Jump to content

Spartiati

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    434

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

  • Feedback

    83%

Posts posted by Spartiati

  2. Posted

    44 minutes ago, Fawkesguy said:

    Today was the first time I had an opportunity to hear these lawyers.  In the past, I had read comments which characterized Cai as a bumbling moron.  What I heard from her today was clear and focused.  She was very well-prepared.  I totally disagree with her arguments and premise, but she is no dummy.  Jensen was an absolute mess.  Schmutter was just ok - he was sort of all over the place, and unfocused.  Judge Bumb even asked him a couple of times why he was arguing with her.  It was a rough performance.  I have a feeling he was off his game due to having to clean up the mess that Jensen left for him.  

    Both parties must submit further documentation to her by the 27th.  What happens after that, I have no clue, but today's hearing left me a bit shaken.  

    Couldn’t agree more.  Cai was much better prepared today.  I think her argument that just because there wasn’t a law on the books doesn’t mean the founders wouldn’t have prohibited regulation of the kind gave Blumb some pause, but in the end SCOTUS was clear we have to go by what was there not by what could have been.

    Jensen was a disaster. Schmutter ok but did’t hammer down on the point that all of the states historical references are off base.

    The last attorney who presented for the legislature was also a disaster, but he was successful in getting Bumb to go down the balancing of interests which is a no no.  I think he was even surprised Bumb went there.

    Will be interesting to see how this comes out.  Was really surprised how few question or challenges Bumb had for the State, she kind of just let them talk.  Hoping she just has her mind made up but from her order where she chastised the state for not answering her questions in their brief was surprised there wasn’t more heat on the state, not that there wasn’t any hut I didn’t get the sense the State was knocked of balance.  Jensen and Scmutter had a lot of awkward pauses when pressed by Bumb.

     

    • Like 1

  3. Posted

    13 hours ago, g17owner said:

    There is a justice in charge of considering emergency appeals and other matters assigned to each circuit. When the NY sensitive places case was sent up to the Supreme Court to ask for emergency action, Sonia Sotomayor was in charge of the 2nd Circuit and she declined to hear the case. 

    Alito has 3rd Circuit.

    Sotomayor didn't decline to hear the case, she chose to bring it to all 9 justices who then declined to intervene because the second circuit hadn't, and still hasn't, issued an opinion on the matter.

    The 3rd circuit would first have to issue an opinion with a stay before Alito and the court would intervene.

    • Informative 2

  4. Posted

    Alito would be the justice at the SCOTUS that would review an appeal to a 3rd circuit order.  We aren’t there yet.  
     

    Basically Bumb is saying you agreed to the tine table, if you appeal I’m putting my pencil down.  On appeal to the 3rd by the state my guess is the 3rd will say they are not touching it until Bumb rules on the PI which is based on timing the State already agreed to.

  5. Posted

    17 hours ago, Mr.Stu said:

    No it wasn't. The retaining strap requirement was removed, but the holster remains.

     

    2C:58-4 Permits to carry handguns.
       2C:58-4. a. 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 a holster concealed on their person in all parts of this State, except as prohibited by subsection e. of N.J.S.2C:39-5 and section 7 of P.L.2022, c.131 (C.2C:58-4.6). 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 and, except as otherwise provided in subsection b. of section 6 of P.L.2022, c.131 (C.2C:58-4.5), shall not be construed to authorize a holder to carry a handgun openly, provided that a brief, incidental exposure of a handgun while transferring it to or from a holster or due to the shifting of the person's body position or clothing shall be deemed a de minimis infraction within the contemplation of N.J.S.2C:2-11.

