A Sign Of Things To Come?

Rogers et al v. Gurbir Grewal et al is a case from New Jersey that is a challenge to the state's may-issue concealed carry law. It is currently on appeal to the Supreme Court seeking a writ of certiorari after the Third Circuit said New Jersey's law met intermediate scrutiny.

In late January, the attorneys for New Jersey filed a waiver saying they didn't intended to file a response to the petition for a writ of certiorari by Thomas Rogers and the New Jersey Association of Rifle and Pistol Clubs. This could be taken as a sign that New Jersey fully expected the Supreme Court to summarily deny the petition for a writ of certiorari.

As Guns.com reported earlier today, the Supreme Court has now issued an order requiring New Jersey to file a response by March 21st.

The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs issued a release yesterday that said, in part:

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court required the State of New Jersey to file a brief in response to ANJRPC's petition asking the High Court to hear its challenge to NJ's carry laws. Under the Supreme Court's order, the State of New Jersey is required to file papers by March 21, arguing why the High Court should not agree to hear ANJRPC's appeal. NJ had previously ignored the appeal.

While the move is not a guarantee that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the appeal, the fact that the court is requiring NJ to take a position on ANJRPC's request is significant, and signals that the court is not willing to take any action without first hearing from both sides.

The case has attracted a number of amicus briefs on behalf of Rogers and ANJRPC. These include briefs from the National African American Gun Association,  a number of law enforcement groups and state gun associations, the Second Amendment Foundation, the National Rifle Association, and the American Civil Rights Union. There is also an amicus brief in support of Rogers from the attorney generals and governors of 24 states which was organized by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich.

As the petition for the writ notes, Mr. Rogers met all the requirements for a carry permit from the state of New Jersey with the exception of showing a direct threat to his life. He has been robbed at gun point and manages an ATM service company which, by definition, involves large amounts of cash. Police in Wall Township, NJ agreed he met the training eligibility requirements but "he failed to show Justifiable Need."

One can only hope that this move by the Supreme Court is a positive sign and that they will finally take up a carry case. This is especially true as there are diverging opinions between the circuits as well as a divergence in the proper level of scrutiny.

Where The 1A Meets The 2A

As I mentioned the other day, the website sponsored by a coalition of civil rights groups was threatened by prosecution if they didn't take down certain code files. CodeIsFreeSpeech.com was put up after the anti-gun Attorney General of Washington State and a host of fellow traveler AGs went to court to suppress computer code assembled by Defense Distributed. These groups were not a party to that lawsuit and were not enjoined from distributing them on the Internet.

It turns out that the threat of prosecution came from New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal. Grewal had demanded server company Cloudfare delete CodeIsFreeSpeech.com's files or charges would be filed for them being in violation of a NJ state law.

Grewal had been recently successful in getting a lawsuit against him by Defense Distributed filed in the State of Texas dismissed on the grounds that it should have been brought in New Jersey. Mind you, that the dismissal was not on the merits of the case but rather merely whether a US District Court in Texas had jurisdiction.

He should have remembered the old saying, "Be careful what you wish for", as suit has now been filed in US District Court for the District of New Jersey. Now he will not be facing just Defense Distributed but also the Second Amendment Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Firearms Policy Foundation, the Calguns Foundation, and CAL-FFL. The individual plaintiff in the case is Brandon Combs who is executive director of the Calguns Foundation and president of both the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Firearms Policy Foundation. So now Grewal is not facing merely one plaintiff but six institutional plaintiffs and one individual plaintiff.

In a press release sent out yesterday, the groups had this to say about the lawsuit:

TRENTON, N.J. (February 5, 2019) — Today, attorneys for six advocacy organizations and one individual, Firearms Policy Coalition founder Brandon Combs, filed a new lawsuit and a motion seeking a restraining order and preliminary injunction against New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal. The case was filed just days after Grewal’s Office of the Attorney General sent a threat of prosecution to Cloudflare, a major Internet services company headquartered in San Francisco, about www.CodeIsFreeSpeech.com. A copy of key court filings can be viewed or downloaded at www.codeisfreespeechlawsuit.com.

According to the complaint, on Saturday, February 3 the CodeIsFreeSpeech.com website’s act of republishing some of Defense Distributed’s digital firearms information “was met with yet another of Grewal’s Orwellian take-down orders,” demanding that Cloudflare “delete all files described within 24 hours or [Grewal’s Office] will be forced to press charges.”

“By issuing a takedown demand against” the entire website, “Grewal sought to compel the complete and total suppression of the political speech at CodeIsFreeSpeech.com, the links to other advocacy websites and their educational and political resources, links to political tee shirts, and even the very text of the United States Constitution itself,” the plaintiffs said in the filing. Attorneys for the plaintiffs also filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Grewal. The Attorney General’s threats of prosecution and other civil enforcement actions under New Jersey laws, the plaintiffs say, violate their constitutional rights.

Last November, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed a new speech crime into law, in Senate Bill 2465. Among other things, it created a new “third degree crime” for “a person to distribute by any means, including the Internet, to a person in New Jersey” certain kinds of speech, including “digital instructions in the form of computer-aided design files or other code or instructions stored and displayed in electronic format as a digital model that may be used to program a three-dimensional printer…”

CodeIsFreeSpeech.com “is a publicly available website for the publication and republication of truthful, non-misleading, non-commercial political speech and information that is protected under the United States Constitution,” the complaint says. “Its purpose is to allow people to share knowledge and empower them to exercise their fundamental, individual rights. It was created and developed during the week of July 22, 2018—long before the State enacted Senate Bill 2465.”

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Chad Flores, Daniel Hammond, and Hannah Roblyer of Texas-based Beck Redden LLP and Daniel L. Schmutter of New Jersey law firm Hartman & Winnicki.

The CodeIsFreeSpeech.com website can be additionally accessed through URLs GurbirGrewalisaTyrant.com and PhilMurphyisaTyrant.com.

The plaintiffs have filed a suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Moreover, at the same time they also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. They are asking the court to declare the New Jersey law in violation of the First and Second Amendments, the Commerce Clause, and the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. Moreover, they want the court to declare Federal law preempts the New Jersey law and immunizes the plaintiffs from prosecution.

