NJ Supremes to hear "justifiable need."
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    


Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Events and Meetups > State Forums > New Jersey Gun Forum >

NJ Supremes to hear "justifiable need."


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-24-2013, 12:59 AM   #1
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Jpyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sewell,NJ
Posts: 4,844
Liked 781 Times on 452 Posts
Likes Given: 499

Default NJ Supremes to hear "justifiable need."

I received a call this afternoon from noted gun-ownership-rights attorney Evan Nappen. Many of you may know Evan as the author of the New Jersey Gun Law Guide. Evan called to let me know that the NJ Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of his case involving the denial of an application for a New Jersey permit to carry a handgun, submitted by his client Richard Pantano.

The question before the court is "Does the statutory requirement that an applicant for a permit to carry a handgun demonstrate a justifiable need to carry a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(d), violate the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution"?

Certification that this case will be heard was granted 7/19/13. The significance of this certification is that it is the first time in 45 years (since Burton v. Sills) that the NJ Supreme Court has agreed to consider an argument based upon the relevance of Second Amendment to gun ownership rights in New Jersey.

Even though this same question is being considered at the federal level by the third circuit court of appeals in the case originally involving plaintiffs Jeffrey M. Muller, Daniel J. PiszczatoskiI, John M. Drake, Gregory C. Gallaher, Lenny S. Salerno, Finley Fenton, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. and the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc., the outcome is extremely important with regard to future challenges based on this type of challenge within the borders of New Jersey.

If this challenge is successful, it will set the precedent that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is indeed a valid argument against New Jersey's overly restrictive firearms statutes. The ultimate question in this case is why should an individual be required to demonstrate a "need" in order to exercise a fundamental right?

Frank Jack Fiamingo, President NJ2AS


__________________
"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington
Jpyle is offline  
MisterMcCool Likes This 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 07-24-2013, 01:08 AM   #2
Lifetime Supporting Member
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,014
Liked 1367 Times on 760 Posts
Likes Given: 598

Default

Maybe the federales can draft a bill of needs and wants.


kbd512 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2013, 01:11 AM   #3
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
arashid630's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 123
Liked 4 Times on 4 Posts

Default

About time... I can't wait to see the outcome... Please keep us posted on this
arashid630 is offline  
Jpyle Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2013, 01:30 AM   #4
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
vincent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: MLF
Posts: 4,122
Liked 1961 Times on 1033 Posts
Likes Given: 4288

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jpyle View Post
I received a call this afternoon from noted gun-ownership-rights attorney Evan Nappen. Many of you may know Evan as the author of the New Jersey Gun Law Guide. Evan called to let me know that the NJ Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of his case involving the denial of an application for a New Jersey permit to carry a handgun, submitted by his client Richard Pantano.

The question before the court is "Does the statutory requirement that an applicant for a permit to carry a handgun demonstrate a justifiable need to carry a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(d), violate the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution"?

Certification that this case will be heard was granted 7/19/13. The significance of this certification is that it is the first time in 45 years (since Burton v. Sills) that the NJ Supreme Court has agreed to consider an argument based upon the relevance of Second Amendment to gun ownership rights in New Jersey.

Even though this same question is being considered at the federal level by the third circuit court of appeals in the case originally involving plaintiffs Jeffrey M. Muller, Daniel J. PiszczatoskiI, John M. Drake, Gregory C. Gallaher, Lenny S. Salerno, Finley Fenton, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. and the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc., the outcome is extremely important with regard to future challenges based on this type of challenge within the borders of New Jersey.

If this challenge is successful, it will set the precedent that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is indeed a valid argument against New Jersey's overly restrictive firearms statutes. The ultimate question in this case is why should an individual be required to demonstrate a "need" in order to exercise a fundamental right?

Frank Jack Fiamingo, President NJ2AS
Like the show 'Jeopardy', the answer is usually in the question...

The clear and simple answer is an emphatic 'YES'

I really want to get a glance at this 'Bill of Needs' they always speak of...
__________________
EFFIN' TOF...
vincent is offline  
Jpyle Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2013, 01:49 AM   #5
McCool@email.com
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
MisterMcCool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Bumfugg, Egypt
Posts: 10,455
Liked 9397 Times on 5083 Posts
Likes Given: 19588

Default

Please PM me if they need a witness. I am not an expert on Constitutional law, or New Jersey law, or gun laws in general; but I am an a-hole and I would love the opportunity to be questioned by The State and give a reasonable, simplistic interpretation of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
__________________
No offense and none taken (̿▀̿ ̿Ĺ̯̿̿▀̿ ̿)̄
MisterMcCool is online now  
Jpyle Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2013, 09:19 PM   #6
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 55
Liked 8 Times on 8 Posts

Default

Hoping for a positive outcome. Keep us posted and if you haven't already done so I suggest all followers from NJ join the NJ second amendment society.
howellgunworks is offline  
Jpyle Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 04:56 AM   #7
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Jpyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sewell,NJ
Posts: 4,844
Liked 781 Times on 452 Posts
Likes Given: 499

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by howellgunworks View Post
Hoping for a positive outcome. Keep us posted and if you haven't already done so I suggest all followers from NJ join the NJ second amendment society.
And please, everybody regardless of where you live if you are on Twitter let Christie @GovChristie know his plans for a Presidential run are DOA unless he vetoes all the gun bills on his desk. Pls use hashtags #NJ2AS #NewNJGunLaws

Thanks for your support.
__________________
"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington
Jpyle is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 05:49 AM   #8
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 812
Liked 537 Times on 323 Posts
Likes Given: 260

Default

Shouldn't get too excited. Remember that after all this is Jersey.


gunsmoke11 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
How to "Ghost Load" or "Carrier Load" or "Float a Round" a Shotgun Amsdorf General Shotgun Discussion 19 02-21-2014 05:35 AM
A Subversive "Plot", "Growing" a Revolution Trez The Club House 1 12-04-2012 08:08 PM
"Do "Gun-Free" Zones Encourage School Shootings?" cnorman18 The Club House 26 04-17-2012 09:57 PM
Old Revolver - "Revolvers Dreadnought" - "Azul" - Anyone familiar? stelliott80 Revolver Handguns 3 07-13-2011 10:52 PM
Witloe Remington 1858 New Model Army "Lee" & "Grant" bprevolver Blackpowder & Musket 0 09-25-2008 11:11 PM



Newest Threads