373
373
14

Restore Carry NJ

$23,950 of $36,000 goal

Raised by 472 people in 11 months
Created February 5, 2018
This Campaign ( Cheeseman-Jillard vs NJ ) wants to thank everyone for any help you maybe able to do in advance.  Even the sharing of our page to like-minded people is a plus.  


First, they promised us the Gun Control Law would not affect the “fit elements of society.” [Burton at 93&105 (1968)]

They told us the law was constitutional because it was “narrowly constructed” toward preventing criminal and other unfit elements from possessing firearms while enabling the fit elements of society to use them with minimal burdens and inconveniences.” [Burton at 91 & 105.]

Then they told us:

·        the law didn’t violate the Second Amendment because ‘the "justifiable need" component of the carry permit law accommodates, on a case-by-case basis, those who have a reason—to anticipate a violent attack in a public place warranting lawful defensive use of a handgun.’ [Wheeler at 739 (2013)]

·        New Jersey has decided that it can best determine when the individual benefit outweighs the increased risk to the community through careful case-by-case scrutiny of each application, by the police and a  court. [Drake 3rd Circuit (2013) at 439.]

·        the historical sources cited by Heller … suggest … a limited right … that should be … determined on a case-by-case basis. [Piszczatoski Dist. Court, D. at 827. (2012)]

·        (t)he “justifiable need” requirement serves the same purpose as the employment-based exceptions, but does so on a case-by-case rather than a categorical basis. [Wheeler at 759.]

 

John and Mark are not challenging the Statute. We believe the Statute was designed that “justifiable need” was synonymous with Heller’s “Lawful Purpose.” See Heller at 2797 (the core lawful purpose (of the Second Amendment) (is) self-defense,)

 

The simple (and only) argument in Mark and John’s case is that the Siccardi Rule requires 2C:58-4 Permits Applications to specify an “urgent necessity” for self-protection which must be determined on a case-by-case basis,
 
Heller threw out case-by-case determinations of Second Amendment Rights in 2008.

 

The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. [Heller at 2821; McDonald at 3050.]

 

The prayer for relief in Mark and John’s cases is basically, if WE (all of us) qualify for a 2C:58-3 Permit, WE (all of us) qualify for 2C:58-4 Permit to Carry.

 

If you are tired of being told you do not have need for a 2C:58-4 Permit, please donate to the Case. Every dollar will go to defeating the Siccardi Rule and NJAC 13:54-2.4d-1






Thank you.
Mark P Cheeseman &
John Jilliard


please see "Out of Order" Ep. 2 w/ mark Cheeseman   @   http://outoforderjameskaleda.com/mark-cheeseman/


please see "Out of Order" Ep 26, 27, 28  of Jay Factor's  firearms law history interview @  http://outoforderjameskaleda.com/jay/

John Jillard  "Out of Order"  interview coming soon.....




Gun for Hire radio interview   @   https://youtu.be/F8QKOMpCm_k



2018 Trenton Rally   @  https://youtu.be/gCuKlfksXJI




Thanks again, from
John Jillard and Mark Cheeseman
+ Read More
Update 13
Posted by Mark Cheeseman
1 month ago
   Share
Limiting the right to bear arms to only those with an
“urgent necessity” for the core purpose of the right is akin to
limiting the right of free speech to only those with an “urgent
necessity for free expression.

Yet, while the “core” of the Second Amendment is personal
protection, it is just this conduct that the Siccardi rule
proscribes. Because only those with an “urgent necessity for
self-protection” can obtain permits, N.J.S.A. § 2C:58-4(c)
(emphasis added), those with an average necessity for self protection cannot. This is antithetical to the concept of
constitutional rights.
NOTE.. We still seek to sever the Siccardi rule AKA Justifiable need standard for everyone in NJ. NO permits have been offered and we do not expect the state to offer now. We have gone way past an olive branch.

UPDATE.
The past few weeks we have filed petitions for review and new briefs for both Cheeseman and Jilliard with NJ Supreme court.
I am personally uplifted and rejuvenated with the recent Guidance from our new council. David Jensen and Jay Factor have worked together to formulate a significantly damming argument against the state of NJ.Jay Factors historical and up to date research along with David Jensens knowledge and expert second amendment law experience have produced a argument that has the potential of winning. We have more clarity now since the County has provided a reply.

What we expect.
NJ Supreme court may or may not grant review.
If this is the case we still move forward.

NJ supreme court grants review but still argues against us.
If this is the case we still move forward.

Timeline.
More then likely Mid January we should know where NJ supreme court stands.

Now more then ever we need support. Hopefully i will have significant news in January.
+ Read More
Update 12
Posted by Mark Cheeseman
2 months ago
   Share
In light of our recent denials in N.J. appeals court. We have decided our best path. I am proud to announce we have retained David Jensen as council. Mr Jensen comes with an overwhelming knowledge of law experience, specifically second amendment law. As we approach our next level i want to personally thank everyone who has donated, shared or shown support for out grassroots effort. We will continue our fight in the N.J. Supreme court. We still hold the original prayer for relief. Justifiable need is bad law. Self protection and lawful purpose for all law abiding citizens. Thank you
+ Read More
Update 11
Posted by Mark Cheeseman
2 months ago
   Share
The past two weeks both Cheeseman and Jilliard were denied in NJ appeals court division. At this point we fully intend on seeking council and moving forward to the next level. Presently we are preparing for NJ Supreme court. The opinions were typical but arguable. Thank you for your continued support.
+ Read More
Update 10
Posted by Mark Cheeseman
2 months ago
   Share
By John Jillard:
Today The Jillard part of the Cheeseman/Jillard Case was issued the Opinion. This Opinion is many ways was Incomplete. The Court did Not do a good job of fully going into detail about anything and they cited that same old cases that have no real bearing on OUR reason behind our case.
+ Read More
Read a Previous Update

$23,950 of $36,000 goal

Raised by 472 people in 11 months
Created February 5, 2018
Your share could be bringing in donations. Sign in to track your impact.
   Connect
We will never post without your permission.
In the future, we'll let you know if your sharing brings in any donations.
We weren't able to connect your Facebook account. Please try again later.
SP
$25
Scott Poley
1 day ago
EC
$25
Ed Cabrera
2 days ago
AA
$63
ANGEL ANDINO
8 days ago
$9
Anonymous
10 days ago
MD
$50
Matthew Davis
12 days ago
$23
Anonymous
12 days ago
AC
$100
A. Michael Candido
12 days ago
$50
ERIC WENSTROM
12 days ago
MV
$50
Mike Veloz
13 days ago
MB
$25
Matthew Beebe
13 days ago
or
Use My Email Address
By continuing, you agree with the GoFundMe
terms and privacy policy
There's an issue with this Campaign Organizer's account. Our team has contacted them with the solution! Please ask them to sign in to GoFundMe and check their account. Return to Campaign

Are you ready for the next step?
Even a $5 donation can help!
Donate Now Not now
Connect on Facebook to keep track of how many donations your share brings.
We will never post on Facebook without your permission.