"Murphy Mags" And How To Avoid Arrest In New Jersey

As of Monday, December 10th, if you possess a standard capacity magazine that holds more than 10 rounds in the state of New Jersey, you could be found guilty of a Class 4 Felony, spend up to 18 months in prison, lose your voting rights, and be subject to a lifetime ban on firearm ownership. Your options were to destroy the magazines, turn them into police, or remove them out of state. There was no grandfathering under the law nor was there any compensation for what arguably is a taking.

Gun rights attorney Evan F. Nappen is the acknowledged authority on New Jersey gun law. He has just written a guide on what to expect from the police and prosecutors and how to protect yourself.

Here are the action steps he encourages all New Jersey gun owners to take:

Action Items:

1. Make sure that your friends and family are aware of this potential threat.
2. Make sure that your friends and family are aware of the implications of talking with the police and consenting to searches.
3. Make sure that you do not have in your possession any Murphy Mags or other prohibited items.
4. Make sure that you, your family and your friends have the mindset to stand on your rights!

 While he thinks police raids are not likely to occur and that police will use other means such as computerized databases, demand letters, and the like, there are scenarios and reasons, in his opinion, where a police raid, with or without a warrant, might take place.

1. Some highly publicized mass shooting occurs, and the knee-jerk, politically expedient reaction is to go after Murphy Mag possessors.
2. Murphy’s failure to aggressively enforce his ban, gives his political challengers the opportunity to call him out on it. There is already pressure on Murphy to explain how he intends to enforce the ban. Breitbart News also reached out to Murphy’s press secretary, Daniel Bryan, about enforcement of the ban. He confirmed that the Governor “…had not ruled out house-to-house enforcement of the ban either.”
3. New Jersey has a computerized database of registered gun owners & their registered handguns which includes make and model. Many of these handguns came with Murphy Mags. For example, 15 round magazines came standard with the Glock Model 19, Beretta Model 92 and SIG Model P226, just to name three commonly possessed handguns.
4. New Jersey has a long history of abusing gun owners, creating “gun law victims” (destroying people’s lives with arbitrary gun laws) and undermining Second Amendment rights.
5. New Jersey has a liberal news media which actively acts as the propaganda arm for the anti-gun-rights movement.
6. New Jersey law enforcement will obey orders and enforce the law, rather than lose their jobs & pensions.

I suggest reading Evan's entire guide posted to his website. Moreover, if you live in New Jersey, I suggest studying it carefully, plan your response in advance, and make your family including kids aware of the family plan. As Michael Bane said on his podcast today, the law isn't enforced until is. Don't be that guy who Murphy uses as the example to cow the rest of New Jersey gun owners into compliance.

Democrat State Party Platforms - Montana To New Jersey

The series on the state party platforms of the Democrat Party continues with Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Jersey.

Montana

The Montana Democrat Platform addresses firearms in the section on Hunting, Fishing, and Outdoor Recreation and in the section on Crime and Punishment. Under the Hunting section, it says:

The right to keep and bear arms as defined in both the Montana and the U.S. Constitutions.

That section goes on to say that they support public hunting as a game management tool.

The Crime and Punishment section says this regarding firearms:

Responsible ownership of firearms, including gun safety practices and the education and supervision of children in the use of firearms.

That sounds good until you read their action agenda which says they will "Advocate policies that address and prevent gun violence." The very use of the word "gun violence" (sic) indicates to me that they are blaming the firearm and not the person misusing it.


Nebraska

While Montana Democrats are somewhat circumspect about advocating for gun control, Nebraska Democrats are anything but circumspect.  Their platform calls for gun bans, a raise in the age to purchase a firearm to 21, red flag laws, an end to state preemption, and the elimination of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act among other things.

From the 2018-202 Nebraska Democratic Party platform on firearms:

Firearms and Gun Violence Prevention

Nebraska Democrats recognize that gun violence is a serious problem that claims the lives of tens of thousands of Americans per year, injures many more, traumatizes countless others, and disproportionately impacts communities of color. We support the right of Americans to live free of gun violence. We recognize that gun violence is the consequence of an inadequately regulated consumer market.

We support the repeal of the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which offers special immunities from liability to gun manufacturers and sellers and deprives injured persons from their right to legal remedy in the courts.

Nebraska Democrats support the right of communities to respond democratically to gun violence by passing local ordinances to address their needs. If gun s are owned, they must be used responsibly. We support criminal and civil liability for those who do not safely secure their guns. We support a tax on weapons and ammunition to fund school security measures.

We agree with the American Medical Association ’s proposals regarding firearms: limiting the purchase of guns to individuals 21 and over; supporting legislation that allows relatives of suicidal people or those who have threatened imminent violence to seek court - ordered removal of guns from the home; requesting better training for physicians to recognize patients at risk for suicide; and ensuring domestic abusers do not have access to firearms.

The Nebraska Democratic Party further supports the American Academy of Pediatrics’ proposals to enact a strong, effective assault weapons ban, require mandatory background checks and waiting periods of all firearm purchases, enact a ban on high - capacity magazines, enact strong handgun regulations, and require safe firearm storage under federal law.

We support scientific research into gun violence by the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and other research agencies.

Nevada

 It should come as no surprise that Nevada Democrats have gone full on gun control. They supported Bloomberg's universal background check initiative and now are calling for much more gun control after last year's Mandalay Bay murders. The days of a more libertarian approach to firearms by Nevada Democrats is long over especially with the number of immigrants from California. As to the Mandalay Bay murders, a motive is still not known and all the firearms were purchased legally including the bump fire stocks.

From the 2018 Nevada Democratic Party Platform:

GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION

We support common sense gun safety and gun violence prevention measures, because what happened on 1 October must never happen again.

