Not sure what you are getting at,
SAF is bringing this case to the NJ courts AFTER the D.C. vs. Heller decision.
D.C. vs. Heller ... would not affect the state’s ability to impose reasonable restrictions on ownership and possession.
SAF is now trying to litigate the gray area of the Heller decision. They picked the state with the most (or 2nd most) restrictive gun ownership laws in the country, and a state without a state Constitution equivalent to the US 2nd Amendment.
THis whole case is a gray area, and the reason why most gun owners in NJ were not pleased with the Heller decision, it does nothing to bring relief to New Jerseyites living under the yoke of arbitrary and capricious permitting decisions by nanny state career bureaucrats in law enforcement and judiciary here. Worse, a single bad decision in the 3rd District and New Jerseyites could lose more gun ownership privileges than gained by an overly broad definition of “state’s ability to impose reasonable restrictions on ownership and possession.”
I really hope SAF has an airtight case and top notch lawyers because they will be facing a hostile court, hostile judges, hostile local, county and state government lawyers, hostile media, and hostile law enforcement officers’ and chiefs’ unions.
On top of that, your RKBA rights in Penna are on the line here... if SAF loses, the next RKBA prosecution or lawsuit in Penna could rule stare decisis in ‘SAF vs NJ’ for the 3rd district.
Judge Filko... I know personally has a rule of blanket prohibition of gun permits unless the applicant is connected to the Passaic County Democrat Party or the Sheriff’s Dept.
Re: On top of that, your RKBA rights in Penna are on the line here
Doubt that.
PA Constitution
Section 21 . Right to Bear Arms
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
The Handgun Permit Laws are 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.
Heller and McDonald, without question, permit law abiding citizens to own firearms and keep them in their homes. Whether it applies to carry or not has yet to be argued in the court of law.
How, then, does a may-issue state with firearm registration, that is, you CANNOT own a firearm for self protection in the home without the government's PERMISSION, permissible under McDonald and Heller's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment?
When I read McDonald, I interpreted it as the end of the duo of may-issue with forced registration requiring a permit to purchase, such is the case in New Jersey, New York, and I think three other states.
To me, this case is a no brainer under a fair judge, so long as plaintiffs have proper standing. That, of course, is not a given, but once elevated high enough (SCOTUS, if it makes it), it should go our way.