    Right I was referring to the strap in my mind :)

    • Like 1

  6. Posted

    1 hour ago, njJoniGuy said:

    Reading the latest doc filed in theJudge Bumb case(s), interesting point made by Dan Schmutter on page 61 referring to "carry" as used in Bruen, about 'pocket (or non-holster) carry' : (my bold and underline)

    C. Section 7(b) – The ban on carrying in vehicles violates the Second Amendment. In Bruen, the state of New York allowed Mr. “Koch to ‘carry to and from work’” only, and the Supreme Court held that was not enough to satisfy the Second Amendment. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2125. New Jersey’s law not only prohibits carriage both on private and public property (thus reinventing the offending act from Bruen as the sum of its parts, instead of the whole), it places even more severe restrictions on carriage in a vehicle than were present in that case. Defendants are as wrong on this front as it is on all others. 1. To begin, Defendants conflate the concepts of “carry,” “transport” and “storage.” State Br. at 62–63. In so doing, Defendants argue that they are just regulating the manner of carry, i.e., how one carries a firearm in a vehicle. Not so. The Second Amendment preserved the right to “public carry for self-defense,” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2156, to “wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584 (cleaned up). It is a core aspect of Heller that a law requiring a citizen to “render [her firearm] inoperable” does not satisfy the Second Amendment’s protections. Heller, 554 U.S. at 628. Since section 7(b), as Defendants admit, requires citizens to carry their firearms in their vehicles “unloaded” and in a “securely fastened case” or “in the trunk,” see Op. 62, it plainly violates Heller and Bruen. Defendants’ attempt to defend this law as a “manner restriction” falls woefully short. A manner restriction refers to how the person may or may not carry the firearm, Case 1:22-cv-07464-RMB-AMD Document 97 Filed 02/24/23 Page 61 of 85 PageID: 3257 50 i.e., “in a manner likely to terrorize others,” or whether the arm is carried openly or concealed, Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2150 (“States could lawfully eliminate one kind of public carry—concealed carry—so long as they left open the option to carry openly.”). That is not what Defendants are doing here—rather, it is imposing an “inoperab[ility]” requirement foreclosed by Heller.

     

    I'm an 'aging' (as many of us are!) non-attorney, but I don't remember seeing the holster requirement of the carry-kill law being challenged in any of the case already brought.

    "Bueller??   Bueller??"

    The holster requirement was removed from the bill.

  9. Posted

    2 hours ago, Displaced Texan said:

    Maybe, but I tend to agree with Peel’s thoughts….that the NJAG thinks this law isn’t defendable in court, and the legislators  have lost confidence in him. 
     

    This should be fun. 
     

     

    Couldn’t agree more.  There’s only so much people can take.  The AG office knows this is not defendable and are tired of looking like morons in court.  So instead the state will take unlimited tax payer money hire outside counsel who are trained to say anything for money.

    • Agree 1

  10. Posted

    2 hours ago, DAHL said:

    I don't believe that a court date has been set for judge Bumb to rule on the combined cases of Koons vs Reynolds and Siegel vs Platkin but I'll guess that it will later this month. Did anyone see a date? 

    Next is TRO for the other sensitive areas contained in Siegel and was just filed with Bumb, may or may not need another hearing for that. After a ruling is made on that a date will be set for injunction hearing.

  15. Posted

    5 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

    Totally makes sense to me.

    (non-political take)

    Punt to the judge who has already done the work and issued an opinion on the majority of the issues.

    (political take)

    Punt to the judge who is apparently willing to stick their neck out on an unpopular issue, and get it off your future resume.

     

    I agree, an opinion has already been written, why recreate.  Also I don't know if folks are familiar with Williams she is not left wing.  Her jurisprudence is quite centered.  In fact Dem's really didn't want her on the bench. 

    • Like 1

  18. Posted

    9 minutes ago, doublepar said:

    It's a full-court vote. Not surprised that they denied overturning the 2nd Circuit. Alito said it all. It is to respect the lower court's procedure and the purview of their own colleague Sotomayor, who extended the courtesy of presenting the petition to the full court in the first place instead of ruling by her own. But it doesn't say anything negative about the merits of the original complaint. On the contrary, I can almost smell that Alito and Thomas are goading the plaintiffs to bring it on full speed. And there is also a subtle warning to the 2nd Circuit not to drag it out. It feels like Alito and Thomas almost are hoping something really bad coming out of the 2nd Circuit, so they can have another chance to smack NYS and ilk squarely on the head.

    22A557 Antonyuk v. Nigrelli (01/11/2023) (supremecourt.gov) 

    Agree, SCOTUS not going to go out on a limb just yet when the 2nd hasn't even heard arguments yet for the injunction.  The message is clear from Alito though the 2nd needs to move their asses.