We support the right to bear arms in a responsible manner. We oppose “Stand Your Ground” laws. We support banning bump stocks or any device that makes a semi - automatic weapon fire like an automatic weapon. We support a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We support outlawing guns on school campuses and keeping guns out of public and government buildings. We support technology aimed at keeping children safe and ensuring that firearms are stored safely in gun owners’ homes. We support the implementation and enforcement of the ballot initiative that was approved by the voters in 2016 to close the gun show loophole. We oppose any efforts by the Nevada Legislature to make it easier for potentially dangerous people like convicted domestic abusers , violent criminals , stalkers , and those lawfully adjudicated as mentally ill to have easier access to weapons. We support strict standards on reciprocity laws in Nevada that protect our families and visitors. We support reporting gun injuries and deaths as community health problems, and keeping statistics and studying those statistics as a public health issue.

New Hampshire

The days of New Hampshire being the bedrock of New England conservatism is over. You can thank tax-avoiding migrants from Massachusetts for this. The New Hampshire Democratic Party's platform does reflect this. I will say I'm a bit surprised that they haven't called for an end to constitutional carry but that could reflect its popularity with voters.

From the NH Democratic Party 2018 final platform:

• We believe in universal background checks to protect our communities from gun violence.
• We believe that military - style weapons, bump stocks, and high - capacity magazine s do not belong on our streets.
• We believe in the establishment of gun - free zones in certain public places, such as schools , as a means of reducing gun violence.
• We support a ban on guns in and on the floor of our State House for the safety of our residents, guests , and children who visit .

I do hate to break it to whomever wrote this platform but so-called gun-free zones do not reduce "gun violence". They only put law abiding people at risk from predators and other psychopaths.



New Jersey

I think it was gun law attorney Evan Nappen who once said New Jersey is where gun rights go to die. He's probably right. The NJ Democratic Party doesn't publish a platform and according to Ballotpedia uses the Democratic National Committee's platform. Given that, let's look at the platform of Gov. Phil Murphy (D-NJ) when it comes to guns. He's the key figure in state government so could have to the biggest - and worst - impact on gun rights in the Garden State. It includes a laundry list of things ranging from taxes on guns to so-called smart guns (sic).

In his 2017 campaign platform, he said:

Specifically, as governor Phil Murphy would:

• Sign commonsense legislation that Christie vetoed: Phil Murphy would start by signing every piece of gun violence prevention legislation that Governor Christie has vetoed. These bills would have enacted bipartisan and sensible solutions, such as keeping guns out of the hands of gang members and domestic abusers.
• Mandate gun safety training: No one should be able to purchase a firearm without first attending a gun safety training course.
• Promote smart gun technology: We must regain our position as a leader in the smart gun movement by requiring all gun retailers to carry at least one smart gun once they are commercially available.
• Keep guns out of the hands of those suffering with mental illness: New Jersey already requires background checks, but it should follow the lead of nearly half the states in the U.S. and require timely reporting of mental illness episodes to the national background check database.
• Tax gun sales to prevent violence: All gun sales should be subject to a tax that will fund law enforcement, drug treatment centers, and mental health services.
• Strengthen regulations on gun transfers: Phil Murphy would make it a crime to sell guns without conducting a mandatory background check, and would require individuals to register their firearms kept in the state.
• Work with neighboring states to promote gun violence prevention: An estimated 80 percent of guns involved in crimes in New Jersey come from out of state. As governor, Phil Murphy will engage partners in neighboring states to find common ground on gun violence prevention efforts.
• Direct the Attorney General to vigorously defend our gun laws: Governor Christie has allowed the Attorney General’s office to relax enforcement of our gun safety laws, including laws that prohibit illegally transporting guns into New Jersey from out of state. As governor, Phil Murphy would direct the Attorney General to vigorously defend and enforce our gun laws, rather than to act as an agent of the NRA.

With the exception of getting tough on gang members, there is not a thing in that list which would reduce criminal misuse of firearms. It is aimed at the law-abiding gun owner and not the criminal. As we have also seen, Murphy is actively anti-hunting with his ad hoc ban on hunting of bears on state lands. Murphy doesn't even pretend to make lip service about supporting hunters.

Brian Aitken Pardoned....Finally

In one of the last acts before he leaves office on Tuesday, Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) issued a long overdue pardon to Brian Aitken. The pardon issued on Friday pardoned Brian for possessing hollow-point bullets and simple assault. His earlier conviction for illegally carrying firearms was overturned by an appeals court who found that he was indeed, as he always claimed, moving to a new residence.

From the Courier Post:

Aitken, a businessman whose seven-year prison term previously was commuted by Christie, said he was "so happy to finally put this chapter behind me."

"Thank you to everyone who has stuck with me over the years," Aitken said in a Facebook post. "I can't thank Gov. Chris Christie enough."

Aitken was arrested in January 2009 when a Mount Laurel police officer found three unloaded guns in his car. Aitken had purchased the guns legally in Colorado, but lacked a permit to carry them in New Jersey.

Aitken served almost four months in a state prison for unlawful possession of a weapon and other offenses before Christie commuted his sentence in December 2010.

 We interviewed Brian on the Polite Society Podcast after the release of his book on the arrest, court battle, and sentencing to prison. His book, The Blue Tent Sky: How the Left's War on Guns Cost Me My Son and My Freedom, is available on Amazon. I've read the book and it would be $1.99 well spent for the Kindle version to fully comprehend the war on gun owners in New Jersey.

Brian issued this note of thanks on his Facebook page:

Thank you everyone who has stuck with me over the years. I'm so happy to finally put this chapter behind me. Tuesday will be a sad day for the State of New Jersey but today is an incredibly happy day at the Aitken household. I can't thank Governor Chris Christie enough. I'm sure there's more to say but it's all still a bit surreal. I just wanted to make sure you guys heard it from me first.

Since he had his sentence commuted by Gov. Christie, Brian wrote his book, got married, started a business, and had a daughter. However, unless I'm mistaken, I still don't think he has visitation rights with his son from his earlier marriage which is incredibly sad.

You can see more about the Brian Aitken miscarriage of justice in this video by NRA News and in his talk with the Cato Institute.

I'm glad that Brian has his full life back now and I've both happy and amazed that Chris Christie did the right thing in pardoning Brian.

