 2d at 681. Therefore, Heller
9 A-0832-08T4
has no impact upon the constitutionality of N.J.S.A. 2C:58-
3(c)(5)."

So they found that NJ's current permit issuing process is not in violation of DC v. Heller. I'm sure this isn't a shock to any of us, but for those of you who were hoping DC v. Heller might help us out this opinion certainly doesn't help.


I was under the impression that Heller simply did not address permits since it was not under contention in the case brought to the court. So it was not validated but simply not addressed at all. Am I wrong?
Link Posted: 10/30/2009 3:12:35 PM EST
Originally Posted By femgungirl:
Originally Posted By Russell92:
The case is about a guy who applied for a FPID and handgun purchase permit and was denied because one of the two references he gave on the application provided a bad reference (there's more to it if you read the opinion, but that's a very brief summary). You can read the opinion here.

One part of the opinion that is of interest discusses DC v. Heller's applicability to NJ's permit process. The opinion states:

"However, the Court [in DC v. Heller] expressly indicated that its holding did
not require invalidation of statutes that require a license to
purchase or possess a firearm. Id. at ___, ___, 128 S. Ct. at
2816-17, 2819, 171 L. Ed. 2d at 678, 680-81. In fact, the Court
noted that "[r]espondent conceded at oral argument that he does
not 'have a problem with . . . licensing' and that the
District's law is permissible so long as it is 'not enforced in
an arbitrary and capricious manner[,]'" thus obviating the need
for the Court to address the validity of the specific provisions
of the District of Columbia's gun licensing statutes. Id. at
___, 128 S. Ct. 2819, 171, L. Ed. 2d at 681. Therefore, Heller
9 A-0832-08T4
has no impact upon the constitutionality of N.J.S.A. 2C:58-
3(c)(5)."

So they found that NJ's current permit issuing process is not in violation of DC v. Heller. I'm sure this isn't a shock to any of us, but for those of you who were hoping DC v. Heller might help us out this opinion certainly doesn't help.


I was under the impression that Heller simply did not address permits since it was not under contention in the case brought to the court. So it was not validated but simply not addressed at all. Am I wrong?



Nope Heller has no bearing because DC is a Federal jurisdiction.
Link Posted: 10/30/2009 6:43:05 PM EST
That's correct that Heller only applies to federal laws and not states. However, from reading this opinion it seems they are saying that even if Heller did apply to the states, the current permit process in NJ would still be legal under Heller.

So it will depend on what the opinion states in this Chicago incorporation case going to the SCOTUS. If, for example, the opinion simply states that Heller, as it's currently written, applies to states as well, then it seems the opinion in this Dubov case would stand that the current permit process is legal. We'll just have to wait and see how the Chicago case turns out...
Link Posted: 11/1/2009 5:32:28 PM EST
Originally Posted By Russell92:
That's correct that Heller only applies to federal laws and not states. However, from reading this opinion it seems they are saying that even if Heller did apply to the states, the current permit process in NJ would still be legal under Heller.

So it will depend on what the opinion states in this Chicago incorporation case going to the SCOTUS. If, for example, the opinion simply states that Heller, as it's currently written, applies to states as well, then it seems the opinion in this Dubov case would stand that the current permit process is legal. We'll just have to wait and see how the Chicago case turns out...


NJ Supreme court is so luiberal they violate the state constitution on a regular basis, we WILL probably have to have an NJ case specifically go to SCOTUS before things change here.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 6:10:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/2/2009 6:11:10 AM EST by rkbar15]

Originally Posted By Russell92:
That's correct that Heller only applies to federal laws and not states. However, from reading this opinion it seems they are saying that even if Heller did apply to the states, the current permit process in NJ would still be legal under Heller.

Once incorporated (I'm confident it will be) and as important as the incorporation issue will be the level of scrutiny. After that it's game on for the next 10 years to see what degree of restriction states like NY and NJ can get away with.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 6:41:17 AM EST
Originally Posted By AJK07734:
Originally Posted By Russell92:
That's correct that Heller only applies to federal laws and not states. However, from reading this opinion it seems they are saying that even if Heller did apply to the states, the current permit process in NJ would still be legal under Heller.

So it will depend on what the opinion states in this Chicago incorporation case going to the SCOTUS. If, for example, the opinion simply states that Heller, as it's currently written, applies to states as well, then it seems the opinion in this Dubov case would stand that the current permit process is legal. We'll just have to wait and see how the Chicago case turns out...


NJ Supreme court is so luiberal they violate the state constitution on a regular basis, we WILL probably have to have an NJ case specifically go to SCOTUS before things change here.


Sadly, you are 110% correct. That is EXACTLY how it will go, with NJ spending countless millions to preserve their precious gun control.
Top Top