You know, I have seen obstinate morons come and go, but you take the freakin' cake.
If you need to know if a pot is black the biggest loudmouth kettle would know. Just happens you are wrong this time.... again.
.
In the post to which you refer that supposedly makes the 9th Circuit ruling "relevant," I made passing mention of CA in the exact same context as I was commenting on NJ with the OP about. There was
no mention of the 9th Circuit ruling
at all. But the kicker is that you don't even know
why there was no mention of it. Are you ready?
It hadn't happened yet! The ruling was published on 2/13/14.
That post was made on 2/10/14. So how could I be responsible for making something relevant in this thread that hadn't even happened yet?
Now I gotta say, quit telling lies about me, quit being a sycophant, do a tiny bit of research before you post
more false information, and quit being a freakin' obstinate imbecile!
Blues
.
It has always seemed incongruous to me that so many gun-owners in jurisdictions where their rights are all but denied by the state, seem to think that the N R A is effective at protecting their rights. If they were effective, then how would their rights get so thoroughly trampled upon like they are in NJ, CT, NY, MD, CA, DC, IL, and several other highly-restrictive states, as well as somewhat lesser ways of trampling in all but maybe three or four states in the nation?
.
You posted this on 2/10/14. The lawsuit was filed in something like Feb 2010. So where was the NRA? They were in court. All because you are ignorant of what is going on, does not mean it is not happening. Key word ignorant. (ignorant and imbecile are your words, and very accurate at describing your attitude)
.
And are you going to stop ignoring this?
.
Here's a list of cases in New Jersey that the NRA is helping fund:
Civil Rights Legal Defense Fund - Current Litigation
.
Since you tend to ignore that what proves your ignorance I will help you "find the N (space) R (space) A ..... aka NRA. They unlike Chen have not abandoned the people of New Jersey. Enjoy the read.
.
Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Christie (New Jersey). On January 17, 2010, a complaint and request for injunctive relief were filed in U.S. District Court challenging the newly enacted one handgun purchase per month law. Among other things, under New Jersey law traditional B-B, pellet, and air pistols are included in the definition of handgun. This is preempted by federal law, 15 U.S. Code § 5001. The defendants filed their motion to dismiss. The defendants then filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. On March 23, 2010, the association filed a brief in opposition to the state's motion to dismiss. On April 6, 2010, the association filed its reply brief in further support of its motion for a preliminary injunction. A second amended complaint was filed on October 1, 2010. The defendants filed their motion and brief to dismiss the amended complaint on January 20, 2011. The defendants filed their opposition to injunctive relief on January 21, 2011. Plaintiffs filed their brief in support of summary judgment on March 11, 2011. The state filed its opposition on April 5, 2011. The plaintiffs filed their reply to the state's opposition on July 5, 2011. Oral argument occurred on October 12, 2011. The court ruled in favor of the defendants on February 2, 2012. A notice of appeal was filed on March 2, 2012. Appellants opening appellate brief was filed on June 4, 2012, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The court held on January 30, 2013, that state law merely regulated and did not prohibit B-B, pellet, and air guns; thus the federal law did not preempt state law. The denial of injunctive relief was upheld.
.
Gregg C. Revell & N.J. Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. (New Jersey). He is a resident of Utah with a Utah license to carry a pistol. He was transporting his firearm in compliance with the law when he arrived at the airport and declared the firearm as required by law. This is a case where the arrested man's conduct was clearly not criminal under 18 U.S. Code § 926A. Consequently, charges were dismissed. However, his property was not returned and he needlessly spent time in jail. A civil rights action was filed, under 42 U.S. Code § 1983, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on January 27, 2006. Counsel informed on September 12, 2008, that Mr. Revell's firearm and other property were eventually returned to him. The trial court dismissed Mr. Revell's complaint on March 31, 2009, based on qualified immunity and based on a view that the federal law did not protect him because he spent one night in a hotel when he missed his flight. Revell v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 2009 WL 901855 (D.N.J. March 31, 2009). An appeal was filed by Mr. Revell. The trial court's dismissal of the complaint by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc., based on lack of standing and denying motion for leave to amend, was reversed on April 1, 2009, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Revell v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 2009 WL 840549 (U.S. Ct. App. 3d Cir., April 1, 2009). Oral argument occurred on January 26, 2010, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On March 22, 2010, the court agreed that Mr. Revell found himself in a difficult predicament through no fault of his own. However, relief was denied because his conduct did not fit § 926A because of the overnight stay in the hotel, and thus there was probable cause to arrest. Revell v. Port Authority, 598 F.3d 128 (3d Cir. 2010). A petition for a writ of certiorari was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court and denied on January 18, 2011: 131 S.Ct. 995 (2011). The separate lawsuit by the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc., was denied. The court held that § 926A did not create a right to relief under 42 U.S. Code § 1983. It further held § 926A means "that an ambulatory plaintiff who intends to transit through Newark Airport is outside the coverage of the statute." The concurring opinion stated § 926A is not restricted to vehicular travel. Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19037 (U.S. Ct. App. 3d Cir., Sept. 13, 2013).
