• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Nappen Law Firm files Second Amendment Brief with NJ Supreme Court

Statkowski

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,143
Location
Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
http://www.evannappen.com/nappen-law-firm-files-second-amendment-brief-with-nj-supreme-court.html

The New Jersey Supreme Court, for the first time in 45 years, will be considering Second Amendment rights. The Nappen Law Firm has filed its brief with the Supreme Court. A website version may be read here.

The brief strikes at the heart of New Jersey's gun control scheme. NJS 2C:39-5b Unlawful Possession of Weapons-Handguns reads as follows:

"Any person who knowingly has in his possession any handgun, including any antique handgun, without first having obtained a permit to carry the same as provided in N.J.S.2C:58-4, is guilty of a crime of the second degree." (Emphasis added)
Very interesting reading.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
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? ... from the pleadings linked above



This was the only question posed .... since it was not a criminal case I understand the narrow nature of the decision being sought.

Likely would not have taken the case if it asked to abolish the need for a permit - constitutional carry
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
The narrower the nature of the filing, the less wiggle room available for the judges deciding same.

Can't wait to hear the state's response, if published.
I thought a federal judge OK'd the need for a reason to carry just recently .. maybe NY? Gosh, I can't recall the venue.

That decision will likely show up in the filings of NJ ... armpit of NYC
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
The tyrants that run NJ don't believe its citizens should be able to protect themselves and their families and property until they get permission, to do, so. That my fellow OCDO members is the true definition of a "tyrant"..

I am not sure where NJ stands in regards to being the worst anti 2A state. But my guess is that they are in the top (5) worst .

Ill take a stab at the top 5..

1- Conn
2- NY
3-Maryland
4- NEW JERSEY
5- CA.

My .02

Regards.

CCJ
 
Last edited:

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
No response from New Jersey yet?
In this case (in NJ state court), no AFAIK. However, if you want to get your blood boiling here's the NJ response in the Drake case awaiting cert at SCOTUS. Lies are aplenty here. In fact they contradicted earlier briefs by saying now that CA's may-issue scheme isn't basically the same as NJ, earlier (when Peruta lost in CA) they said it was a comparable law.
 

Attachments

Top