I Think Tom Might Be Correct - We Need An Asst AG For The Second Amendment

Tom Gresham made the suggestion on his show Sunday that the Trump Department of Justice should have a special Assistant Attorney General for the protection of the Second Amendment. He referenced how DOJ sent armies of lawyers to the South after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Heller and McDonald decisions confirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and that right applies in the states. However, the current DOJ is doing nothing to protect that individual civil right.

I think Tom is on to something.

Having just read of the latest attack on the Second Amendment and the gun culture coming out of New Jersey, I think this is doubly true. An ostensibly anti-suicide bill would create onerous requirements on gun ranges that would force them to close. As the 7th Circuit decided in the Ezell v. Chicago, gun ranges are an essential part of the Second Amendment.

From the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs:

The bills as presently written would require the owner or operator of every range and gun club to verify that every range user has an FID card, NJ carry permit, or pistol purchase permit, along with government-issued photo ID, every time that person uses the range. That is an impossible burden for most ranges to meet - most ranges are unstaffed or staffed sporadically by volunteers. Few ranges have staff during all operating hours. NO SHOOTING ACTIVITY COULD OCCUR ON ANY RANGE THAT IS NOT STAFFED TO VERIFY CREDENTIALS.

The bills as presently written would also prevent you from using your own firearms on a range unless the range first verifies your credentials, every time you use the range, and bans all temporary transfer on a range unless the range verifies the credentials of both the transferor and transferee. THIS IMPACTS A HUGE SWATH OF SECOND AMENDMENT ACTIVITY, INCLUDING TRAINING, COMPETITION, TARGET PRACTICE, OPEN HOUSES, RANGE GUESTS, HUNTER EDUCATION, WOMEN'S EVENTS, ETC. (see below for detailed examples).

I think of the ranges that I have open to me in western North Carolina. The indoor ranges are staffed and could meet the requirements of such a bill. However, the NC Wildlife Resources Range at Cold Mountain (yes, that Cold Mountain) and the ranges in the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests are neither staffed nor have Range Safety Officers. These free and/or inexpensive places to shoot would have to be shut down.

Sebastian is correct when he concluded:

This would essentially close every club in New Jersey. It would make it impossible to bring new shooters into the sports, since they would essentially need to apply for and receive an FID card before they could even try it out. This would destroy the shooting culture in New Jersey, and that’s exactly what it’s intended to do. Suicide prevention is a ruse. Christie has shown a willingness to veto legislation like this, and will probably continue to do so as long as he’s in office, but it’s going to be hell to pay if Christie is replaced with an anti-gun Democrat.

 If you live in New Jersey, I suggest that you do as the ANJRPC says and contact your legislators. As to the idea of a special Assistant Attorney General for the Second Amendment, I'm not sure how to contact the incoming Trump Administration directly. However, you could send the suggestion to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) at his Senate offices.

Tone Deaf Politicians

If there is one thing that this political season has shown is that people are sick and tired of business as usual. How else do you explain the rise of a reality-TV star and billionaire businessman on the Republican side and an obscure, not even elected as a Democrat, self-avowed socialist on the Democratic side of the ticket. Both Trump and Sanders would be long gone in years gone by.

In the midst of all of this comes a proposal from New Jersey State Senator Gerald Cardinale (R-Bergen, Passaic) that would allow legislators and municipal and superior court judges to obtain carry permits to protect themselves. Nevermind that it takes an Act of God and then some for ordinary New Jerseyans to get carry permits or even a pistol purchase permit. Witness the death of Carol Bowne who was still waiting for her permit when her stalker killed her.

From the Bergen Dispatch:

Senator Gerald Cardinale (R-Bergen, Passaic) introduced a bill that would allow legislators, as well as judges at the superior and municipal court levels, to obtain permits to carry handguns provided they complete at least eight hours of firearm safety training.

“Judges and legislators face a greater risk of falling victim to violent attacks, simply because of their easily identifiable position in public life,” Senator Cardinale said. “This measure will ensure that public servants have the means to protect themselves from those who might violently disagree with their viewpoints or decisions. A judge should feel safe returning home each night no matter how they ruled or what they ruled on that day.”

The bill (S-1982) was inspired by attacks, such as the 2011 shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. Giffords was shot in an assassination attempt during a meeting with constituents at an Arizona supermarket. More recently, a Texas judge was wounded in a shooting outside of her home in Austin.

Judges and legislators would be exempt from New Jersey's requirement to show "justifiable need". They would merely have to show that they took an 8-hour class.

Alexander Roubian of the NJ Second Amendment Society is correct when he calls Cardinale's proposal completely hypocritical.

Judges and politicians are generally well-guarded by security and they have easy access to police, Roubian noted. And, he argued, they’re already more likely than average citizens to pass the “justifiable need” test because they’re friends with the judges who issue the permits.

“Basically, this is a clear-cut example of how New Jersey operates as a fiefdom. The politicians’ and the judges’ lives, they truly believe, are more valuable than those of average citizens like you and I,” Roubian said.

I would add that Sen. Cardinale, in this of all years, just doesn't get it. Given that he has been in one house or the other of the New Jersey legislature since 1980, maybe it is time for the 82-year old dentist to go home.

Now That Chris Christie Is Out Of The Race, What Happens To This Guy?

When Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) was seriously running for the Republican nomination for President, high profile cases involving New Jersey's unjust gun laws tended to bring clemency. In this latest case involving a Pennsylvania corrections officer who was hit by a drunk driver on his way home from Atlantic City, one has to wonder.

Ginny Simone, in a report for NRA News, discusses the case of Sgt. Ray Hughes who is facing felony charges.

The Question Not Asked On 60 Minutes

Lesley Stahl had a long piece on so-called smart guns last night on CBS' 60 Minutes. She talked to a lot of people including New Jersey State Senator Loretta Weinberg. Here is the part of the transcript where Stahl speaks with Weinberg and intersperses it with comments from a Maryland FFL.

Loretta Weinberg, the New Jersey state senator who authored the law, didn't foresee its consequences.