.
SARCO, Inc. (New Jersey). Counsel informed on January 14, 2009, SARCO has been in the business of firearm wholesaler and retailer for 47 years. It has 40 employees. Inspections by BATF and the state have been satisfactory in the past. Now the state moved to revoke its license. The problem surfaced when it was discovered a rogue SARCO employee stole firearms from SARCO. The missing firearms resulted in a deficient state inspection. Thereafter, the State Police found and arrested this rogue employee and were able to recover most of the firearms. SARCO was accused of inadequate supervision of employees and inadequate inventory control. SARCO was denied relief in the superior court. The case was appealed to the Superior Court Appellate Division. On April 13, 2011, the court upheld the revocation of the license. The denial of a renewal application has nothing to do with the character or integrity of the applicant or its officers. Any conduct that may present a danger to the public constitutes sufficient grounds for a denial. In re SARCO, 2011 WL 1376286. The corporation subsequently moved to Pennsylvania.
.
Brian D. Aitken (New Jersey). He has been charged with violating state law banning the possession of a large capacity magazine (more than 15 rounds). He has also been charged with unlawful possession of a handgun and hallow‑point ammunition. The property was found in the trunk of his car. The firearms were unloaded. He was moving from Colorado. His defense attorney claims he has defenses to the charges, including a federal law defense (18 U.S. Code 926A). At the jury trial the judge made several adverse rulings on the admissibility of evidence. Mr. Aitken was convicted for possession of hollow point ammunition, possession of a handgun without a permit, and possession of a large capacity magazine. On August 27, 2010, he was sentenced to 7 years in prison, even though he has no prior convictions. The conviction was appealed. On January 20, 2011, the governor of New Jersey commuted his sentence to time served. An appeal was filed in the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. The court on March 30, 2012, reversed the conviction on all counts except the possession of hollow point ammunition count. It held that the moving exception applied to the gun possession count, but not to the ammunition count, and that there was a lack of proof on the large capacity magazine count. The New Jersey Supreme Court on September 4, 2013, denied discretionary review.
.
Arthur Sutphen (New Jersey). Mr. Sutphen was hospitalized for mental health reasons. He is being divorced. His wife got a restraining order against him. His firearms and firearms purchaser identification card were seized. The restraining order was later dismissed. However, his wife testified at the hearing for return of his firearms and firearms purchaser identification card that he was suicidal and that she feared him. He submitted a letter from a doctor stating that he was not a danger to himself or others. The state had no medical or mental health expert to testify about his mental disability. Nonetheless, his motion for return of property was denied after the hearing. At the hearing he appeared pro se. He subsequently obtained the services of an attorney. He appealed to the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division. On February 6, 2012, the court reversed the decision of the trial court. It held he appeared pro se at the hearing in the trial court and was misled into relying on the uncertified letter of his psychiatrist as it pertained to his fitness to possess firearms. He should not have been deprived of fair notice that the state would not accept his doctor's letter as satisfying the statutory requirement. The court sent the case back to the trial court to reopen the hearing and permit Mr. Sutphen to present evidence of his fitness to possess firearms.
.
Michael LaForte (New Jersey). He is a retired police officer who sought a mental health expungement. Following retirement, he voluntarily admitted himself for psychiatric treatment. He was discharged after a week and received outpatient treatment. The pleadings for expungement were accompanied by a doctor's certification attesting that Mr. LaForte has shown no difficulties in control of his behaviors and has shown good responsibilities in control of his moods, behaviors, and action. At the hearing the psychiatrist testified that Mr. LaForte is not a threat to himself or anybody else and he saw no impediment to his ownership of firearms. The superior court denied relief because relief would restore his right to keep and bear arms. Mr. LaForte appealed to the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division. On February 8, 2012, the court held that the purpose of the medical expungement statute was to return the former patient to the same position he would have been before hospitalization. The intent of the expungement statute was to eliminate any stigmas that might attach to a person who was in a psychiatric hospital. The trial court ignored the provisions of the statute. The denial of expungement premised upon a possible future firearms acquisition application is erroneous. After remand to the superior court, that court issued an order on June 8, 2012, granting the mental health expungement.
.
Harry Barbosa (New Jersey). He was denied firearms purchaser identification card and a handgun purchaser's permit based on the interest of public health, safety, or welfare. The trial court and the appellate division upheld the denials. He sought discretionary review in the New Jersey Supreme Court. The court denied review on September 9, 2011.
.
