EngineerJet

There are two parts that ban open carry, one in section 3 and one in section 6. 6 isn't effective for 6 months but section 3 is effective now. So my take is no.

This is such an optimistic time for us gun owners. Its not over yet but for once we have the momentum and the law on our side. I have to say, I've been seeing some infighting lately and it is doing absolutely nothing but stroking internet egos. This is far from over, but there is great work being done on our behalf. No one ever thought carry would come to NJ or NY, and you know what, if everyone had that defeatist mentality, then no one would have taken the torch to bring the fight to court. All this naysaying does nothing but demoralize and does not help the cause. So while its your freedom of speech to always point out the worst case scenario, you are doing nothing to support and motivate. Being aware of negative outcomes is one thing, but constantly being told we will fail is something else. If that is you, I'm sure the community would rather you sit in a corner and let better men take up the fight to restore rights that you insisted wouldn't happen but will get to enjoy nonetheless if successful. Let's keep it up. Donate when you can. Take a friend to the range.

Not a lawyer... But williams consolidating into Koons means it's Judge Bumbs to decide, how can she rescind her TRO if it was never hers to rescind? I could be wrong.

That's where I disagree to an extent. Not many people think deep down to the underlying principle of the gun laws. We see possible infringement and overreach, setting groundwork for further infringements and tyranny. The average citizen sees, gun bad, government take gun away, that mean government good. It's very simplistic and based on faulty logic that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of how ignorant it is, but that it reality.

They can and will. You don't think for one second that when we finally win, they won't say it's due to the extremist right supreme court that laid the foundation for this?

They know it'll get struck down. But they want to be seen playing lip service and that way they can go to their constituents and say, we did what you wanted! It's the evil right wing courts that are defying us and putting your lives in danger.

The ones who drafted the bill read the response. Wether or not every person who voted for it read it is irrelevant as they probably rely on the drafters to have read it. I'm very aware people who vote for bills don't always read but that's not the point of my post. The point is that they know it's bullshit and have to defend it no matter what. People read the transcript and say how can NJ be so stupid. I see a lawyer who's playing the court game and making the best case she can because it's her job. It's unfortunate she was out in a position to defend such a bad law, but she knew that when she took the job.

I have a different take. I believe they clearly read Bruen as they have to be able to defend anything we throw at them. However, I genuinely believe they are playing the game of misinterpretation on purpose. Listening to the TRO hearing, anyone with 2 brain cells can tell that the vehicle restrictions does not pass the sniff test. It is also clear that the counsel representing NJ is NOT stupid and very well educated. She is doing her job and defending her client to the best of her ability. That is why she cannot concede ANY ground because the moment she's caught saying anything that undermines the law in question, she lost. So instead she'll say anything to tip toe around the issue and changing the topic when strategically beneficial. Amongst her friends she'll probably say "This new law makes no sense and clearly bans virtually all places, but I'll argue anyway that it follows Bruen, by taking any any snippets in the decision that support my argument while ignoring the rest. They are playing the game. As long as they dont admit they know its unconstitutional, they can just claim they thought it was within they're lane and theyll take the slap on the wrist.

That is an interesting argument. Here is where I disagree. 2A refers to keep AND bear. So in this analogy with the car, it would be like saying, keep AND drive. It would be a far reach to argue that the 2A ONLY applies to bearing arms on your own property. Though present day that argument is moot since SCOTUS was very explicit that we have a right that extends beyond the home. What are you refering to for the people who move to NJ? That they should go through the same process as us who already live here?

I know th is wont change the mind of those who are deeply rooted in their beliefs but I will say my peace and maybe itll make sense to those who have never considered this point of view. I do not agree and will not support mandated training. Follow me on this logic. 2A at its heart is for defense from tyranny (and thus self preservation aka self defense) Tyranny from federal, state, local, it doesnt matter. If it is local tyranny you appeal up the chain of command, and ultimately if even the highest levels of government is still oppressive, 2A is a doomsday prevision. Now to claim that your right to own a gun is contingent on you take training... and this training is mandated by the very government that the 2A was written to safeguard against, is incompatible with the heart of 2A. Now I love training, i recommend and encourage training. But telling me that I cannot own a gun, until I satisfy the whims of the government, which the 2A was put in place to put in check, created a system where they can make the training so cumbersome that very little people can/will get approved. Does ANY of this sound even a tad familiar? Yet there are people who will still push mandatory training, like NJ will never take advantage of that...

