Jump to content
Downtownv

Murphy wants concealed carry banned in restaurants and more

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, CMJeepster said:

"The state is setting new requirements for getting a handgun permit, Hochul said, including mandating 15 hours of in-person fire range training. The legislature will also enact new rules around firearm storage in homes and vehicles, she said."

 

15 hours... wow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, H2oVento said:

"The state is setting new requirements for getting a handgun permit, Hochul said, including mandating 15 hours of in-person fire range training. The legislature will also enact new rules around firearm storage in homes and vehicles, she said."

 

15 hours... wow

I hope they try the storage thing as that was already addressed in Heller.  NJ tried it, but someone actually paid attention to the SCOTUS ruling and they dropped it...  For now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, H2oVento said:

The are going to make it so expensive the avg joe can't afford. 

Who is going to make it that expensive?  The State?  Sure - but who is also to blame for that?

 

Would it not be great, if that was enacted and that the 'trainers' charged a 'reasonable' amount for 15hrs of instruction - to get folks certified?

 

Now I am not saying it has to be pro-bono - but does it have to be hyper inflated?  Just something to ponder.

 

Say your time is worth $ 85.00 per hour - that is $ 1,275.00 total - now if you can make the in-person training a small group say six people - that's around 212.50 - not cheap by a long shot - but would you then charge $ 85.00 per hour per person?

 

It will be interesting to see what the 'trainers' come up with as well.

Share this post


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

KEEP SUING JERSEY INFINITEM.

MURPH MUST COMPLY WITH THE US CONSTITUTION, PERIOD.

WE DONT CARE ABOUT MURPH'S FEELINGS.

I care about Murph's feelings only to the extent that I kinda enjoy it when they get hurt.

But the problem with infinite lawsuits is that they require infinite money.  Gun owners and the associations that represent us have to chose their battles carefully given their limited funds.  The state is counting on this.

The state, on the other hand, has almost infinite money for this nonsense, since they take it from all of us...

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit hazy about this.

NJ has and issued CCW for many years (we all know the story with that). Why all of a sudden, since the SCOTUS ruling is it so dangerous and important it keep people with CCW's out of these places? If it's so important now, why wasn't it important the day before SCOTUS made their opinion public?

This is a rhetorical question. Just like, " NJ has and issued CCW for many years (we all know the story with that). We pretty much know that when only "the special people" had CCW's in NJ it didn't matter. Now that (maybe) average law abiding citizens will have access to CCW's, NJ has to find a way to only allow them to carry in the middle of an isolated field with no one within 5 miles.

I wonder how many times this will have to go back to court before NJ is forced into true compliance with this ruling.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Who is going to make it that expensive?  The State?  Sure - but who is also to blame for that?

Actually I'd like to see a case go to SCOUTS arguing that if the state requires training in order to exercise a right, they must provide that training at no cost. They  shouldn't be able to attach any cost to the process required to exercise a constitutional right. 

In the case of vehicle inspection, you can go to a private inspection station, and pay to have your vehicle inspection done (typically meaning you failed at the state so your paying to get a passed sticker), Or go to a state inspection and the state fulfills the requirement at no cost.

Only difference being in the case of vehicle inspection, they are negating a cost associated with a privilege vs they will not negate the cost in the same way to exercise a right.

As I said at the beginning, I'd like to see this in court. 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, 10X said:

I care about Murph's feelings only to the extent that I kinda enjoy it when they get hurt.

But the problem with infinite lawsuits is that they require infinite money.  Gun owners and the associations that represent us have to chose their battles carefully given their limited funds.  The state is counting on this.

The state, on the other hand, has almost infinite money for this nonsense, since they take it from all of us...

NJ wants me to write a sizable check every two years for the rest of time. I can keep donating. It'll probably be cheaper long term. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, 10X said:

But the problem with infinite lawsuits is that they require infinite money.

