Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NJ Carry Case takes another baby step.

Discussion in 'Legal' started by NJ Accountant, Jan 28, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. NJ Accountant

    NJ Accountant Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    43
    I'm posting from my phone, the story is on the anjrpc website and on njgunforums. If someone would be so kind as to post a link.

    NJ submitted their motion to dismiss on the grounds that its too dangerous to have handguns carried outside of your own home. I'm paraphrasing but it was something like this:

    "Our finding is that we can't allow you to carry handguns, it's too dangerous. We base these findings on completely nothing, please think of the children. " signed some poor Guy assigned to this hopeless case Esq.

    They also had the minerals to say that the current process is "shall issue " since if the superior court judge, in NJ, finds that you've met all the requirements including the impossible "justifiable need" than he shall issue you a carry permit.
     
  2. Horny Toad

    Horny Toad Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    86
    Location:
    NJ
  3. NJ Accountant

    NJ Accountant Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    43
    Thank you.
     
  4. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Orwell would laugh and shake his head.
     
  5. General Geoff

    General Geoff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    5,060
    Location:
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    From the motion:

    If that last quote was actually put forth by the NJ Supreme Court, I've got to laugh. Since when do Supreme Court Justices use "Surely" as justification for completely destroying a Constitutionally protected right?
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2011
  6. AirForceShooter

    AirForceShooter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,748
    Location:
    Central Florida
    The pro-gun organizations in New Jersey and New York are pathetic.
    Given Heller and McDonald they should be going right down the throats of the states.

    Sue for possession without permits and shall issue carry.

    AFS
     
  7. ultradoc

    ultradoc Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,118
    Location:
    Ohio
    I am glad I don't live there. My uncle does and it stinks.
     
  8. NJ Accountant

    NJ Accountant Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    43
    Challenges to gun control need to be step by step. Every case that goes before the supreme court decides what the laws are enforceable everywhere.

    Reach for too much at once and they may validate some of new Jerseys draconian gun control. It only takes one conservative justice swinging left on an issue of "public safety" to upset the 5 for balance in favor on gun rights.
     
  9. xXxplosive

    xXxplosive Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,167
    Location:
    New Jersey
    IMO.....it's stated that you can carry a handgun on your property or place of business here in NJ...........that means outside your home to me.
     
  10. NJ Accountant

    NJ Accountant Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    43
    Yes, you can carry on property You own and in a fixed place of business you own.
     
  11. AirForceShooter

    AirForceShooter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,748
    Location:
    Central Florida
    The tiny steps argument is the one advocated by the NRA.
    If they had their way, Heller and McDonald wouldn't have ever been brought.

    AFS
     
  12. NJ Accountant

    NJ Accountant Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    43
    Correct me if I'm wrong but both the second amendment foundation and the Goa advocate small steps just not as small as the NRA who basically advocates the status quo?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page