  20. Posted

    44 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

    I think today is the due date for NY to explain to Sotomayor why the 2nd Circuit's stay on the TRO should stand. I'm not sure if there is a hearing for that.

    I think the plaintiff's response to the NJ AG's brief from Friday for the SAF/FPC/CNJFO/NJ2AS TRO request is also due today.

    NJ submitted their response on 12/30.  The hearing for Injunction is scheduled for Jan 5th.

    • Informative 1

  21. Posted

    2 hours ago, CMJeepster said:

    And it will.  I only posted that because it's the road that we'll be going down next.

    This is the Second Circuit Appeals court which is based in NY.  That Stayed the Injunction but not fully.  NY can’t enforce churches and Airports, read the opinion.  This is also temporary until the Second Circuit hear’s oral argument which will occur within 2 months….

  22. Posted

    3 hours ago, Walkinguf61 said:

    New York’s law that is similar to this bill just got smacked down with a ruling by a federal judge in the western district .

    Is the 2nd circuit going to overrule this, probably but that’s three judges calling this law unconstitutional. 
    That puts pressure on the 2nd. 
     

    Folks to be clear there is no official opinion from the district court in NY yet.  The plaintiff’s first sought a TRO, which is temporary until they could get injunctive relief.  The judge needed to review the merits to determine if there was  greater than 50% chance the Plaintiff’s would prevail.  Suddaby did an analysis and determined that the answer was yes and granted the TRO.  The 2nd circuit then stayed the TRO, and was supposed to have a three judge panel review to see if they agreed on the Suddaby’s conclusion.  In the mean time Plaintiff’s went back to the district court for the injunction which was also granted and then stayed by the 2nd circuit.  We are now waiting for a three judge panel to decide on the injunction.  If they come back with a stay Plaintiff’s will likely appeal that to SCOTUS, if the injunction is granted Defendants will appeal to SCOTUS.  All of this this is just for the injunction.  The case hasn’t even been argued before the district court.  Once all that is worked out, to determine if the law can be enforced by NY why the case moves through the system, the case will go back to the District court for oral arguments and an actual opinion will be issued.  This has a long road ahead.

     

  23. Posted

    1 hour ago, Fawkesguy said:

    He sure did, and the 2nd circuit ignored those tools and swatted down the TRO that would have stopped NY's flaming pile of poo law from going into effect until it was settled in the courts.  So again, I fail to see how this is good for anyone.  Seems like a disaster to me, but maybe I'm misreading the whole thing.  :icon_e_confused:

    It’s a temporary stay until the 3 judge panel in the 2nd circuit reviews the motion.  They will then come back and either really stay the injunction, at which point defendants will appeal that to SCOTUS, or they will deny the motion for stay.  All this maneuvering is just to determine whether NY can enforce the law while it moves through the legal system.  Once the decision is determined on stay the case will then be scheduled to actually be heard at the district court.

  24. Posted

    57 minutes ago, g17owner said:

    More important than the fees are the penalties for ANY violation. Almost everything is a felony offense. In other states, misdemeanor or summons.

    With a felony (crime in NJ), you lose your gun rights and your guns, your right to vote, can certainly affect your job or prospects of getting a job. It can affect custodial hearings and things of that nature for the people unfortunate enough to have those kinds of problems. I mean, it can have long-lasting and irreversible effects. 

    This can happen for accidental violations of the law, non-violent, non-dangerous mistakes. It ain't right. 

    The Supreme Court would likely say this violates the 8th amendment and has a "chilling effect" on the right. People would be right to be scared to practice their 2A.

    Honestly, I hope and pray ANJPRC is looking to challenge the entire framework of NJ firearm law which imbedded in this bill not just the sensitive place, for instance FID, Pistol Permits (All that is required in majority of states is NICS for these two), 30 day rule, excessive fees, excessive penalties, excessive delays as a result of all this non-sense, there is absolutely no history or tradition of it.  This is a real opportunity to get rid of all of this in one lawsuit.  I just hope they make sure they have lined up the right Plaintiff's so that there is Standing on all these violations of the constitution.

×
×
  • Create New...