Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[new jersey]]>

Former SCOTUS-bound litigant granted NJ carry permit

by Leave a Comment

I’ve been following the New Jersey gun rights preservation movement for quite a long time. My first article on the Second Amendment was related to New Jersey in 2015 over at AmmoLand, and my first article here at Bearing Arms was also on the Garden State. That first article of mine that ran here back in August of 2019 is entitled: “SCOTUS Has A New 2nd Amendment Case In Its Sights”, and concerned Cheeseman v Polillo. That case found the same fate that nearly a dozen other Second Amendment cases did in early 2020, that of being denied certiorari. Cheeseman’s prospects to get a permit to carry in the land of 1000 diners were nil after the denial, that is until after Justice Thomas’s most recent birthday. Mark Cheeseman and I had a good chat about him getting issued a New Jersey permit to carry just the other week.

Cheeseman and I have spoken a bit over the last few years, as I’ve been reporting on his every move in the gun rights arena. In our latest chat we talked about him recently applying for and getting his permit to carry, as well as some history, and some future plans.

I applied three times. Once in I believe it was either 2014 or 2015. I was denied for a lack of need. At that point in time, that’s when I started saying, “All right, well, you know, there’s something seriously wrong with this.” Because, number one…other states don’t need to have a need or necessity or anything like that. And I feel I do have a need, what they said I had was generalized fears. I didn’t have urgent necessity. There’s really three parts to the justifiable need statute. If you look at it, one of them has specific threats, the justifiable need, and the third part urgent necessity…you need to have all three, maybe even if you do have all three, they’re more than likely going to deny you on urgent necessity. The second time I applied, and I’m a little sketchy on the date, but I’m pretty sure it was 2016. I knew exactly what I was doing. The only reason I did that application was to appeal it. And I even told the judge that the only reason I’m here is to appeal this, let’s you know, get it over with.

The interesting thing about Cheeseman is that he’s been very dedicated to the cause, and seemingly is a perpetual plaintiff. In the period between his first denial to get a permit to carry and the denial which bore the inception of the Cheeseman v. Polillo case, in 2016, Cheeseman challenged the ban on electric weapons, aka stun guns and tasers, in New Jersey. This was in the wake of the Grant, Vacate, and Remand that Caetano v. Massachusetts had from SCOTUS earlier that year. His case, NJ2AS & Cheeseman v. Porrino was victorious in overturning NJ’s ban.

Sometime in early July, Cheeseman told me that he started his application process for a NJ permit to carry for the third time. He mentioned that he had spent about a week or so, like many of us, gathering everything he needed to apply. Due to the influx of applicants, he had to go out to Pennsylvania to get his fingerprints completed. The process is long, convoluted, and I covered much of it previously. Over at AmmoLand I reported on two confirmed permits, as well as reporting on specific restrictions here, the nightmare of Daniel Francisco’s case, as well as some coverage on what seems to be a conspiracy between counties of RICO proportions to usurp our rights.

It took about two months and just like that, after years of fighting, Mark Cheeseman was granted his New Jersey permit to carry. Unlike permits coming out of Ocean County, or Monmouth (including Francisco’s nightmare order), Cheeseman has a permit that’s only restricted to the firearm(s) that he qualified with. His permit did not include any ridiculous and or unconstitutional restrictions where judges were legislating in infringements from the bench.

I asked Cheeseman now that he’s been issued a permit, what’s coming in the future? We did briefly talk about his “assault weapons” ban case challenging NJ’s semi-automatic rifle prohibitions. But, as far as what our perpetual plaintiff has in mind, what he had to say might surprise many.

The one thing I’ve always been about, and the one thing I will always always be about is something called self-governance, which is people taking legislative action to try to save their rights. And we have this one…bill, I’m sorry, I think it’s a 502. Okay, it’s the sensitive place bill. And I’m telling people, “Look, you got to take a good look at this bill, you have to contact your legislators. Now.…not just yours, but contact all of them. I don’t care, email, phone, whatever, letter, and tell them why this is such a piss poor written bill. It’s a horrible bill and what this bill is going to do, it’s going to restrict our permits right back down to us right into the house…we can’t go to a parade, we can’t go to a public gathering, we can’t go to a stadium, we can’t go to dinner or to a restaurant because they’re serving alcohol. Who says I’m gonna get all drunked up. They don’t know that.