I'm thinking/hoping that when these infinite law suits, if not handled properly by lower courts and are clearly about laws trying to circumvent SCOTUS Just Cause ruling and make it to SCOTUS, those justices will grow warry of this scheme and make rulings so broadly as to preemptively negate those circumventing arguments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, fslater said:

I'm thinking/hoping that when these infinite law suits, if not handled properly by lower courts and are clearly about laws trying to circumvent SCOTUS Just Cause ruling and make it to SCOTUS, those justices will grow warry of this scheme and make rulings so broadly as to preemptively negate those circumventing arguments

Just look at Heller, it was narrow and cautious. Then Look at McDonald. It was really fairly broad but reserved. Bruen looks radical by comparison. They poke that bear at their own risk. 

If they were really smart, they'd use NY, NJ, or CA to float a minor case and try to lose it. Then drop gun control from their platform and say not our fault, blame SCOTUS, we are just following the law. The number of gun grabbers who are single issue is small. The number of gun owners who aren't thrilled with the rest of the GOP platform is not. 

But they won't. 

So if they were almost as smart, they would abandon everything that was clearly problematic and work with what they have. 

On the FU to gun owners side of that would be trying to build registries. As much as we hate them, they are hard to argue against constitutionally in a world where the line is drawn in a place that allows permitting schemes. 

In the realm of a law that might actually be effective at reducing crime a bit, would be universal background checks. Not the bullshit of trying to ban person to person sales, but revising NICS in a manner that it can be used for person to person sales. Make it so you can effectively run a background check on the rando who wants to buy your gun without said rando having to hand over enough information to subject themselves to identity theft. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, 45Doll said:

That news reporter asked the perfect question, and Hochul choked for a second. i don't need any data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2022 at 10:38 AM, H2oVento said:

The are going to make it so expensive the avg joe can't afford. 

The application fee is $50 to the state. What instructors charge is arbitrary, and I have signed up to qualify next week for $90, instructor is State Police certified. So cost is the same as about 6-7 boxes of 9mm. Reasonable, I'd say, we will need to continue solid opposition to some of the useless restrictions  Murphy and his ilk propose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, raz-0 said:

would be universal background checks. Not the bullshit of trying to ban person to person sales, but revising NICS in a manner that it can be used for person to person sales. Make it so you can effectively run a background check on the rando who wants to buy your gun without said rando having to hand over enough information to subject themselves to identity theft. 

 

The republicans proposed this years ago.  Democrats shot it down because they wanted their version of UBC (though FFL). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

suppose he says that they can't be carried in repair shops? guess what? that is OUR decision and ours alone. i'm happy to have people other than hoodrats come in with their firearm.

Guns Allowed Sign 12x18

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

he can want all he wants. but......it's gonna get smacked down. it's up to the business owner.

Well 2 things come to mind here:

#1  A Sign saying "No Guns Allowed" is like screaming "We submit to theft, assault or worse." Just like a school-Defenseless

#2 You will cut off a percentage of potential customers/business. I believe Starbucks for example, converted to "no Firearms permitted"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try this on for size.

So let's say there's 10,000 CC permit holders in NJ. They fan out in their local area to all the large (or any other size store) and ask for permission, in writing, to conceal carry in their store(s) for the express purpose of self-defense against criminal conduct. Walmart, Home Depot, Shoprite, Stop 'n Shop, Kohl's, etc. etc.

The results are published. Stores responding yes, you're welcome to do that, are on record. And on we go.

Stores responding no you can't defend yourself in our stores thereby assume the responsibility for your safety. They had the chance to put that responsibility on their customers, and refused. Then, if any shootings occur inside their store(s), they're sued for not protecting the victims they prevented from protecting themselves.

I'm sure the actual documents would need some verbal/legal wordsmithing, but you get the idea.

If you don't put the question to them, their culpability is ambiguous. Which of course is what Murphy/Hochul/et al are counting on.