As a christian, I'll even appeal to the non-religious. You have certain rights that belong to you for existing. Those rights are not granted by your fellow man, because what man gives, he can take away. So there must be a higher authority that man in his corrupt nature, cannot ratify.

I'm inclined to agree. guns do nothing to the heart of man. But a riveting speech can motivate society to do unspeakable horrors. Hitler would agree.

The amount of infighting only benefits the anti-gunners. Everyone is a legal scholar behind the keyboard but have probably never made an argument in court. Neither have I. What I do know if that shaking your fist and saying I have a right means absolutely nothing if you don't play the game. The game being fighting for those rights either at the ballot box or the courts, and having them affirmed. Now predictably, someone will read that and say I don't need anyone to affirm what right I know I have. Unfortunately that is NOT reality. Case in point, try carrying a gun openly while screaming its my right and see how far you get. There is a system in play and we must work within that system to get what we want.

According to new law, there is no more open carry.

Imagine if Murphy lost, which he almost did.

I'm new to bows and I'm looking for a range where I can sight in 40-60 yards. Where does everyone go?

Exactly, Cancel culture is telling everyone not to shop there. People can do what they want.

People accuse me of cancel culture for saying I will never buy from them again. But what If I posed a scenario? Let's say Hitler came into your establishment (with no power, just a civilian now). No one would blink twice if you kicked him out. Now this is an extreme example and I am not comparing the severity of Hitler to any politician, but the principle still stands. He stands for something that goes against every fiber of our freedom loving soul, I dont blame people for refusing to do business with an establishment that does business with him.

I'm friends with someone who works there. This is confirmed.

I'm not saying anyone has a duty to protect anyone else. I can only speak to my own ideals. It is established that police have no duty to protect. As a society, when our bonds to each other are strong, then the social fabric is strong. That is why the cliche is smaller towns are more likely to help their fellow man then big dense cities. I am not telling anyone what they should do in the circumstance of an active shooter and no cops are around. What I know is if my family is at a mall and I'm not there, I damn sure hope a good guy with a gun makes an attempt to save my family if they are in direct danger. Anyone in the same situation would presumably want the same. Is there the possibility they hit the wrong person? Sure. But who here, would actually choose the alternative of "Id rather my family die than risk a good guy with a gun hitting them by accident"? Maybe its the Marine in me talking, but if I'm the only one around that can help. I don't know if I can walk away. I wouldn't judge anyone for choosing differently (unless it is literally their job... looking at you Uvalde)

I already told my wife, my priority is the safety of our family. If there is a way to get my family to safety I'm taking it. If my family is safe and shots are still going off, with no cops in sight? She's accepted that I might not be able to stand by.

That's why I qualified with the top 3 guns I shoot the most, lol

I get what youre saying. It may be the least of your concerns...or it might not be. We will never be in full control of the circumstances of defending our lives. But when it comes to qualifications, that is one thing that you DO have control over. And consider you will be judged by a jury of likely ignorant peers. All it might take is for the prosecutor to drill the point "The undisputed facts are that the defendant shot and killed a man with a gun he did not qualify with". Sure to you and me it sounds silly but it could be the one thing that convinces a juror. So again, for me, why do I want to help the prosecutor with "this will be the least of my worries" mentality?

Part of carrying is being prepared and making the good decisions. There is what is right and there is real life. In a perfect world they should coincide. Many defense attorneys agree, if the gun you used is the one you qualified with it is one less thing for the prosecutor to use against you. I get it, "It shouldnt matter! There is nothing in the law that says I can't use another gun" and I wholeheartedly agree. But in the spirit of covering your bases and looking out for all angles of attack while going about your life, the same could be said about legally, are you making the prosecutors job easier or harder to convince a jury (that is ignorant of firearms) of your guilt? If you want to be that test case, no one is stopping you, and you could walk away unscathed, if its worth the risk to you, then live your life, carry how you like. So for me, I will only carry what I qualified with. Because after seeing the Rittenhouse trial and seeing the bullshit the prosecutor will fling at you, itll be one less thing to worry about. It also helps I qualified with three guns, so I have options, lol

On my street there has been one attempted car theft and one successful. The attempt left prints on the car and it came back in the system, turns out it was a teen.