Restore Carry NJ
Beschermde donatie
This Campaign ( Factor vs N.J. ) 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.]
We 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 this 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 this case 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.
Jay Factor
Mark Cheeseman
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
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.]
We 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 this 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 this case 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.
Jay Factor
Mark Cheeseman
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
Organisator
Mark Cheeseman
Organisator
Blackwood, NJ