New Jersey is going to pass that bill…And once it becomes law, we’re stuck with it until somebody brings up a lawsuit. Lawsuits are wonderful. They are, but the problem with lawsuits is you need a plaintiff, you need a case. You need an attorney. And they take time. Look how far we’re still playing around with the mag ban case. It’s a good case that should have been done two years ago. But it’s not. Why? Because it got involved in the bureaucracy of the courts. They remanded it back down. It should have been decided a month ago when they remanded it back down. What’s gone on with that? I’m not knocking Bach or Schmutter for that case, not at all.

But this is what I’m saying. We need to stop these bills before they become law. So if there’s any direction I’m gonna go,it’s gonna be that direction…You gotta stop this crap before it becomes law. And people say “Okay, we’ll just file a lawsuit.” Yeah, well, it’s okay. If you’re sitting back and watching it. I mean, try filing a lawsuit. Mine took up three and a half years of my life. Literally, and that’s with what, two or three other guys helping me. You know, lawsuits are good. But while you’re getting your lawsuit together and playing around with the courts, you still have to abide by this law. And this law, if it passes, it’s horrible.

Before letting Cheeseman off the hook, I had to ask him what’s his message to everyone? What would he like our three corrupt branches of government to know?

People have more to lose now then before. It’s imperative that we band together and fight every unconstitutional firearm law before our carry permits are useless. That is exactly what Murphy wants.

Many are enjoying different levels of liberty in New Jersey, making it clear that our right is still being treated like a privilege, and the fight is not over. It brings me joy to know that one of New Jersey’s fighters has finally found some relief that he sought. Hearty congratulations to Mark Cheeseman on finally getting his New Jersey permit to carry. Third time’s a charm.

If you’d like to hear my full conversation with Cheeseman, tune in down below or click HERE.

Anti-gun politicians aim for private property gun ban

by Leave a Comment

From Hawaii to New Jersey anti-gun officials are scrambling to adopt sweeping restrictions on the right to carry modeled after New York’s latest infringement on our Second Amendment rights. That includes a de-facto ban on concealed carry on all private property, despite language in the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen that made it clear broad and expansive “sensitive places” don’t comport with a general right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.

On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co we’re taking a look at a couple of the latest indigo-blue locales to adopt New York’s model legislation; Hawaii County and the state of New Jersey. Both places have long been hostile to the right to keep and bear arms, and in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the “good cause” requirement that the jurisdictions have used to deny almost every applicant in years past, the goal is to now restrict where folks can carry as much as possible in addition to continuing to impose as many barriers as possible to all those who want to exercise that right.

Hawaii County council member Aaron Chung says Supreme Court “opened the door” for his exhaustive list of places where concealed carry may soon be banned by not explicitly defining the limits of ‘sensitive places”, but he’s ignoring what Justice Clarence Thomas actually had to say about trying to broadly define most places open to the public (including all private property by default) as off-limits to the exercise of our Second Amendment rights; “expanding the category of ‘sensitive places’ simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of “sensitive places” far too broadly. Respondents’ argument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense.”

Forcing all private property owners to positively affirm that the right to carry is welcomed, rather than demanding that private property owners let visitors know that guns are banned on the premise, is a complete reversal of how we typically treat our constitutional rights. Again quoting Thomas in Bruen:

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.”

We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for selfdefense.

I don’t know of any other right that’s de-facto forbidden on private property unless it’s explicitly authorized in writing by the property owner either. I’ve never once encountered a sign on a business that said “Freedom of Speech Welcome Here”. Then again, I’ve also never run across a law charging people with a felony for unlawfully uttering their opinion in someone else’s home without prior permission as New York’s de-facto ban on concealed carry on private property does.