Loretta Weinberg: We passed that bill to help spur this technology.

Lesley Stahl: It appears it totally backfired because it spurred this passionate objection to the gun.

Loretta Weinberg: Because of the intervention of the NRA and the Second Amendment folks.

Lesley Stahl: That, they say, the reason they intervened is because of the mandate.

Loretta Weinberg: Right. It isn't the law that's stopped the development. It is the people who threatened folks who actually wanted to sell such a gun.

Andy Raymond came to realize that even if he had sold the Armatix gun in Maryland, it might've triggered the mandate, banning the sale of regular handguns in New Jersey.

[Andy Raymond: The people of New Jersey: my apologies. You got nothing to worry about from me.]

Andy Raymond: I did apologize. I'm... I'm sorry. Sorry to this day.

Lesley Stahl: Did you actually sell any of the Armatix guns?

Andy Raymond: No.

After his case came to her attention, the New Jersey senator offered to rescind the mandate if the gun lobby publicly removed its opposition to smart guns. She's yet to hear back.

Loretta Weinberg: They seem to oppose almost everything. Anytime we suggest anything we've gotten very little cooperation back.

Lesley Stahl: If the law were completely repealed, do you think that the gun lobby would then let this go forward?

Loretta Weinberg: No.

Earlier in the story, Stahl said that the so-called smart guns could help on-duty cops because it would prevent criminals from using the cop's gun on the cop as has been the case so often. As the story shows, it worked for James Bond in the movie Skyfall when a bad guy tried to shoot 007 with his own gun.

The New Jersey Childproof Handgun Law mandates that once the Attorney General of that state certifies that so-called smart or personalized handguns are available for retail sale anywhere in the United States that only these sort of guns can be sold to consumers in New Jersey. However, there are exceptions and the biggest one is this:

b. The provisions of this section shall not apply to handguns to be sold, transferred, assigned and delivered for official use to: (1) State and local law enforcement officers of this State; (2) federal law enforcement officers and any other federal officers and employees required to carry firearms in the performance of their official duties and (3) members of the Armed Forces of the United States or of the National Guard.

 Given this large and glaring exception to the personalized handgun mandate in New Jersey, why didn't Ms. Stahl ask Sen. Weinberg something along these lines:

Stahl: Sen. Weinberg, given that police officers guns are often turned on them by criminals, why did you specifically exempt law enforcement officers from your bill?

Weinberg: Ummm. Because cops need a reliable gun and this technology is not reliable? Can we get back to talking about how it is the NRA's fault that none of these guns are available for sale!

I would posit that Stahl did not ask the question because she already knew the answer or, at least, the producers of the segment knew it. To ask the question would have muddied the narrative and that just wouldn't do.

You can see the whole episode here.

Sour Grapes, Much?

This past Saturday the New Jersey Second Amendment Society (NJ2AS) rallied to gather signatures for a recall of NJ Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester). According to NJ.com, there were 200 activists there ready to go door to door to gather signatures.

We have interviewed both Alexander Roubian and Dan Roberts on The Polite Society Podcast about their plans for this event. It should be noted that only New Jersey registered voters are allowed to solicit the signatures. Thus, the majority of the people at the event were residents of the state registered to vote.

Bearing that in mind, I was amused to read this comment in the story from gun prohibitionist Bryan Miller of Ceasefire NJ and Heeding God's Call.

Bryan Miller, executive director of Heeding God's Call, a faith-based group in Philadelphia that seeks to prevent gun violence, called to respond to the NJSAS gathering on Saturday.

When he heard about the number of people who showed to the event, he said he didn't think it was "a very impressive number."

Can you say "sour grapes"? When was the last time the anti-gunners were able to assemble 200 people in one place for a protest even if they were paid and bused in? They didn't get that many in Nashville even though they tried to make it look like more through trick photography.

Sorry, Bryan, but 200 people that are predominantly registered voters in a state that isn't gun friendly is a heckuva lot of activists.

I'd like to also note that newly elected NRA Board member Tim Knight spoke to the rally before they set forth to gather signatures. It is great to see a NRA Board member getting down in the trenches with gun owners in the fight for gun rights.

Finally Some Good News Out Of New Jersey

Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) granted a "full and free pardon" to Steffon Josey-Davis. Mr. Davis was the armored car guard and would-be policeman who got caught up in the Byzantine labyrinth of New Jersey's gun laws.

The North Brunwsick armored car driver who took a plea for illegally transporting his legally owned handgun in his car has received a pardon from Gov. Chris Christie, the governor's office announced Monday.

The clemency granted by Christie to Steffon Josey-Davis, 24, gives him a "full and free" pardon for all criminal charges stemming from his September 2013 arrest.

We interviewed Steffon on the Polite Society Podcast back in February. You can hear our interview with him here. I am very happy for Steffon and hope he can get his law enforcement career back on track. He was a nice, sincere young man and he deserved this pardon.

You can see the pardon below:

Signed Josey-Davis Pardon

Given the recent tragedy where Carol Bowne died at the hands of her ex-boyfriend while waiting for a pistol purchase permit, this is good news. My fellow podcaster Rob Morse has more on the murder of Ms. Bowne here.

"Possession Of Penetrating Bullets" - Only In New Jersey

My friend Frank Fiamingo highlighted this story about a middle school student who brought a 9mm Glock to school in Maplewood, New Jersey. What makes this story interesting is not that the kid brought a gun to school but what he was charged with.

The student, whose name has not been released due to his status as a juvenile, now stands charged with possession of a weapon on school property, possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes, and possession of penetrating bullets, authorities said.

Penetrating bullets? Isn't that the whole point? Are police in New Jersey the only ones allowed to have ammunition that penetrates the bodies of miscreants? I don't know about you but I want penetrating bullets!*















*I am presuming that what they meant to charge him with is possession of hollow-point bullets. The New Jersey criminal code section 2C:39-3.f does outlaw both hollow points and handgun bullets that are capable of penetrating body armor.

