NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

[BigGuns 262]

3 hours ago, Displaced Texan said:

Because Thomas already gave you ALL the tools you need with the Bruen decision. 
 

Didn't Thomas also give the states the ability to issue sensitive areas too?

[g17owner 137]

5 minutes ago, BigGuns said:

Didn't Thomas also give the states the ability to issue sensitive areas too?

Sensitive areas that coincide with the text, history, and tradition of the 2A. He specifically said you can't just arbitrarily go calling everything a sensitive place. There needs to be a historic analogue.

[RadioGunner 218]

Thomas also specifically said that you can’t make the entire island of Manhattan a sensitive place. so that means you can’t make all of NJ or NY a sensitive place either, and especially not my vehicle. 

[Displaced Texan 11,731]

7 minutes ago, g17owner said:

Sensitive areas that coincide with the text, history, and tradition of the 2A. He specifically said you can't just arbitrarily go calling everything a sensitive place. There needs to be a historic analogue.

This. You beat me to it. 
 

 

2 minutes ago, RadioGunner said:

Thomas also specifically said that you can’t make the entire island of Manhattan a sensitive place. so that means you can’t make all of NJ or NY a sensitive place either, and especially not my vehicle. 

And this too, 

[Displaced Texan 11,731]

15 minutes ago, BigGuns said:

Didn't Thomas also give the states the ability to issue sensitive areas too?

And if you haven’t done so, you should read the Bruen decision on your own. 
 

Lots of great info there. 

[Fawkesguy 57]

4 hours ago, Displaced Texan said:

Because Thomas already gave you ALL the tools you need with the Bruen decision. 
 

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. 

[Walkinguf61 40]

1 hour ago, BigGuns said:

Didn't Thomas also give the states the ability to issue sensitive areas too?

Thomas told them the criteria and limitations to making sensitive areas. The NY law and this proposed law clearly violate that . 
The good news is Alito is the justice that covers NJ. He can issue a TRO if the 3rd circuit doesn’t . Sotomeyer covers NY so I don’t think the NY law will get one before the full case is heard . 

[Spartiati 63]

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. 

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.

[BigGuns 262]

2 hours ago, g17owner said:

Sensitive areas that coincide with the text, history, and tradition of the 2A. He specifically said you can't just arbitrarily go calling everything a sensitive place. There needs to be a historic analogue.

Right, but he agreed that it could pertain to historic areas like schools, court houses, etc. What happened to the 2A clause "shall not be infringed". Here is what he said:

"Although we have no occasion to comprehensively define  “sensitive places” in this case, we do think respondents err in their attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law. But expanding the category of “sensitive places” simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of “sensitive places” far too broadly. The Court’s answer is that judges will simply have to employ “analogical reasoning.” Ante, at 19–20. But, as I explained above, the Court does not provide clear guidance on how to apply such reasoning. "

So, he opened the window a little bit, and NY and NJ stormed through it, like an army, with their sensitive lists.

I think Thomas should have laid out SPECIFICALLY where the sensitive areas were (or none at all), versus leaving it a bit vague. By leaving it grey, or not going back to the original "shall not be infringed", is why we find ourselves in this situation now, and why the overreach by these certain governors.

Thomas should have known, based on current events, that certain states don't honor the constitution, so he should have written his opinion in first grade, clear language, that couldn't be twisted or abused.

Any chance he can go back and add a modification or correction to his opinion to help Murphy and Hochul understand better?

[CMJeepster 2,777]

11 hours ago, BigGuns said:

Any chance he can go back and add a modification or correction to his opinion to help Murphy and Hochul understand better?

They won't care.

[Walkinguf61 40]

12 hours ago, BigGuns said:

Right, but he agreed that it could pertain to historic areas like schools, court houses, etc. What happened to the 2A clause "shall not be infringed". Here is what he said:

"Although we have no occasion to comprehensively define  “sensitive places” in this case, we do think respondents err in their attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law. But expanding the category of “sensitive places” simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of “sensitive places” far too broadly. The Court’s answer is that judges will simply have to employ “analogical reasoning.” Ante, at 19–20. But, as I explained above, the Court does not provide clear guidance on how to apply such reasoning. "

So, he opened the window a little bit, and NY and NJ stormed through it, like an army, with their sensitive lists.

I think Thomas should have laid out SPECIFICALLY where the sensitive areas were (or none at all), versus leaving it a bit vague. By leaving it grey, or not going back to the original "shall not be infringed", is why we find ourselves in this situation now, and why the overreach by these certain governors.

Thomas should have known, based on current events, that certain states don't honor the constitution, so he should have written his opinion in first grade, clear language, that couldn't be twisted or abused.

Any chance he can go back and add a modification or correction to his opinion to help Murphy and Hochul understand better?

You know what an easy test for judges could be—- was it a sensitive place before Bruen ? If not, then it’s a no go.

[M1152 713]

MONDAY: CARRY-KILLER BILL 

MOVING IN FULL ASSEMBLY

  Please Keep Contacting Lawmakers!

            

November 17, 2022. On Monday, November 21, legislation killing right to carry (A4769) is scheduled to move in the full Assembly voting session that begins at 2:00 p.m. The legislation is a thinly-veiled attempt to blatantly circumvent the U.S. Supreme Court’s ground-breaking Bruen decision and to utterly destroy right to carry in the Garden State. 

https://www.anjrpc.org/page/URGENTCarryKillerBillMovingMonday

[Tunaman 548]

Make sure everyone emails these assholes to express your displeasure of this bill.

[BigGuns 262]

1 hour ago, Walkinguf61 said:

You know what an easy test for judges could be—- was it a sensitive place before Bruen ? If not, then it’s a no go.

Yeah, but even then, that list was arbitrary and didn't make sense.

Schools: why not parks, playgrounds, amusement parks or any other place kids meet? Also, where have large mass shootings taken place? In schools, because they are gun free. Is anyone thinking? Shouldn't kids be defended too?

Court Houses: Why not other office buildings? or Malls? or Stadiums? or other locations people group together?

Who decided that only schools, gov buildings and court houses should be sensitive areas?

It should either you can carry, or you can't. Politicians deciding on where you can defend yourself is a joke when they have armed guards protecting them. Unfortunately, gun owners keep going along with these unconstitutional laws, versus going back to the intention of the 2A "shall not be infringed". I either want the whole pie, or none at all. Others are happy just getting a slice of it, and that mindset has to end.

[1LtCAP 4,262]

on one hand, i wanna give em places like schools and courts....but on the other hand, WHY?? if i trust you with a gun, then i trust you with a gun. it's that simple.  ccw holders ain't the ones shooting up places now are they?

[Fred2 367]

25 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

on one hand, i wanna give em places like schools and courts....but on the other hand, WHY?? if i trust you with a gun, then i trust you with a gun. it's that simple.  ccw holders ain't the ones shooting up places now are they?

 

Screw that, I want High School rifle teams to make a come back.

[1LtCAP 4,262]

22 minutes ago, Fred2 said:

 

Screw that, I want High School rifle teams to make a come back.

excellent idea

[CMJeepster 2,777]

1 hour ago, 1LtCAP said:

on one hand, i wanna give em places like schools and courts....but on the other hand, WHY?? if i trust you with a gun, then i trust you with a gun. it's that simple.  ccw holders ain't the ones shooting up places now are they?

That's just it.  "They" don't trust "us."

[Scorpio64 5,147]

19 minutes ago, CMJeepster said:

That's just it.  "They" don't trust "us."

In my opinion, "they" don't trust themselves because they know how F'd up they are, and are projecting anxieties about themselves on everyone else.  Basically they are saying they are scum bags so everyone else must be too.

[1LtCAP 4,262]

19 minutes ago, Scorpio64 said:

In my opinion, "they" don't trust themselves because they know how F'd up they are, and are projecting anxieties about themselves on everyone else.  Basically they are saying they are scum bags so everyone else must be too.

B.I.N.G.O

[1LtCAP 4,262]

53 minutes ago, CMJeepster said:

That's just it.  "They" don't trust "us."

doesn't matter if they do or not. what we need to so, is to figure a way to educate the uneducated masses about firearms, so that hopefully they'll realize the bs lines that are being thrown at them. if we can get it to that point, they won't be able to get ANY support for these constitutionally illegal laws outside of the special interest groups

[CMJeepster 2,777]

28 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

the special interest groups

Again, you nailed it.  They want the Bloomburg / MDA money, so they're going to toe the line.

[10X 3,296]

7 hours ago, Tunaman said:

Make sure everyone emails these assholes to express your displeasure of this bill.

I've emailed the entire assembly.   The ANJRPC email, and website, makes it easy!  

Carpet bomb them with email!!!

[Displaced Texan 11,731]

Drown them in emails and phone calls. 
 

 

Hit them HARD. 

[g17owner 137]

Guys, some inside information direct from a New Jersey assemblyman that strongly opposes A4769. 

The upcoming vote on Monday Nov 21 was a last minute surprise.  Due to the short notice, attendance by assembly people is expected to be smaller than usual. 

They need 41 votes to pass the bill. I am told that if only 41 or 42 people actually show up to vote, the bill may not pass because some people don't want their vote to be the one that is responsible for the bill passing.

Additionally, there are four specified democrats that we are possibly able to sway. Two of them are in mixed red/blue districts, meaning not hardcore dem district and the threat to their seats during the next election could be enough to persuade them to vote no. Two others are known to be reasonable minded people and logical persuasion might work.

• Assemblyman Paul D. Moriarty - 856-232-6700 and 856-401-3073

• Assemblywoman Gabriela M. Mosquera - 856-232-6700 and 856-401-3073

• Assemblyman Wayne P. DeAngelo - 609-631-7501

• Assemblyman Roy Freiman - 908-829-4191

The assemblyman tells us that non-stop calls coming into the office (rather than emails) is paid attention to. If you keep their phones ringing off the hook we have the ability to influence their vote. Just be polite when doing so.
He also tells us that, while we cannot testify, we can register our opposition and attend the vote on Monday. He says a show of force can also influence the vote of those that are on the fence.

I am planning to head to Trenton on Monday. What can you do today? Keep calling these 4 assembly people, even if they don't represent your district. Let them know you oppose A4769! 

Just remember, its hard to convince someone to change their mind through harsh words and attacks. Make your opposition known like a pro!

Today is the last business day before the vote. If you are going to call these offices, it needs to be today!

[kc17 622]

Don't know who to call or email for your district? Find out here: https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/legislative-roster

Or go here to get a list of every single email address at once: https://www.anjrpc.org/page/CombinedLegEmailAddr

 

 

[M1152 713]

In addition to the two post above

https://www.ferrignoforfreedom.org/iam2anj

 

update: for some reason the contact list didn't work on my email client so used the one here https://www.anjrpc.org/page/NJAsssembly

[LiveWire 14]

12 hours ago, kc17 said:

Don't know who to call or email for your district? Find out here: https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/legislative-roster

Or go here to get a list of every single email address at once: https://www.anjrpc.org/page/CombinedLegEmailAddr

 

 

Every time I email all my assemblymen/legislators/senators  Comcast/Xfinity locks my email account and forces me to change my password because my account has been compromised (so they say).  I even tried not doing a mass email, but send to a few at a time. Calling them on the phone (Comcast) is like talking to a rock. Anyone else have this problem?

[M1152 713]

23 minutes ago, LiveWire said:

Every time I email all my assemblymen/legislators/senators  Comcast/Xfinity locks my email account and forces me to change my password because my account has been compromised (so they say).  I even tried not doing a mass email, but send to a few at a time. Calling them on the phone (Comcast) is like talking to a rock. Anyone else have this problem?

That sucks, probably somethings built-in to their system that is triggered when sending to multiple addresses assuming its a spammer. ISP first level tech support reps are nothing more than script readers. If its anymore than reboot your router/modem they’re lost. Not that it matters but what is it failing with pop3, imap or webmail? I’m not a google fan but maybe setup a junk email account with gmail, ms outlook, AOL or other free account.

[kc17 622]

53 minutes ago, LiveWire said:

Every time I email all my assemblymen/legislators/senators  Comcast/Xfinity locks my email account and forces me to change my password because my account has been compromised (so they say).  I even tried not doing a mass email, but send to a few at a time. Calling them on the phone (Comcast) is like talking to a rock. Anyone else have this problem?

 

30 minutes ago, M1152 said:

That sucks, probably somethings built-in to their system that is triggered when sending to multiple addresses assuming its a spammer. ISP first level tech support reps are nothing more than script readers. If its anymore than reboot your router/modem they’re lost. Not that it matters but what is it failing with pop3, imap or webmail? I’m not a google fan but maybe setup a junk email account with gmail, ms outlook, AOL or other free account.

 

Don't have Comcast, but I agree, it's probably blocking you based on the number of addressees. I use gmail and do not have a problem. Alternatively, you could try to break it up into multiple emails.