The glaring constitutional issues with this language isn’t worrisome to anti-gun politicians like New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, however. He’s still hellbent on criminalizing the right to carry in almost all circumstances by adopting the New York model.

Murphy issued an executive order shortly after the court ruling, requiring state agencies to review their statutes and regulations and determine whether they could designate gun-free zones. But so far, no legislation barring guns from public spaces in New Jersey has been introduced.

On Tuesday, Murphy said churches, entertainment venues and even private property “unless you the homeowner explicitly says otherwise” would be designated as gun-free areas under a proposed bill.

We need that now based on the actions of this very right-wing U.S. Supreme Court,” he said.

He said action hasn’t come more quickly for “mostly benign reasons here” — due to other legislative activity and because the Legislature only recently came back into session.

“I don’t want to speak for [the Legislature], but I’m confident this ball will be rolling, and God willing, will get something sooner than later,” he said.

God willing, the courts will have shut down the expansive list of “sensitive places” by the time New Jersey’s legislature gets to work on its own list of gun-free zones. If that doesn’t happen, then the state will be facing another lawsuit just like New York; one I’m confident it will ultimately lose. We still have plenty of challenges ahead of us, but these anti-gun politicians are on the wrong side of history and the Constitution and we aren’t going to rest until we’ve secured our right to keep and bear arms from their authoritarian power grabs.

GVRed NJ 10-round magazine ban punted back down to U.S. District Court

by Leave a Comment

In what should be a semi open and shut case, the matter of New Jersey’s 10 round magazine capacity limitation case has been remanded further down. The Grant, Vacate, Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States on Association New Jersey Rifle, et al v. Attorney General New Jersey, et al. should have been a solid indicator to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on how to rule. Based on prior arguments and the textual lens on how to view things, which was delivered by NYSRPA v. Bruen, the fact that this isn’t settled already is baffling.

The August 25, 2022 Order decided to “kick”, in the “kick or stick scenario”.

This matter having been remanded for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), and upon consideration of the parties’ positions on whether it should in turn be remanded to the District Court for decision in the first instance under the standard announced in Bruen, it is hereby ORDERED that the matter is so remanded. Judge Matey dissents from this order, as described in the attached opinion.

Had the Third Circuit agreed to rule on or render an opinion on the case, there’s a possibility that Garden Staters could have had standard capacity magazines back before year’s end. However, the battle will continue, but we’re at least not starting at square one.

In a recent interview that aired on August 27th, Dan Schmutter, the attorney litigating the case on behalf of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, discussed the news. During Gun for Hire Radio Episode 588 Schmutter went into detail on that case, as well as other pending pieces of litigation, and topics.

Schmutter: So unfortunately, guys, I have to open with some not great news. We just heard from the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In the magazine case, we were hoping to keep the case up at the Court of Appeals and have…and we have asked The Court of Appeals to decide the case on the merits right now. The State was urging them to send it back down to the trial court, the District Court. And unfortunately, we got a two one ruling today that the Third Circuit decided to send it back down to the District Court. And what that does is it just adds another layer of delay. And cost. And so unfortunately, you know, now we’re back at the District Court, we have to do that all over again. We’ll probably end up back at the Court of Appeals, you know, whichever way it goes, somebody’s not gonna be happy. So, you know, it’s unfortunate. We were urging the court to not give in to the state’s request to add more delay and cost. And it was a two, one decision. We got a very nice dissenting opinion from Judge Paul Matey. And he agreed with us that there was no reason to send it back down to the trial court. The usual…it is very typical for when something comes down from the Supreme Court for the Court of Appeals to send it all the way back down to the trial court. But that’s not unusual. It’s actually quite typical. The problem is, in this case, it’s not necessary. And there’s plenty of precedent for not doing that where it’s not necessary or appropriate. And I think we made a very strong case that it’s not. But, you know, the court did with the court didn’t, so we have to live with it. And so we’ll fight the fight down at the District Court. But it’s disappointing. I mean, they really…our feeling was they should have done the right thing here and just kept it, decided it. And, that’s…that’s life.

