Handgun Permit Laws are facially invalid under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments

If Wisconsin Legislators impose strict requirments and require training and permitts to concealed carry, they may be subjected to a multitude of Federal Lawsuit from Wisconsin citizens who are denied as those citizens in New Jersey have done.

Lawsuit link: http://anjrpc.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/docs/nj_rtc_complaint.pdf

Lawsuit claims that their concealed carry permit system is facially invalid under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States in that, and to the extent that, they: (a) vest state officials with uncontrolled discretion to deny Permits to Carry; and (b) require citizens to show “justifiable need” and “urgent necessity” to obtain Permits to Carry.

Don

full text of the Attorney General’s brief can be found here

The Attorney General’s answered the lawsuit on January 26, 2011, a full text of the Attorney General’s brief can be found at the following link:

http://anjrpc.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/Legal_Motions___Briefs/NJ_AG_Motion_to_Dismiss.pdf


Reply Brief In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgement And In Opposition To Motion To Dismiss

http://saf.org/legal.action/nj.lawsuit/29PlaintiffsBriefinReplyandOpposition.pdf


Don

Date of AG release

cowboyridin:

Is March 21.2011 the correct date of the NJ AG release? Or what does the date represent. Is that the date of the proposed court ruling?

Captain Nemo said:

cowboyridin:

Is March 21.2011 the correct date of the NJ AG release? Or what does the date represent. Is that the date of the proposed court ruling?

Click to expand...

I wondered also, because the date on the Reply Brief In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgement And In Opposition To Motion To Dismiss from the defendants is February 18, 2011. So I looked at the reply by the AG and the date is listed as a motion date. The date the AG's reply was signed on January 26, 2011, which makes more sense.

Don

I would like to caution everyone that in both Muller v. Maenza (the NJ case) and Woollard v. Sheridan (the Maryland case), the plaintiffs are not asking the courts to declare that the plaintiffs have the right to carry without a permit. Instead, both cases are asking only that the courts declare the specific provisions of the NJ & MD permit statutes requiring an applicant to show a "justifiable need" for a permit to be unconstitutional and that the NJ & MD permit statutes operate without those specific provisions (which plaintiffs meet) and that permits be issued.

There may well be a case down the road that settles in our favor the question of whether there is a right to carry both openly and concealed without a permit, but there is still a lot of foundational work to be done before we will ever see that bridge, much less cross it. Right now, with Heller and McDonald, we have only the first pour of the basement floor. The antis are itching to demolish the Second Amendment house we are attempting to build, which is still in its earliest stages of construction and which needs to be carefully built, brick by brick.

In order to defeat the antis, we must think strategically and take the long view. We in the pro-gun community have made much progress over the last 25 years, and the rate of progress is accelerating.