Finally, Someone Acted Like An Adult In New Jersey

The prosecution of Gordan Van Gilder for possession of an antique flintlock pistol was a travesty from the start. This was compounded when Cumberland County (NJ) Sheriff Robert Austino tried to smear the retired school teacher by saying he was arrested in a "known drug area" while trying to buy drugs.

Fortunately, this afternoon Cumberland County Prosecutor Jennifer Webb-McRae showed some sense and used her prosecutorial discretion to dismiss the case.

I don't think we would have seen this happen without the pressure brought to bear based upon the peculiar circumstances of this case. It was ridiculous from the start and the Prosecutor's Office knew it. They were the ones left to clean up the mess left by New Jersey law enforcement.

Now it is time as some New Jersey legislators have suggested to clean up the law. While I would love to see the entire law scrapped, I know that isn't going to happen. At best, the definition of a firearm will be brought in line with that of the Federal law and pre-1898 firearms will be excluded.

Those Jokers In New Jersey

New Jersey judges have quite the sense of humor. On Monday, the judiciary system raised about 80 of their court fees. The money will be used to pay for bail reform, increase monies going to Legal Services of NJ, and an improved electronic filing system. They expect to raise $42 million in revenue from these increased fees annually.

Included in the increases are these:

Among the increases taking effect: Filing a lawsuit, an appeal or for divorce costs $50 more. Filing a small claim costs $35, up from $15. Permits to carry a handgun cost $50, rather than $20, and it now costs $50 to appeal a denial of a permit to buy a handgun.

The fee for getting a permit to carry a handgun might as well be $1 million given that it takes an act of God to get a New Jersey carry permit and even an act of God might not help. As Frank Fiamingo, President of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, said:

What permits to carry a handgun? New Jersey does not issue permits to carry a handgun to law-abiding civilians. Unless you walk into the court with some thug holding a gun directly to your temple, you will be denied, and then denied upon appeal. The entire system is rigged to keep free people from exercising their natural human right to defend innocent life.

A Question For NJ Prosecutor Jim McClain

Atlantic County, NJ Prosecutor Jim McClain broke his silence on the Ray Rice assault case Wednesday. According to the Press of Atlantic City, McClain said:

“Even if they disagree with why I did what I did, I just want people to know the decision was made after careful consideration of the law, careful consideration of the facts, hearing the voice of the victim and considering all the parameters,” he said. “I want people to have confidence in this agency, even if they don’t agree with everything we do.”

Rice was charged with third-degree aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury. Third-degree charges — especially for someone like Rice with no criminal record — carry a presumption of no incarceration.

To result in a second-degree aggravated assault charge, a crime has to involve “serious,” or permanent, bodily injury. There is no first-degree charge of aggravated assault.

“People need to understand, the choice was not PTI versus five years’ state prison,” McClain said. “The choice was not PTI versus the No Early Release Act on a 10-year sentence. The parameters as they existed were: Is this a PTI case or a probation case?”

 Confidence in this agency? Is Mr. McClain making a joke?

Let me see if I have this straight. An NFL player with a multi-million dollar contract punches his wife-to-be in the head so severely that she is knocked unconscious. Reading some of the boxing literature on knockouts, the force of the punch causes the brain "to smash against the inside of the skull, near the base of the skull" from inertia. Being knocked out may also involve a concussion and other brain injuries. 

The Association of Boxing Commissions consider this such a severe injury that boxers are given a minimum 60-day medical suspension from all boxing activity when KO'ed. Remember these are trained athletes who are engaging in a sport that involves hits to the head and body and not a young mother.

So my question for Atlantic County Prosecutor Jim McClain is this:  please explain how Shaneen Allen, a young mother with an unblemished criminal record and certainly no record of violence, who made an honest mistake due to a misunderstanding of the law and which hurt no one, is more of a menace to society than a  coddled star athlete with anger management issues who inflicted serious bodily injury on a woman.  The latter was given pre-trial intervention while the former is facing up to 10 years in prison even though she, as well, could have been given pre-trial intervention save for your intransigence.

To paraphrase Shakespeare, something is rotten in the state of New Jersey.

And lest readers think that Gov. Chris Christie is blameless in this whole affair, it was Christie himself who appointed McClain to be the County Prosecutor two years ago. Christie was criticized at the time over the quality of some of his prosecutorial nominations including McClain. We can see the basis for that criticism now all too well.

"There Is No Justice For Gun Owners In New Jersey"

The headline, "there is no justice for gun owners in New Jersey", is a statement by Brian Aitken on the treatment that he and Shaneen Allen have received from that state's justice system. He is featured in a new NRA News Report by Ginny Simone entitled "Accidental Criminals: Brian Aitken is Living the Nightmare".

As both Aitken and Allen point out, if Ms. Allen had lied to the officer when stopped for the traffic violation in Atlantic County, New Jersey, she wouldn't be facing up to 10 or more years in prison for being an "accidental criminal". The judge in her case told her that telling the truth didn't matter in this case; it got her in trouble. Isn't incentivizing lying a perversion of any justice system?

Moreover, as Aitken points out, the gun laws of New Jersey are not meant to deter criminals but rather to deter honest citizens from actually owning firearms. Both judges and prosecutors want to use these "accidental criminals" as poster children for their goal of a disarmed public.

Every potential juror in Atlantic County should see this video along with Simone's earlier one on Shaneen Allen. If they understood the ramifications, they might just vote "not guilty" in the jury room. Her case is a strong argument for jury nullification.

Another Bill That Chris Christie Needs To Veto

The list of ridiculous bills that the New Jersey Legislature has passed and that Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) needs to veto has grown again. In addition to the magazine ban bill this is sitting on his desk, there is now a bill that totally bans ivory or "ivory products". This ban extends to 10,000 year old ivory from mammoth tusks.

Ivory products are more than carved elephant tusks. They would include things like the keys on older Steinway concert pianos, 150-year old whale scrimshaw, slabs and handles from knives, old billiard balls, and the grips on George Patton's revolvers. Banning the transfer of ivory or ivory products at the state level does nothing to stop elephant poaching in Africa.

Knife Rights has issued a strongly worded alert on this bill. Reading through the bill myself, I agree that it is all encompassing and permits no real exceptions. It is a bill that ought to be vetoed.