The dissent that Schmutter brought up is worthy of a read. Some of the crisper arguments made within include:

The State’s follow-on—that it missed the chance to provide historical evidence— fares no better. Round after round, in both the District Court and this Court, history took center stage. The State joined that discussion, arguing unsuccessfully that laws regulating ammunition capacity were longstanding. It strains credibility for New Jersey to now suggest it simply overlooked the focus on history and practice outlined in Heller, repeatedly applied by this Court, and vigorously advocated in this case. That the State decided not to press those points harder, whether as clever strategy or careless slip, is not relevant. We have been far less forgiving of that sort of waiver by far less sophisticated litigants.

With no new law to apply, and the historical record firm, there would seem no work remaining on remand.3 But what is the harm, some might ask? Why the rush? A question rarely raised when other fundamental rights are at issue and answered, again, by the Supreme Court: bearing arms “is not a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.”

…

To avoid further confusion, there simply is no such thing as a “large capacity magazine.” It is a regulatory term created by the State, meaning no more than the maximum amount of ammunition the State has decided may be loaded into any firearm at one time. Sixteen rounds was large yesterday, eleven rounds is large today. The State is welcome to market its policy goals using catchy slogans, but the rights of our Republic are built on sturdier stuff. Stripping away the buzzwords reveals the real question: whether “the Second Amendment’s plain text” protects possession of a firearm magazine, in which case “the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2126. The only avenue around that presumption is proof—presented by the State—that its cap on magazine capacity “is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.”

Remand is unnecessary as both questions have already been answered. First, “[b]ecause magazines feed ammunition into certain guns, and ammunition is necessary for such a gun to function as intended, magazines [fall] within the meaning of the Second Amendment.” N.J. Rifle I, 910 F.3d at 116 (cleaned up). And second, “there is no longstanding history of” magazine capacity regulation. Id. at 116–17. Another four years of proceedings to reach those conclusions again is not needed. Nor can the United States remain “a government of laws . . . if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803). I respectfully dissent.

Judge Matey clearly points out what Schmutter and most of us already know, the State of New Jersey is going to have one heck of a time making the case that it’s okay to arbitrarily limit how much ammunition one is allowed to possess in an ammunition feeding device. The history has not changed since prior arguments, but the context in which thou shall look at a Second Amendment related case has. Is this remand stall tactics or a function of making sure the topic gets its due review? With the court situated in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, once a bastion of freedom and liberty, including New Jersey and Delaware, ironically flanking the Keystone State, we can leave the motives up to the readers to decide. History, text, and tradition would say something different about that region than how it’s currently represented.

The section concerning the magazine capacity limitation case in the Gun for Hire Radio Schmutter interview ended with host Anthony Colandro asking about the process.

Colandro: Now, what do we face at the District Court? Is it one judge? Is it a panel?

Schmutter: Yeah it’s one judge, the original trial judge that heard it the first time. He gets it back, but he gets it back under a new set of rules. He gets it back now under the rules from the Bruen decision. And so you know, in a sense, he’s not starting from scratch because there is a record. It’s not like we’re starting with a blank slate here. There is a record and there is a favorable record. So, in the sense that we think that some of the findings that the court made the first time around are very, very helpful to us. So, you know the court is presumably gonna reach out to us at some point soon to…we’ll probably have a conference. The court will probably want to know how the parties think the case should proceed, and we’ll go from there. And we’ll develop our strategy as to what the right way to move this forward is. And we’ll move it forward. It’s just disappointing that we’re going to be doing this in a court where we really shouldn’t have to be. But you know, as you know, we know, this is a slog, it’s a marathon, and we’re going to continue fighting. I mean, it’s…there’s no question or option we’re gonna keep this moving. And, we like our chances. We think that…we’ve talked about this quite a few times now, about how we think Bruen gives us some very, very good tools. And we’re going to bring those to bear in the District Court on this case. We’ll see what happens. When there’s a development, you’ll certainly…I hope you’ll have me back to talk about it. And we’ll see what. We’ll go from there.

