Jump to content
Downtownv

Murphy wants concealed carry banned in restaurants and more

Recommended Posts

New Jersey governor wants concealed carry banned in restaurants and more

 
By Cam Edwards | Jun 28, 2022 9:30 AM ET
0cb79212-9943-4714-a0ad-ddbaebab0e23-860x475.jpg Chris Pedota/The Record via AP, Pool

Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion in NYSPRA v. Bruen was pretty clear when it came to “may issue” states trying to get around the Court’s ruling by declaring broad swathes of the public sphere “sensitive places” off-limits to concealed carry; it’s not going to work. The majority opinion notes that “sensitive places” cannot broadly encompass most of the places where law-abiding citizens may want to bear arms in self-defense, and instead suggests that these places must be “exceptional” in nature, because we don’t have a history or tradition of “broadly prohibiting the public carry of commonly used firearms for self-defense.” Bans on carrying firearms in courthouses, government buildings, and even polling places may pass constitutional muster, according to Thomas, but again, those places are going to be the exception rather than the rule.

 

Not surprisingly, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy has given Thomas and the rest of the Court the middle finger in his response to the Bruen decision, calling on legislators to pass sweeping new restrictions on where concealed carry holders can lawfully bear arms and utterly ignoring what SCOTUS had to say about “sensitive places”.

The governor wants to expand New Jersey’s gun-free zones to include locations such as hospitals, public transit, bars and restaurants.

Murphy signed an executive order Friday that directs all state departments and agencies to review statutes, rules and regulations to determine where New Jersey can limit firearms. The governor also intends to work with the state Legislature on expanding the number of places where people cannot carry guns.

Places up for consideration include the following, according to Murphy:

  • High-density locations, including stadiums and arenas, amusement parks, bars and restaurants where alcohol is served and public transit.
  • Places with “inherently vulnerable populations,” such as day care and child care facilities, hospitals and other health care centers, long-term care facilities and nursing homes.
  • Locations of First Amendment-protected activities, such as anywhere governmental bodies may meet, polling places, courthouses and police stations and places where demonstrations, protests or licensed gatherings may occur

I suspect the courts might go along with labeling a couple of these places as “sensitive”, including stadiums and amusement parks along with some government buildings, but blanket bans on lawful carrying in restaurants, public transit, and any place where a protest, demonstration, or licensed gathering “may” occur isn’t going to fly. Private property owners are free to declare their businesses gun-free zones if they want, but based on the Bruen decision the government is tightly limited when it comes to labeling spaces in the public sphere “sensitive.”

More here:

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2022/06/28/new-jersey-governor-wants-concealed-carry-banned-in-restaurants-and-more-n59804

 

That is one Hideous bastard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Downtownv said:

Locations of First Amendment-protected activities, such as anywhere governmental bodies may meet, polling places, courthouses and police stations and places where demonstrations, protests or licensed gatherings may occur

I'm a bit hazy, but isn't there precedent for not allowing the government to force a person to choose between one Constitutionally protected right and another? He's trying to say, if you carry, you can't vote or if you vote, you can't carry - choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read the entire article, they spell out that Murphy intends to run for president in the 2024 primary he will get all the  free publicity as being a staunch anti-gun candidate by resisting to supreme Court.

"I stood up to the gun lobby and the NRA"

 

Don't put anything past as weasel!

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, diamondd817 said:

He has 0 chance. Mainstream America doesn't vote for Anti-American Progressive Shitbags from NJ/NY/CA, etc. 

You can bank on that.

Man i would love that dick head to run , an empty refrigerator bow would beat him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OH YES HE IS. Utterly illegal. Temper tantrum safety nazi Murph is ASKING for a national whoop ass major lawsuit. Bring it Murph. The wind is GONE from your sails. And your nazi dictatorship and your armed enforcer cronies Will Submit. YOU WILL SUBMIT TO NATIONAL SUPREME COURT RULINGS PERIOD.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is a lame duck and limp dick with any gun control as his own party is scared of the repercussions they will face in 2023. His guntrol 3.0 turned into -3.0 with the SCOTUS ruling.

 

  • Agree 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Downtownv said:

If you read the entire article, they spell out that Murphy intends to run for president in the 2024 primary he will get all the  free publicity as being a staunch anti-gun candidate by resisting to supreme Court.

 

Who needs publicity?  If Biden can be installed as president Murphy is probably thinking: "Hey, me next".

The hell with what the American people want.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Downtownv said:

Places with “inherently vulnerable populations,” such as day care and child care facilities, hospitals and other health care centers, long-term care facilities and nursing homes.