Stephen M. Siebert (New Jersey). He was pardoned by the Governor of New Jersey for petty offenses that occurred 32 years ago. His application to acquire a firearm under New Jersey law was denied by the police chief. He raised the Second Amendment. Counsel informed on August 18, 2011, that the case was successfully appealed to the Passaic County Superior Court.
.
Justin Blasko (New Jersey). Counsel informed in an August 9, 2011, letter Mr. Blasko's firearms were seized pursuant to a search warrant. The trial court refused to return them to Mr. Blasko because it would not be in the interest of public health, safety and welfare. The firearms were in his apartment unsecured when a maintenance man entered and saw the firearms and an alligator. The case was appealed to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. June 22, 2012, the court reversed the trial courts decision. It held that under the U.S. Supreme Court's Heller and McDonald decisions a person has a Second Amendment right to keep firearm ready for use. The court held that we conclude the trial judge erred as a matter of law in concluding it would violate public health, safety and welfare if Blasko possessed firearms because ... he stored his firearms in a negligent manner. In re Blasko, 2012 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1466. On November 14, 2012, the Superior Court issued an order that Mr. Blasko "has developed no disqualification to firearm since the matter was last heard" and ordered that his firearms purchaser identification card be returned to him or that a new one be issued and that all property seized be returned to him.
.
Tommy Fry (New Jersey). Counsel informed in a December 19, 2011, letter that Mr. Fry is charged under New Jersey law with possessing a handgun without a permit. He has a Florida permit to carry a pistol. His unloaded pistol was locked inside a gun box and the gun box was locked a hard luggage compartment attached to the motorcycle. Ammunition for the pistol was found locked separately. Hence, he seems to be in compliance with 18 U.S. Code 926A, the federal interstate transportation of firearms safe harbor. The court placed him for one year in pretrial intervention program. At the end of one year charges will be dismissed.
.
Shawn Johnson (New Jersey). On the night of May 10, 2011, four trespassers, one armed with a machete, entered his back yard where he was barbequing. On seeing Mr. Johnson's rifle the trespassers ran. Mr. Johnson possesses a New Jersey firearms purchaser identification card. He purchased the rifle from a gun dealer in New Jersey. The rifle was not modified in any way. Nonetheless, he was charged with possessing an assault rifle under New Jersey law. He was also charged with aggravated assault and possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose. The intruders were not charged. The issues were self-defense and whether the rifle is within the definition of an assault rifle under New Jersey law. Counsel informed on June 18, 2012, that all charges were dismissed and the rifle was returned to Mr. Johnson.
.
Daniel Picorelli (New Jersey). Counsel informed in a January 29, 2012, letter that Mr. Picorelli has no criminal convictions or any other disqualification to possess a firearm. In the past a former girl friend attempted to get a restraining order against him. It was denied after a full hearing. However, he was denied firearm purchaser identification card and handgun purchase permit based on the statutory reason for the interest of public health, safety, and welfare. The superior court suggested he could reapply in a few years. Interesting balancing and rational basis standards for the denial of the right to keep and bear arms are in conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Heller and McDonald. He will appeal.
.
John Vogel (New Jersey). Counsel informed on August 26, 2011, that Mr. Vogel was charged with possessing an assault firearm and possessing a shotgun without a New Jersey firearms purchaser identification card. He was target shooting, which requires no firearms purchaser identification card, and the shotgun is not a so-called assault firearm. Counsel informed on May 24, 2012, that the prosecutor agreed that the shotgun is not a so-called assault firearm. However, the prosecutor still filed a charge of possessing a shotgun without a New Jersey firearms purchaser identification card. Mr. Vogel agreed to a plea deal that would place him on noncustodial probation. His main concern was to avoid the possibility of a mandatory prison sentence if convicted.
.
Paul Fredricks (New Jersey). Counsel informed in a December 16, 2011, letter that Mr. Fredricks receives treatment for post traumatic stress disorder from the VA. He has a New Jersey firearm purchaser identification card. His application for permits to purchase handguns was denied because he failed to acknowledge mental health treatment on a previous application. The claim is that he cannot be denied his right to arms based on an application error.
.
Boris Bell (New Jersey). He was subjected to the revocation of his firearm purchaser identification card and forfeiture of firearms based on the statutory ground of being in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare. Purely political sarcasm taken out of context was the reason for this action. The psychiatrist who examined him, and found nothing wrong with Mr. Bell, noted in his written report that "[t]hough we have freedom of speech in this county [sic] Mr. Bell is advised to avoid discussing politics with people he is unfamiliar with." A contested hearing occurred and, fortunately, Mr. Bell prevailed. Counsel so informed on April 11, 2012.
.