The quick answer to “What does this all mean?” is that matter’s been punted back down, again. This does not mean we’re starting from square one, as Schmutter pointed out. Will NJ’s subjects see 15 rounders again in New Jersey? Will they see them by year’s end? Will inhabitants of the land of 1000 diners see magazines larger than 15 rounds in NJ one day? All great questions, but it’s hard to read how this is going to go down. As far as the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision goes, it’s clear that putting restrictions on standard capacity magazines would be unconstitutional, as such limitations would not have been acceptable at the time of our founding. Whatever outcome may come in the District Court, we can almost bet money on the fact that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will see this one again.

The DC Project gathering of patriots and fundraiser

by Leave a Comment

The DC Project (DCP) is turning out to be one of the most effectual and quickest growing Second Amendment advocacy groups in the United States. What started out as a group to have one representative from each state available to engage with our members of Congress in the District, has morphed into a teal clad civil rights restoration machine. The group now has several healthy state contingents that are doing work on their local state levels. One such group is that of the New Jersey chapter. Led by Theresa Inacker, the NJ chapter has been engaging on so many different levels.

Inacker herself, also a 2A writer, was recently the subject of a piece I wrote earlier this year when her testimony in Trenton in opposition of so-called “gun control” bills showed up missing from the record. Inacker has injected herself into the political atmosphere as one of the DC Project super heroes, and along with her fellow NJ leaders, Sandy Hickerson, the Legislative Coordinator, and Melissa Deeney, the Assistant Director, they have been making sure that they’re seen and heard.

Last year I reported on the first successful state level DC Project fundraiser. An event co-hosted by the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, which had Dick Heller, from Heller v. DC, and olympian Gabby Franco, as keynote speakers. This year I was told that the NJ DC Project gals are having another event, and it’s going to be packed with some great Jersey centered patriots!

Inacker sent me the following information about the where and when of the event:

The DC Project – Women for Gun Rights – New Jersey State Director, Theresa Inacker, announces its Second Annual Fundraiser to be held on Saturday, October 22, 2022, 2pm-6pm at the Cologne Volunteer Fire Department, 2870 Cologne Avenue, Mays Landing, NJ 08330.   Both men and women are welcome to join us.

This fundraising event is going to include soft drinks and hors d’oeuvre. In addition to meeting with some great movers and shakers of the Second Amendment community, attendees are going to include power house 2A attorneys, several plaintiffs in civil rights violation cases, state level politicians, advocates, and more! Inacker noted specifically:

Guests of great interest to the Second Amendment community in New Jersey include, Senator ‘Ed The Trucker’ Durr, Senator Mike Testa, Assemblywoman Claire Swift, Attorney Daniel Schmutter, Esq. of Hartman & Winnicki, P.C., and ANJR&PC’s Strikeforce, Tony Simon of the Second is For Everyone (Diversity Shoots),  Plaintiffs Mark Cheeseman and Jay Factor, historian, and the women of the DC Project New Jersey group.

There’s also a holster demonstration scheduled to be conducted by Kelly Pidgeon. Pidgeon was in attendance at the 2021 NJ fundraiser, was featured in an episode of Cartel Crew last year, along with fellow DCP member Gabby Fanco, and she runs her own firearms training school,  Armed and Feminine. Pidgeon is also on the DCP’s advisory board and serves as the Finance Director.

During the event, there’s going to be a silent auction of a number of different items. Some of the auction items include those restricted to NJFPID holders, and a number of different training certificates for all eligible persons to bid on.

When I talked to Inacker about the upcoming event, she did not want to leave out the sponsors that have donated resources to the fundraising effort.

Sig Sauer, Ruger, CNJFO, GS2AGO, Legacy Indoor Range & Armory, Tactical Training Center, Compass Defense, LLC, WeShoot, TopShot, We Train USA.

This 2022 fundraiser seems like it’s going to be a blast. While this occasion is a social gathering of like minded patriots, attendees are bound to learn something from the many capable speakers that have been invited to speak. For New Jersey, it should be the largest Second Amendment related grassroots fundraising event of the year!