He didn't care much about long term care facilities and nursing homes when he killed them without a gun.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bklynracer said:

He didn't care much about long term care facilities and nursing homes when he killed them without a gun.

Because only Murphy and the dems decide who dies

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Public transit will not hold up in court.  Public transit is used to travel between places where concealed carry IS allowed and will, therefore, restrict citizens ability to carry legally.  Hospitals and daycare centers would seem to be valid.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be realistic here - there will be place limitations, as it is in many other jurisdictions that have had CCW way longer than NJ - LOL

 

Also, let's focus on just getting the ball rolloing and people with the CCW - and then wporry and fight for locations etc.

 

As well as the reciprocity talk - that is another fight - that will come in time

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote: Evan Nappan Esq.

Justice Thomas wrote the extraordinary majority opinion for the Court. He is by far the greatest modern hero to the Second Amendment. Not only did this decision remove the requirement of “showing need” for a carry permit, but it paves the way to challenge virtually every gun law on the books and any future gun laws that may be passed by the anti-gun rights crowd.

Justice Thomas ruled that, “…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.”

He goes further and points out, “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 self-defense.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, xXxplosive said:

Quote: Evan Nappan Esq.

Yes . . . It opens the path to remove almost all restrictions.  But it didn't remove them, which it could have.  The trouble is that anything passed now and all of the other restrictions will have to be fought out in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, xXxplosive said:

the Status Quo guy.......why things never change here in Jersey.

I was going to ignore this - as it is a pointless discussion - but suffice it to say, I am far from status quo, yet I am a realist as to what can happen, what cannot happen in the short term and what needs to continue to be fought.  I also rely on experts in certain areas that provide guidance and counsel in matters such as this.

Please, *please* share with us your bona fides in Constitutional Law, or even common law that makes a solid case for Constitutional Carry - other than your OMO - or what you believe and want.

 

:popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tom609 said:

Asked on another Board ... "Where can't you carry in your state?"

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/where-cant-you-carry-in-your-state.907335/

 

Murph gonna add sandwich shops to the list?  https://www.yahoo.com/news/too-much-mayo-sandwich-1-023354127.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CAL. .30 M1 said:

I was going to ignore this

Feel free . . . 

This is a public forum.  Take everything said here, every little opinion, as worth exactly what you paid to be here.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100% of school shootings (any type) occur in gun free zones. They are the magnet for deranged criminals to make their move. They are also the poster children for useless gun control laws.

If Murphy and the Democrats try to create a shit ton of gun free zones, then we should remind them they will be responsible for each and every shooting death and injury in locations where they have guaranteed there will be no armed opposition.

And we should do that every time it happens.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, CAL. .30 M1 said:

SC, got it right....  I have no problem with no carry and alcohol consumption....

I will not drink and carry. But don't forget that in Bruen, Thomas cleary stated that one standard for the Constitutionality of regulation is analogy to what was generally allowed/restricted in 1791 and 1868. I don't think that a flat prohibition of alcohol when bearing arms is going to meet that standard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tom609 said:

Asked on another Board ... "Where can't you carry in your state?"

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/where-cant-you-carry-in-your-state.907335/

 

You are aware that there are reputable web sites that speciaize in comparing carry laws and regulations between states,. are you not? While those sites are not always 100% up to date, and anyone can make a mistake, I would think that the information there would be more accurate and reliable than what is posted to a forum by people who cannot held to account. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, EdF said:

Public transit will not hold up in court.  Public transit is used to travel between places where concealed carry IS allowed and will, therefore, restrict citizens ability to carry legally.  Hospitals and daycare centers would seem to be valid.  

Thomas explicitly mentions not allowing carry in goverment buildings and schools as analogous to historical practice and permissible. I agree that hospitals probably fall under the same umbrella. Regarding public transit, Thomas also  clearly stated that broadly restricted carry based on the presence of a large number/high density of people, and/or the availabilty of police for protection, is not permissible. He did not specifically mention mass transit, but imo that is a very short leap...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Mr.Stu said:

I'm a bit hazy, but isn't there precedent for not allowing the government to force a person to choose between one Constitutionally protected right and another? He's trying to say, if you carry, you can't vote or if you vote, you can't carry - choose.

I don't see why it would require precedent in any narrow sense, because I would hope it wouldn't get that far.  in the Bill of Rights, those rights are individually enumerated, and individually enforceable. For example, no attempt to force someone to choose between exercising freedom of speech and protection from government seizing property without due process is allowable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...