Neal Ercolano (New Jersey). Counsel informed on April 11, 2012, that a restraining order against Mr. Ercolano was dissolved by the court. Nonetheless, the police chief denied his application for a firearms purchaser identification card based on an erroneous reading of the statute. The police chief erroneously held that Mr. Ercolano would have to wait two years once the restraining order is dismissed. An appeal was filed in the Hunterdon County Superior Court. On December 18, 2012, the court issued an order granting Mr. Ercolano's application for a firearms purchaser identification card and for two permits to purchase a handgun.
.
Keith Pantaleon (New Jersey). The police entered his apartment without a warrant and without consent on January 24, 2013. His upstairs neighbor allegedly complained to police about the landlord providing insufficient heat. The boiler for the building is adjacent to the kitchen area of Mr. Pantaleon's residence. Police insisted that the landlord open Mr. Pantaleon's residence on their behalf despite the extremely late hour and lack of consent by Mr. Pantaleon. Police then discovered firearms in his home. Mr. Pantaleon is charged under New Jersey law with possessing a so-called assault rifle, a so-called high capacity magazine, and unlawful possession of ammunition.
.
Michael Myers (New Jersey). He submitted an application for a New Jersey firearms purchaser identification card and for permit to purchase a handgun. The statute requires a denial or approval within 30 days. However, after 10 months no action has been taken on the applications. A lawsuit was filed in superior court. The state capitulated and convinced the chief of police to issue the permits. On November 21, 2012, Mr. Myers received his permits.
.
Joseph Squillace (New Jersey). In 1994 he was subject to a restraining order from his wife and mother‑in‑law resulting from divorce proceedings. Both orders have been dismissed. His firearms were not returned to him. He applied for a firearms purchaser identification card. He was denied based on domestic violence history and because his firearms were seized and not returned to him. He has no criminal convictions. The matter is on appeal according to counsel's letter of October 19, 2012.
.
Eric Lundvall (New Jersey). Case No. 2013‑3. He submitted an application for a New Jersey permit to purchase a handgun. The statute requires a denial or approval within 30 days. However, after 10 months no action has been taken on the application. A lawsuit was filed in superior court. The state capitulated, and on September 25, 2012, Mr. Lundvall received his permits.
.
Arturo Santos‑Martin (New Jersey). He submitted an application for a New Jersey firearms purchaser identification card and for permit to purchase a handgun. He has no criminal convictions. However, he was denied for reasons based on Apublic health, safety and welfare.@ An appeal was filed in court according to counsel's letter of January 22, 2013.
.
Richard Pascal (New Jersey). The issue is whether a New York relief from felony disability has to be honored in New Jersey. There is a helpful case from Pennsylvania, which was provided to Mr. Pascal's lawyer. A New York court's granting a person a certificate of relief from disability, including application for pistol permit, would be honored by a Pennsylvania court. The court held that where the convicting jurisdiction deems the conviction no longer a conviction for purposes of firearms disability, the Pennsylvania State Police has no discretion to deem otherwise. Consequently, the Pennsylvania State Police was ordered to amend the person's criminal history record in order to afford him relief from firearms disability. His application for a permit to purchase a pistol was denied on June 20, 2013. An appeal has been filed in the superior court.
.
Richard Pantano (New Jersey). This is a permit to carry case. The police chief supported him. However, he lost in the superior court and in the appellate division of the superior court. In re Pantano, 429 N.J. Super. 478, 60 A.3d 507 (App. Div. 2013). He is seeking review in the New Jersey Supreme Court. The court agreed to review the case.
.
Zigmunt Krawczyk (New Jersey). He submitted an application for a firearm purchaser identification card and for a handgun purchase permit. He complied with all the requirements of state law. He is not prohibited by state or federal law to acquire firearms. However, the locality wanted him to fill out an additional municipal form. He declined to do so because state law preempts the field. The trial court upheld the requirement to fill out the added municipal form. Counsel informed in an August 5, 2013, letter that a notice of appeal was filed in the Superior Court Appellate Division.
.
Evan Daire (New Jersey). He is 18 years old, a high school graduate, student pilot, and has no record of disciplinary action or misbehavior. He submitted an application for a firearm purchaser identification card. The investigating officer reported that he is immature. His application was denied under New Jersey's catch all provision that the issuance would not be in the best interest of "public health, safety and welfare." An appeal hearing occurred on September 16, 2013. The superior court ordered that the card be issued.
.
Pejman Rohani (New Jersey). He is a licensed physician and surgeon. He submitted an application for a firearm purchaser identification card and for a handgun purchase permit. He has two decade old criminal complaints which did not result in a conviction. He listed them on the application. His application was denied under New Jersey's catch all provision that the issuance would not be in the best interest of "public health, safety and welfare." Counsel informed in an August 22, 2013, letter that an appeal will be filed in Superior Court Appellate Division.
