Spartiati

A complaint was brought before western district court of NY challenging the sensitive place restriction in the CCIA specific to places of worship. The district court judge today has issued a TRO. Another good score for the cause with well developed reasoning that will apply to most of the sensitive places in the CCIA of NY as well as the proposed bill A4769. interestingly during discussion today in the appropriations committee assemblyman Danielsen admitted that his intent wasn’t to prevent places of worship (private institutions) from making their own decisions in allowing carry, so I think it is likely that will come out of the next version of the bill along with the requirement of a retention strap for holsters (based on the the debate with the PBA rep). https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Hardaway-Decision-Order-C.pdf

The better question would have been, in conformance with the Supreme Court decision in Bruen, how did you consider whether or not any of these sensitive places have history and tradition in the US. I understand there are places you don't want to see guns but that is not the test the Supreme Court set forth. I don't think she did a particularly good job here.

The beauty of the opinion is it is very clear. Can't use an interest balancing test and can't be subject to discretion period. The state will ultimately have to show how the proposed law was either the same or analogous to another law at the time the 2nd was affirmed. The interest balancing was done when the amendment was ratified. It's as simple as that. If you can't you fail. The Federal judge in the NY case, who is Dem appointed no less, has already demonstrated how this is going to go. While I do think he screwed up on a couple of the items i.e. places of worship for example I do believe when arguments are made in court on 10/25 the fallacy there will be pointed out. This is not going to take years it will be swift.

The following link is the opinion of Judge Suddaby, District Judge for New York (Obama Appointee). This basically what NJ is going to be up against. Because the PTC regs are intertwined with FID, Pistol Purchase Permits and 30 day wait for pistol purchases etc, when this thing is challenged, we should be challenging all of it. There is no historical analogue for any of it. I think NJ Dems are making a very big tactical mistake here. gov.uscourts.nynd.134829.27.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

Simply amazing. Bruin says explicitly the entire island of manhattan can’t be a sensitive place so what does NJ do? They make the entire state of NJ a sensitive place. I don’t think with that list of restrictions there is any place you can actually legally carry. None lol

Which PD?

Same here, received letter notifying prosecutor a week ago and my USPSMO was cashed yesterday.

They are mailing it back to the PD. Only reason these two applicants had to go to court was because there were errors on their application. Only restriction is they can only carry guns qualified with.

Two people on the Union County FB page confirmed approval of permit by the judge. They had court dates today because they didn't complete the application correctly (only reason judge called them in). So Union county is now approving.

Except that the opinion clearly calls out the 6 states that are may issue and that may issue is unconstitutional. NJ must go to Shall Issue. The permitting scheme can stand with the removal of justifiable need.

Favorable only if they seek damages it appears to me. Solicitor General basically shot down petitioners theories of mootness.

This is most certainly true. The 1st is certainly a fine example of that i.e. the message in speech is core and thus can’t be restricted however restrictions time, place, manner etc can survive intermediate. My hope would be they would expound on what is considered “core” to the second amendment and if core strict scrutiny applies. Surely no slam dunk here but given they are holding other cases I think it is reasonable to think they are doing so because they believe the opinion here will impact them thus this will have a broader impact than just transport.

That's what everyone thought about Chicago/IL and guess what they have reasonable shall carry now. If the court ends up giving us strict scrutiny it will be a huge win that will give circuit court little play in ruling on these idiotic laws.

If this will be ruled on narrowly, then why have they been holding the NJ case since May? It hasn’t even been rescheduled for conference. Could it be that it is being held pending results of the NY case? If they rule strict scrutiny must be used they could send NJ back to circuit and say reconsider using result of this case.

My point exactly.

This case in my view will be heard. Will be scheduled once the court comes back in session. NYC’s argument was 2nd doesn’t demand strict scrutiny. Changing the law doesn’t address the issue of how they determine whether or not 2nd amendment laws need to survive strict scrutiny. Notice NJ case is being held sitting there since May. They will hopefully hear this case and set the record straight on scrutiny that needs to be applied, then send NJ case back to circuit to reconsider based on NY decision which will hopefully force strict scrutiny.

Very few decisions are made on petitions at first conference. Most petitions are relisted several times. As an example, the Indiana abortion case was relisted 15 times before today's per curiam decision. The most likely result is it will be relisted for conference next week.

Won’t be heard until next session in the fall.

NY briefing has not been stayed yet. In fact the petitioners have requested that the motion be denied. Would be great if SCOTUS denied the motion and said nice try NY. As for NJ the court will now schedule it for conference. Should be soon. I would think it will go to conference within next couple weeks. Then it’s just a matter of how many conferences it takes for them to make a decision...

Agree it was somewhat obvious but wouldn’t call it cowardly. No reason to allow SCOTUS to review this as the law was stupid to begin with and by allowing people to transport really doesn’t bring on much risk to the public. They know this would have been a lost cause. So it’s a fight not worth taking as SCOTUS will likely finally strike down the use of lower levels of scrutiny.

Smart move from the left..They are working together across the country to try and limit impact to other jurisdictions. Will interesting to see what SCOTUS does here.

Unfortunately the 9th circus will swoop in and present a strained argument for how it is constitutional...

What video? I don’t need to watch a video I read the opinion. The opinion is that the law is not constitutional because it is an impossible burden in the home. It doesn’t say a thing about the fee. Read the opinion. This will do nothing in NJ.

Read the opinion regardless of whether or not it goes to SCOTUS it doesn’t challenge NJ regime except you can’t require in FID in the home which we already have.

That’s not the argument. Has nothing to do with fees. The judge is only saying it is unconstitutional to require the ID to possess in the home. This will not help us.