In a move that caught just about everyone by surprise, last week the New Jersey legislature quietly passed S.2012/A.3128, a draconian total ivory ban bill with no exemptions for existing legal ivory and that even bans 10,000-year-old mammoth ivory. This poorly drafted bill even opens the door to outright confiscation of ivory-handled knives and arrest of knife owners!  

 

Knife Rights unequivocally supports legitimate efforts to stop the illegal slaughter of elephants in Africa , but this bill will not save a single elephant . Unfortunately, instead of going after poachers, smugglers and traders of illicit ivory, the New Jersey legislature has decided to launch an all-out attack on innocent New Jerseyans by passing an absurd TOTAL Ivory Ban that will not save a single living elephant .

Knife Rights has asked Gov. Christie to veto this irrational and very destructive bill.  If you are a New Jersey resident or do business in New Jersey, WRITE or CALL the Governor TODAY and ask him to VETO S.2012/A.3128.  

The NJ Ivory Ban Bill outlaws ALL ivory from ANY ANIMAL (elephant, hippo, mammoth, narwhal, walrus, whale, etc.). It makes it illegal to to import, sell, offer for sale, purchase, barter or possess with intent to sell (a intentionally vague term of law subject to abusive interpretation that could lead to knife confiscations and arrests) any ivory or ivory product with no exceptions for antique or heretofore legal ivory imported decades ago prior to the existing 24-year-old U.S. ban on ivory imports.

This ban would irreparably harm owners of ivory-handled and fossil ivory-handled knives, antiques, musical instruments and any items containing ivory legally imported into this country decades ago by stripping their value - a taking of millions of dollars from law-abiding New Jerseyans. The ban would criminalize legitimate business owners and cause immediate ruinous financial loss for them. It will cost the state millions of dollars in tax revenue and not save a single living elephant! 

 

This bill will not save a single elephant because study after study have shown no connection between the legal ivory market in decades-old ivory in the U.S. and poaching in Africa. International and U.S. studies document that virtually all the ivory poached in Africa goes to China where it is valued at 6 times the price of decades-old legal ivory in the U.S. Moreover, it is already a federal crime to import ivory into the U.S. and a crime to possess or sell illegally imported ivory.    

  

This outrageous and draconian bill also represents an unconstitutional "taking" of protected private property, violating both the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, #1 and #20 of the N.J. Constitution. While lawsuits challenging this law, if signed, wend their way though the courts, untold hundreds or thousands of ivory owners will be arrested and prosecuted under this absurd law.

  

NOTHING IN THIS ABSURD BILL WILL SAVE A SINGLE ELEPHANT!
This is "feel good - do bad" legislation at its worst! 

 

New Jersey residents and all who do business in New Jersey should WRITE or CALL the Governor TODAY and ask him to VETO S.2012/A.3128.

Email Governor Christie at: Constituent.Relations@gov.state.nj.us  

Call the Governor at: 609-292-6000

When you call or write, all you need to do is ask the Governor to VETO S.2012/A.3128, the ivory Ban Bill. If you'd like to write more, click here for Knife Rights' NJ Ivory Ban Model Letter to Gov. Christie.

A Plea For Attention

The Brady Campaign and the other older gun prohibitionist groups such as the Violence Policy Center and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (sic) have been marginalized by Michael Bloomberg and his money. His Illegal Mayors, his merger with Shannon Watts and the Demanding Mommies, and his willingness to parachute legions of lobbyists into purple states like Colorado to get new laws imposed have created a far more dangerous foe to gun rights than the Brady Campaign.

It is within this context that we should examine the lawsuit brought yesterday in New Jersey by the Brady Campaign to force certification of the so-called "smart gun". While it may be seen as a plea for attention, such pleas by a marginalized foe can be dangerous.

The lawsuit filed yesterday seeks to force NJ Acting Attorney General John J. Hoffman to comply with the reporting requirements of the Personalized Handgun Law. By doing so, it could trigger the 3-year clock after which only "personalized handguns" may be sold in New Jersey. Unlike the California microstamping law which allows existing handguns on the California Handgun Roster to still be sold, there is no grandfathering in of existing handguns.

New Jersey is an anomaly in that its Attorney General is appointed and not elected. The Attorney General is appointed by the Governor and then confirmed by the NJ State Senate much like the US Attorney General. Mr. Hoffman, the Acting Attorney General, was appointed to the position when his predecessor was appointed to fill the US Senate seat held by the late Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). Politically, he is registered as an Independent. His law career has been primarily in the public sector with the bulk of it being as a trial attorney in the US Department of Justice Civil Division and as an Assistant US Attorney for the District of New Jersey. Hoffman, while he was politically astute enough to get appointed Acting AG, seems to be more a bureaucrat than a politician.

The Brady Campaign sent Hoffman letters in February and in April noting that the Attorney General's Office had failed to do its semi-annual reports on the availability of personalized handguns since 2003. The February letter mentioned the Armatrix iP1 pistol and asked that he file the requisite report with the Governor and Legislature affirming that it was available for sale. The April letter was a reminder and hinted of further action.

I have to believe that the Brady Campaign had the complaint written and ready to go when the time was right. It is no coincidence that the lawsuit was filed in Mercer County Superior Court the day after Ernst Mauch, designer of the Armatrix iP1 pistol, had an op-ed published in the Washington Post. Whether or not Herr Mauch colluded with the Brady Campaign on the timing is up for speculation but it certainly looks suspicious. The timeline of information requests presented in the complaint makes clear that the Brady Campaign and its affiliate NJ Million Moms (sic) had been planning this since 2013.

The complaint itself is rather straight forward with the exception of the recitation of accidental shootings by children with handguns. It basically says the Attorney General of NJ was supposed to be putting out semi-annual reports on personalized handguns (NJS 2C:58-2.3(c), the one report from 2003 could not be found, and that Deputy AG Bruce Solomon had affirmed that no report had been issued from 2004-2012. The complaint goes on to say that a dealer in California had offered a personalized handgun for sale and that a Maryland dealer had received one from the manufacturer. This is important to the case because of how the statute determines personalized handguns are available (NJS 2C:58-2.3(b)).

