Pantano v nj ccw will be argued on either may 3rd or 4th

[pope414]

After checking the New Jersey Supreme Court arguments calendar they have scheduled Pantano against New Jersey concealed carry law arguments for their last session May 5th & 6th In New Jersey Supreme Court. This case is being argued by Evan Nappen Esq. If you check the Supreme Court website there is a link to webcasts hopefully this case will be one of the webcast cases.

P s I tried to correct the mistake in the title but am unable the date for arguments is may 5th or 6th if a mod could fix this It would be appreciated

 

[defcon4]

After checking the New Jersey Supreme Court arguments calendar they have scheduled Pantano against New Jersey concealed carry law arguments for their last session May 5th & 6th In New Jersey Supreme Court. This case is being argued by Evan Nappen Esq. If you check the Supreme Court website there is a link to webcasts hopefully this case will be one of the webcast cases.

P s I tried to correct the mistake in the title but am unable the date for arguments is may 5th or 6th if a mod could fix this It would be appreciated

How about a link or a brief decription of the case?

 

[pope414]

Here's a link to the brief it's a very interesting read. His argument in the case leaves very little wiggle room for the justices.

http://www.evannappen.com/uploads/1/0/8/0/1080251/webpostbrief.pdf

 

[apvbguy]

I hate to be so negative but knowing NJ quite well I can almost be certain that this will not go the way most of us around here would want it to go, I could and I hope I am wrong but the court is packed with libturds

 

[pope414]

You're so right New Jersey is full of liberal Democrats hell-bent on curtailing as much of the Second Amendment and individual rights as they can. legislatures have already been caught on audio and video stating that they want nothing less than full confiscation. the point in this case is that Evan Nappen is pigeonholing The justices to the law showing how according to their own state law by in essence restricting concealed carry or let's say licenses to possess to only law enforcement retired law enforcement and Armored card drivers during work hours Shows that the Second Amendment only exists as an exemption in the state of New Jersey not a right ,you can't negotiate rights and rights can't be listed as need based. Also the one thing that makes this case unique being that it's brought before the state Supreme Court it doesn't have to go through the federal appeals process because it's a state Supreme Court ruling it could be appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court. Another point that's being made is that the justifiable need law in New Jersey is unattainable by anyone other than who I mentioned to the point where only 1100 ccw,s have been issued all to Leo's and armored car drivers. With the rulings in California in the Ninth Circuit the Seventh Circuit in Illinois As precedent this case should be interesting

 

[apvbguy]

I could provide some powerful anecdotal hearsay testimony but it would never be admissible

 

[defcon4]

Thanks for the link pope 414. This is exactly the reason why the citizens of Maryland have been denied their RKABA. The state of Maryland mandates that anyone applying for a handgun permit submit a justifiable need. And of course in MD, unless somebody is politically connected or wealthy and famous, their chances are almost nil. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it say that a citizen of this country has to justify a "need" in order to exercise a right. Hopefully there are a few judges in NJ who still believe in the law and rule in a manner consistent with our constitution. And if NJ through some miracle actually follows the mandate of our Constitution, then perhaps the citizens of Maryland will benefit also. Hell, I never thought I would see the day when Illinois would start issuing handgun carry permits.

 

[BC1]

There's a big split on this issue in both state supreme courts and federal district courts. While the fed courts in CA ruled that a denial can't be based on not proving need in other fed courts it has been ruled that a state can deny the right. This issue as well as many others need to be settled in the SCOTUS.

 

[JCliff]

Thanks for the post, case brief an interesting read. Reason for hope, but I wouldn't move to NJ just yet. NJ lawmakers will attempt to just re-write their law with different language to achieve the same results. You never know though. Look at what happened in Illinois, and no one can possibly say Illinois was an easier case than NJ.

 

[r1derbike]

Yes, thanks for the link.

In Arkansas, our CHCL application has a question to be answered; do you have a need for a concealed firearm (or something similar, it's been a while)?

Our instructor stated KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid), and just answer "yes" in the appropriate place. No other affirmations or explanation is necessary, desired, or required. More detail would involve more scrutiny, and ASP attention.

The Arkansas State Police issues CHCLs, and they are tied to our drivers' licenses, as another question is asked, "May we use your driver's license image for your permit"?

The KISS answer is "yes", again suggested by our instructor, as a "no" answer would tie-up issuing a permit to that person, until a proper image was submitted, and approved by the ASP. There is no getting around a "mug shot" on your CHCL here, or anywhere this 2nd amendment infringement is in place.

While many maintain that Arkansas is now a Constitutional Carry state, due to an Act passed here, that redefines a journey outside your home county with a weapon, as legal (to non CHCL permit holders), it doesn't define specifically what type of vehicle is involved, so many are taking the stance that the journey could be on foot, bike, motorcycle, car, whatever.

What is disturbing is that pockets of Constitutional Carry are recognized within areas of the state by law enforcement, and other areas of the state, (like Northwest Arkansas, where I reside) LEOs have threatened to arrest anyone open carrying, as the Act does not legally allow Open Carry.

It's a frustrating when confusion reigns over the territory.

What's going to happen next session, is clarifying language will be added to the act, squashing Open Carry. There was an Act addressing Open Carry specifically several years ago, and it was squashed rather quickly, and I don't think legislators or law enforcement are any more receptive to Open Carry now. Because of the controversy the present Act raised, we may see an end to Open Carry statewide. Just a prediction, given law enforcements' very public negative input.

Anyway, this is what is happening within our borders, and the contentious nature of this subject is very prevalent, and convoluted.

 

[defcon4]

In Maryland a judge threw out the 'justifiable need" requirement and ordered the Maryland state police to start issuing permits. He held that the requirement was unconstitutional. And in true liberal fashion, the Maryland officials shopped around for a few months until they found a judge who could over-ride the previous decision. Not sure of all of the particulars. Perhaps somebody from Maryland could chime in.