Interested in going? Visit: https://www.dcproject.info/p/new-jersey-fundraiser-ticket 

Not sure if you know enough about the DC Project? Read on about and watch the powerful three part video series that premiered the first half of this year in the articles below:

Chilling new video by the DC Project embodies the importance of being armed
The DC Project aims to set the record straight. Preaches truth narrative.
DC Project momma bears speak out in final video in series

For more information about the DC Project or to offer up your support visit: www.dcproject.info 

Challenger to NJ’s unconstitutional law granted carry permit (kind of).

by Leave a Comment

The New Jersey social media rooms and groups have been buzzing about who’s submitting their paperwork for their permits to carry, who’s getting success, and who seems to be getting stonewalled. We knew going into this that a victory in NYSRPA v. Bruen was not the end of all the work to be done, but in essence the beginning. Hoping that the courts will respect the opinion more than the Heller and McDonald opinions were, litigation is still moving along on several fronts. But what about relief for those that were mid-suit with draconian jurisdictions? Take New Jersey for example, a state where several, at least four that I know of, carry related cases were pending while NYSRPA was making waves. One case in particular had a chance to take a bite at the apple recently, Francisco v. Cooke, a Firearms Policy Coalition supported case.

I had a chance to catch up with Daniel Francisco, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, and he had some, what we thought at the time was promising news. While Francisco’s news was not all the relief he sought, it was something, and then turned out to be just an insult.

Back in March the Francisco case was ordered stayed pending the outcome in NYSRPA v. Bruen. On July 25th Franciso’s representative wrote to the court requesting the stay be lifted. As part of the process for Francisco’s case to continue on, his injury claims were reviewed, and the matter of his carry permit denial was in essence remanded back to the Monmouth County Court for him to be issued his permit to carry.

What’s interesting about this situation is that there has been no reporting that I’ve been made aware of that the Monmouth County Court has issued any post NYSRPA v. Bruen carry permits. There might be some, I’ve just not seen them or heard of them. In New Jersey, a judge gives permits to carry a thumbs up or down after the local or state police process the applications. Plenty of other counties in the state have been issuing out permits, just seems like Monmouth has not. In retrospect, perhaps the county was waiting on getting through Francisco’s permit to carry case first?  They were directed by a higher court to do so. Maybe that backlog of applications will be swiftly taken care of?

The whole matter of an applicant having to be heard by a judge and have a prosecutor argue against them is absurd to begin with. With “justifiable need”, New Jersey’s “good cause” requirement removed from the equation by directive of the Attorney General, the court being involved is even more ridiculous. This case really cements that too.

Francisco said to me that during the August 19th hearing the subject of what firearm he’ll be “allowed” to carry came up. Permits to carry can be restricted to a specific serialized firearm. The prosecutor read the law to the letter to the presiding judge when issuing their recommendation:

NJ 2C:58-4. Permits to carry handguns

1. Scope and duration of authority. Any person who holds a valid permit to carry a handgun issued pursuant to this section shall be authorized to carry a handgun in all parts of this State, except as prohibited by section 2C:39-5e. One permit shall be sufficient for all handguns owned by the holder thereof, but the permit shall apply only to a handgun carried by the actual and legal holder of the permit.

When Francisco was called back to the court for him to receive the judge’s opinion on August 25th, the judge ordered that Francisco was to be issued his permit to carry. The judge did however stipulate that he was to be restricted to carrying only the one firearm he qualified with, even after the prosecutor’s statement to the contrary. While judges do have the ability to exercise such power, should they?

Francisco is the first person that I’ve heard of being “issued” (if we want to call it that) a permit to carry in Monmouth County since the opinion came down from the High Court, and I’m sure there are going to be many more to follow in the upcoming days.

Ironically, when Francisco returned to the court the following day to pick up his permit, it was not ready, and he was told to return to pick it up in future. According to Francisco, on Tuesday August 30th, through the chief of police of his town, he was given his permit to carry along with a court order stipulating restrictions. Should be open and shut, right? Just limiting him to the 92FS he qualified with? That’s not the case.