Share this post


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

Well 2 things come to mind here:

#1  A Sign saying "No Guns Allowed" is like screaming "We submit to theft, assault or worse." Just like a school-Defenseless

 

Also, an easy way for customers to sort out lefty businesses from the freedom loving. :coffee:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asbury Park Press 7/2/22

Supreme Court: Many gun cases deserve new look

Justices: Lower courts should apply new guidance to decisions

ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court said Thursday that gun cases involving restrictions in Hawaii, California, New Jersey and Maryland deserve a new look following its major decision in a gun case last week.

In light of last week’s ruling – which said that Americans have a right to carry a gun outside the home – lower courts should take another look at several cases that had been awaiting action by the high court, the court said. Those cases include ones about high-capacity magazines, an assault weapons ban and a state law that limits who can carry a gun outside the home.

The justices, in a 6-3 decision, last week struck down a New York law that required people to show 'proper cause,' a specific need to carry a gun, if they wanted to carry a gun in public. Half a dozen states have similar laws that were called into question by the ruling.

In the New York case, the court’s conservative majority gave lower courts new guidance about how to evaluate gun restrictions. The justices rejected a two-step approach appeals courts had previously used as having one step too many. They said courts assessing modern firearms regulations should just ask whether they are 'consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.'

Sending other gun cases back to lower courts gives them the opportunity to apply that new guidance.

One of the cases the justices sent back to a lower court Thursday involved a Hawaii statute similar to New York’s. In that case, a panel of 11 judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in 2021 that the right to 'keep and bear arms' in the Constitution’s Second Amendment 'does not guarantee an unfettered, general right to openly carry arms in public for individual self-defense.' But the high court said in its latest gun case that the Constitution protects 'an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.' A lower court will now have to revisit the Hawaii ruling.

The high court also told federal appeals courts to revisit cases involving laws in California and New Jersey that limit the number of bullets a gun magazine can hold. A 2018 New Jersey law limits most gun owners to magazines that hold up to 10 rounds of ammunition instead of the 15-round limit in place since 1990. A lower court upheld the law.

California law also bans magazines holding more than 10 bullets. A panel of 11 judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 last year to uphold California’s ban.

The justices also sent back for further review a case from Maryland that challenged the state’s 2013 ban on 45 kinds of assault weapons. The high court had in 2017 turned away a previous challenge to the law.

More Liberal Tears coming!

 

Cry BABY MURPHY.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this might be childish of me? but know what? i'm almost happier that this is happening on philthy's watch than i am that it's finally happening. because he keeps saying "not on my watch" type bs.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

this might be childish of me? but know what? i'm almost happier that this is happening on philthy's watch than i am that it's finally happening. because he keeps saying "not on my watch" type bs.

Savoring the taste of victory is sweet!

This like a rain Dance right on Murphy hideous face!

Gov Bucky Beaver.jpg

Murphy cover boy.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks. You MUST understand. That the jersey legislature, judicial and Murph. Are FAR OUT Leftists by any of the National, normal standards. (86% of the USA is 2A CCW compliant and rising.)

This Means:

That jersey and especially Murph. Will utterly defy, to the CORE, by his own personal decree and based on his own personal 'feelings.' ANY AND ALL movement on 2A Rights, CCW, mag ban, and Supremacy of the Text, History and Tradition of the 2A issue. They will and have already, (illegally) blocked the High Court's Rulings. His highness is showing his True Colors of statist radicalism. Not Rocket Science here. Murph and the Gang, has already made it abundantly clear, their most extreme of extremist insurrection intentions to defy the SCOTUS. 

THE TRUE REASON Murph is against all this 2A stuff... It is NOT about """"public safety"""". The CRATS KNOW that as you have more people finally exercising their 2A Protected Codified Rights. These people of NJ will, **NO LONGER BEGIN TO VOTE DEMOCRAT.** They utterly know this and THIS is EXACTLY what is keeping them UP at night. They will LOSE over a century of their stranglehold on power and cronyism.  

NJ MUST OBEY THE LAW OBEY THE SCOTUS, PERIOD!

 

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...