For the purposes of this section, personalized handguns shall be deemed to be available for retail sales purposes if at least one manufacturer has delivered at least one production model of a personalized handgun to a registered or licensed wholesale or retail dealer in New Jersey or any other state. As used in this subsection, the term "production model" shall mean a handgun which is the product of a regular manufacturing process that produces multiple copies of the same handgun model, and shall not include a prototype or other unique specimen that is offered for sale.

The fact that the NJ Attorney General's Office has screwed up by not issuing the semi-annual reports is a given. The question remains as to whether the so-called smart guns available in California or delivered to dealer in Maryland were actual production models or prototypes. The Attorney General's Office, if it was smart and/or pressured to do so by Gov. Chris Christie, could issue the required report immediately, affirm that no "production models" were available for sale, that only specimens or prototypes had been delivered, and ask for the case to be dismissed as moot. Whether they are smart enough or politically agile enough to pull that off remains to be seen.

As I noted earlier, even a marginalized foe can be dangerous. This lawsuit shows that Brady Campaign, while losing in the court of public opinion, still is astute enough to have been planning this assault on gun rights for well over a year. It calls for an energetic response from our side.

NJ Senate Votes On Mag Limitation And Gun Ban Tomorrow (updated)

The NRA-ILA sent out an alert advising that the New Jersey State Senate will vote on SB 993 tomorrow (Monday, May 12th) at noon. They are asking the people in NJ call or email their state senator and request that they vote against this bill.

From the NRA-ILA:

On Monday, May 12, the New Jersey Senate is scheduled to consider Senate Bill 993 at noon.  As previously reported, S.993 seeks to restrict the maximum capacity of ammunition magazines from 15 to 10 rounds and ban certain popular firearms.  Under the guise of public safety, anti-gun politicians continue their efforts in Trenton to erode the Second Amendment rights of New Jersey residents.  New Jersey is one of only a few states which already has a magazine restriction, and another arbitrary limit will have no impact on crime or criminals.  Instead, this legislation demonstrably favors criminals who prefer to prey on unarmed victims.

Senate Bill 993 is scheduled to be considered by the full Senate at noon on Monday, May 12.  It is more important than ever to call and e-mail your state Senator and respectfully, yet insistently, urge him or her to vote AGAINST S.993.  Contact information for state Senators can be found here.

If you would like to tune into the Senate debate on S.993, you can do so by clicking here.

The bill would exempt tube feed .22LR rifles from the 10 round maximum. It would also allow both current law enforcement officers to carry 15-round magazines while off-duty and it would extend this same "courtesy" to retired law enforcement officers.

The kicker part of the bill is this:

14. (New section) Any person who legally owns a semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding 10 rounds or a large capacity ammunition magazine as defined under subsection y. of N.J.S.2C:39-1 which is capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition on the effective date of P.L. , c. (C. ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill) may retain possession of that rifle or magazine for a period not to exceed 180 days from the effective date of this act. During this time period, the owner of the semi-automatic rifle or magazine shall:
a. Transfer the semi-automatic rifle or magazine to any person or firm lawfully entitled to own or possess that firearm or magazine;
b. Render the semi-automatic rifle or magazine inoperable; or
c. Voluntarily surrender the semi-automatic rifle or magazine pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.2C:39-12.1

UPDATED: Sebastian is reporting that the bill passed the NJ Senate on a 22-17 vote. It now goes to Gov. Chris Christie who has never been a friend of gun owners. However, he does have Presidential aspirations and this could help our cause. Now is the time to start pressuring him. His online contact address is here.

Update On Drake Case

Drake v. Jerejian is the New Jersey case that is a challenge to their concealed carry permit requirements. The case started out a long while ago as Muller v. Maenza and Piszczatoski v. Maenza. The case was appealed to the US Supreme Court in January.

On Friday, the state of New Jersey filed a brief opposing this petition to the Supreme Court. The state asserts that there is no reason for the Supreme Court to hear the case and that the Second Amendment does not preclude the state from requiring a justified need to issue a carry permit.

From the Second Amendment Foundation:

NJ AG OPPOSES SUPREME COURT REVIEW OF NJ CARRY LAW

Today, the New Jersey Attorney General filed a brief in the Drake right to carry case, urging the U.S. Supreme Court not to take the case. Drake is the pending federal challenge to New Jersey’s unconstitutional carry law, brought by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), who have asked the Supreme Court to hear the case.

At the heart of the lawsuit is the idea that citizens should not have to prove “need” to exercise a fundamental Constitutional right. New Jersey’s “justifiable need” standard requires the applicant to provide evidence of prior attacks or threats before a carry permit is issued by a judge – a virtually impossible standard for most people to meet.

Though less extreme in its rhetoric than in earlier phases of the case, the Attorney General in the brief essentially defends New Jersey’s carry law and tells the Supreme Court there is no reason for it to hear the case:

“[T]he Second Amendment does not prohibit New Jersey from requiring applicants to demonstrate a justifiable need before granting a permit to publicly carry a handgun. The justifiable need standard in New Jersey’s Handgun Permit Law qualifies as a presumptively lawful, longstanding regulation that does not burden conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee... Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the Third Circuit’s decision here presents a question that warrants this Court’s discretionary review.”

While it is not unusual for an attorney general to defend state law, it is unfortunate to see such a blatant violation of fundamental rights be given legitimacy by bureaucrats.

“The right to defend yourself with a firearm outside the home, otherwise known as right to carry, has long been disparaged and denied in the Garden State,” said ANJRPC Executive Director Scott Bach. “We intend to change that with this lawsuit.”

“This case is extremely important because it may have a national impact on gun rights in all 50 states,” said SAF Executive Vice President and founder Alan Gottlieb. “This suit is part of our effort to win firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.”

The Supreme Court will likely decide whether it will take the Drake case between April and June. We will spare no effort or expense to restore right to carry in the Garden State and protect that right all across America.