I chatted with Francisco in a followup call and he told me that the court order greatly limits where he’s allowed to carry his firearm. One of the stipulations was that he cannot carry while in a motor vehicle, and that the firearm must be stored in the vehicle as if it were being transported under exemption of the carry laws. The pistol must be unloaded and locked in the trunk of his car. Strange enough, the order states that explicitly, while NJ law does not require someone to lock their handgun in the trunk of their car if transporting under exemption. The permit actually restricts Francisco more than the exemption does. 

Further, what’s the expectation? Francisco supposed to get out of his car, go to the trunk, pull out his pistol, load it, holster it, and go on his merry way when at his destination? How many over-caffeinated Karens are going to go bananas in the Garden State when they see that?

I did not get a chance to look at the court order in full that Francisco was given but he listed out some of the places that are no-go for him in a video he did about the “issuance” of his permit:

The typical Federal buildings and places already banned by state or federal law.

Courthouses.

Shopping malls, if restricted by that entity.

Private property, if restricted by that business or entity.

Bars and nightclubs, locations with alcohol.

Places where on premises there is cannabis consumption.

While operating or riding as a passenger in a motor vehicle.

He’s also forbidden from open carrying his firearm.

The order further states that he shall carry both his permit to carry and the court order in order to be in compliance with the law when carrying…wherever it is he can carry.

Reading those stipulations, in conjunction with the exact manner he’s supposed to transport his firearm, Francisco’s permit grants him less possession ability than the exemptions of the law.

2C:39-6-g

g. Any weapon being transported under paragraph (2) of subsection b., subsection e., or paragraph (1) or (3) of subsection f. of this section shall be carried unloaded and contained in a closed and fastened case, gunbox, securely tied package, or locked in the trunk of the automobile in which it is being transported, and in the course of travel shall include only deviations as are reasonably necessary under the circumstances.

Would this also restrict him as to where he can go with his firearm since there’s a reasonable deviation clause in play? The point of having a permit to carry is to eliminate all of this nonsense.

I did learn of a similar court order that was allegedly issued out in neighboring Ocean County. The wording seems to be near identical, but understand I did not validate the authenticity of the document. Given the circumstances, and we’re talking Jersey of course, you can decide what you think about that.

Is there a conspiracy going on between the judges of these counties? Is there a conspiracy between the executive branch and the judicial? The terms of where these so-called permit holders may or may not carry their firearms are similar to the terms and conditions that Governor Murphy wants to see put in place. Is this a coming attraction to what our lawmakers intend on passing? A neutered version of a carry law like New York has adopted? My cousin RICO would have something to say about all of this.

Did this judge just give New Jersey citizens a gift on purpose to be used to completely dismantle the permitting system as we know it? Things seem pretty arbitrary and capricious in the court order, and none of it is consistent with NYSRPA v. Bruen. Or was Francisco just told “This is what you get in Jersey when you try to buck the system.”

The suit is not over and done with though, as Francisco’s other injury claims include the challenging of more of the process, and there’s still another plaintiff involved. The fact that the judicial system is involved in an executive matter is being challenged. The stipulations and orders from the court are just ridiculous. Hopefully the courts will be removed from the equation. Francisco is clearly going to challenge the placement of restrictions on permits to carry.

Thanks are in order to Francisco and FPC for his work towards knocking down these awful laws.

If the Francisco case is not the one to help finish tearing down the walls of infringement in the Garden State on permits to carry firearms, there are several other cases still pending which hope to do the same. The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, along with the National Rifle Association and Coalition of New Jersey Firearms Owners, have a challenge to NJ’s statute in Mazahreh v. Platkin, and is considered the forerunner in the fight to dismantle NJ’s law as well as being favored to win. There’s also a Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition supported case, Bennett v. Davis, and there’s a challenge brought on by a New Jersey Second Amendment historian, Jay Factor, who is also challenging New Jersey’s unconstitutional provisions of the law.

For those that are experiencing issues with permitting delays, extra steps to take, or other nonsense from issuing authorities and county courts, reach out to the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs Permitting StrikeForce® and report your issue: [email protected]

For a video of Francisco explaining a portion of his journey, check it out in the embed below or by clicking HERE: