NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

[Mr.Stu 1,916]

2 minutes ago, Spartiati said:

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

Yes. FPC/SAF/CNJFO/NJ2AS have to submit a written reply to that response today.

[revenger 473]

Anthony's latest podcast had a good description and timeline.

[Mr.Stu 1,916]

2 minutes ago, revenger said:

Anthony's latest podcast had a good description and timeline.

Except he said that the 2nd Circuit had to explain to Sotomayor why the stay on the NY TROs should stand today, but in fact it is NY State that has to explain, not the Court.

Close, but no cigar for @gunforhire today 

(am I banned, now?)

[gunforhire 826]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

Except he said that the 2nd Circuit had to explain to Sotomayor why the stay on the NY TROs should stand today, but in fact it is NY State that has to explain, not the Court.

Close, but no cigar for @gunforhire today 

(am I banned, now?)

Double banned. LOL 

[Spartiati 63]

10 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

Yes. FPC/SAF/CNJFO/NJ2AS have to submit a written reply to that response today.

Ah yes, will be interesting reading to see that today.

[Mike77 169]

19 minutes ago, revenger said:

Anthony's latest podcast had a good description and timeline.

Listened to it last night as I dozed off.....loved the reference as a waiter....."I can tell you what you can't order"

16 minutes ago, gunforhire said:

Double banned. LOL 

Another Applebee's waiter for ya!!!

[Scorpio64 5,147]

19 minutes ago, RadioGunner said:

A common strategic tactic is to save it until the last minute to not allow your opponent time to respond. 

If the strategy is common, then a competent opposing counsel should have anticipated this, and prepared an appropriate response in advance.

[RadioGunner 218]

1 hour ago, Scorpio64 said:

If the strategy is common, then a competent opposing counsel should have anticipated this, and prepared an appropriate response in advance.

Yes they may have but they really can’t do anything unless they see specifically what’s in it. 

[Mr.Stu 1,916]

Jenson's reply has dropped and it's a doozey! He's going straight for the injunction rather than the TRO now.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.29.0.pdf

[CMJeepster 2,777]

10 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

Jenson's reply has dropped and it's a doozey! He's going straight for the injunction rather then the TRO now.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.29.0.pdf

"So, according to Defendants, it is insufficient for the Plaintiffs to assert that they would resume carrying guns in libraries, museums, restaurants that serve alcohol, entertainment venues and on private property, as they did before. Rather, a Plaintiff like Jeff Muller would need to assert that he would (for example) stop for gas at the Wawa located at 1 NJ-15 in Augusta, New Jersey at 1:55 p.m. on January 10, 2023, then visit the main branch of the Sussex County Library located at 125 Morris Turnpike in Newtown, New Jersey from 2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m., and then stop for a burger at the Double S Smokehouse, a restaurant that serves alcohol and is located at Skylands Stadium at 94 Championship Place in Augusta, New Jersey from 2:40 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.—and that he would follow his normal practice of carrying a handgun while doing so."

   

[CMJeepster 2,777]

"Fourth, the State asserts a broad power to ban carrying firearms on anything labeled government property. This proves too much—governments own sidewalks and streets too, but they cannot simply ban firearms there."

   

[Mike77 169]

24 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

Jenson's reply has dropped and it's a doozey! He's going straight for the injunction rather then the TRO now.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.29.0.pdf

Wow!

[124gr9mm 859]

I'm not a lawyer, but IMO that response was WELL done...

[Mike77 169]

4 minutes ago, 124gr9mm said:

I'm not a lawyer, but IMO that response was WELL done...

Convinced me. Bottom line.....it states NJ went against what Breun said, without any evidence.....should be enough. Guilty til proven innocent, as NJ would say?

[b47356 21]

5 hours ago, RadioGunner said:

Don’t expect it until this afternoon. A common strategic tactic is to save it until the last minute to not allow your opponent time to respond. 

Err.. everything is on a schedule.

The you can't "run out the clock" by filing late - you have to file on time, and the other side has X amount of time to respond.

There are plenty of issues with what the state did with the carry killer bill, but can we not attack someone for following a schedule?

 

[Mr.Stu 1,916]

1 minute ago, b47356 said:

Err.. everything is on a schedule.

The you can't "run out the clock" by filing late - you have to file on time, and the other side has X amount of time to respond.

There are plenty of issues with what the state did with the carry killer bill, but can we not attack someone for following a schedule?

 

I think what @RadioGunner meant was that filings have to be submitted by a due date. That means on or before that date. It is common practice to wait until as late on the the due date as possible so as not to give the opposition any more time than you have to to digest and react to your filing. There are no bonus points for filing 3 days early.

[b47356 21]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

I think what @RadioGunner meant was that filings have to be submitted by a due date. That means on or before that date. It is common practice to wait until as late on the the due date as possible so as not to give the opposition any more time than you have to to digest and react to your filing. There are no bonus points for filing 3 days early.

Unless someone in here was that person in school who handed in their homework early, I'm not sure why anyone would complain about a schedule. Of course you hand it in when it is due... and not before..

[RadioGunner 218]

7 minutes ago, b47356 said:

Err.. everything is on a schedule.

The you can't "run out the clock" by filing late - you have to file on time, and the other side has X amount of time to respond.

There are plenty of issues with what the state did with the carry killer bill, but can we not attack someone for following a schedule?

 

You have to file on a date. Common practice is to drop the filing in PACER late in the day giving your opponent less or no time to strategize. 

[Mr.Stu 1,916]

19 minutes ago, b47356 said:

Unless someone in here was that person in school who handed in their homework early, I'm not sure why anyone would complain about a schedule. Of course you hand it in when it is due... and not before..

In contrast, out here in the working world, getting stuff done ahead of schedule and being ready to do more leads to better bonuses and job prospects.

[Displaced Texan 11,731]

3 hours ago, Mr.Stu said:

Jenson's reply has dropped and it's a doozey! He's going straight for the injunction rather than the TRO now.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.29.0.pdf

I am not a lawyer, but I think that is a legal ‘bitch slap’ to the State of NJ. 

[Mike77 169]

I felt like this was a good listen even though its clickie type bait.  https://youtu.be/TfORuHy_ERw

 

 

 

 

[COD 16]

Here's the brief opposing the motion to consolidate in the FPC Cheeseman case:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.378098/gov.uscourts.njd.378098.140.0.pdf

 

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

1 hour ago, Mike77 said:

I felt like this was a good listen even though its clickie type bait.  https://youtu.be/TfORuHy_ERw

That's an interesting analysis... and I hope it's true. I'm not sure the author even went far enough though. Although Roberts and the other SC justices would understandably feel grateful to the armed agents that protect them... I can't help but wonder if they also harbor some level of distrust in the system that was supposed to offer them vigorous protection, but arguably FAILED. After all, under Federal law, those protestors in front of justices' houses after the Roe vs. Wade leak could (and should!) have been removed IMO for trying to intimidate the justices... yet, they weren't! Some of those protestors were even advertising that they knew where Amy Coney-Barrett's kids attended school. If that's not intimidation, what is? And to have someone fly cross country with a gun and show up in front of Kavanaugh's house with essentially a murder kit in his car? Out of control! I was astounded day after day at how little was being done to protect them. If I, a casual observer, felt that way - can you imagine how the justices themselves felt? It wouldn't surprise me in the least if some SC justices are "newly armed". If (and it's still a big "if") Roberts has a newfound respect for the 2A, I would argue it's NOT because he's feeling charitable towards us normies, but more likely because he himself (and his fellow justices) were left feeling vulnerable and in need of self-defense (in addition to protection from agents). 

[dlr618 1]

Can anyone briefly distill this topic? What does this mean for us who have a ptc right now? 

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

1 hour ago, dlr618 said:

Can anyone briefly distill this topic? What does this mean for us who have a ptc right now? 

It's hard to be brief because the set of "gotchas" under the new law is so long.

You should really read this whole page:

https://www.evannappen.com/how-to-get-your-nj-carry-permit/

 

[njJoniGuy 2,131]

11 hours ago, Mike77 said:

I felt like this was a good listen even though its clickie type bait.  https://youtu.be/TfORuHy_ERw

Worth the listen, guys!

All I can say afterwards is "I sure hope so!"

[Grima Squeakersen 482]

***DELETED***

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

In case anyone has a free morning tomorrow:

Koon v. Reynolds:

"Tomorrow`s (January 5, 2023) 11:00 a.m. hearing on the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is converted to an in-person hearing. The hearing will take place in Courtroom 3D, Mitchell H. Cohen Courthouse. So Ordered by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 1/4/23. (Bumb, Renee) (Entered: 01/04/2023)"

Mitchell H. Cohen Building
& U.S. Courthouse
4th & Cooper Streets
Camden, NJ 08101
856-757-5021

[Mike77 169]

Im so confused by all these cases all at the same time... Which is for which .. when etc.

 

What is koon for? So they are for a TRO, while the one giving ppwrk yesterday is skipping a TRO? 

[JackDaWack 2,895]

15 minutes ago, Mike77 said:

Im so confused by all these cases all at the same time... Which is for which .. when etc.

 

What is koon for? So they are for a TRO, while the one giving ppwrk yesterday is skipping a TRO? 

It says TRO is converted to a hearing... thats good news. A TRO I beleive would be a quick decision based on the written arguments until a hearing takes place where oral arguments are made.