NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

[Mr.Stu 1,916]

23 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? 

Koons is the narrow case trying to block the sensitive areas part of A4769. They initially asked for a TRO, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction. Since the exchange of briefs for the TRO, they are now asking that the temporary injunction is granted. This is being run by SAF/FPC/CNJFO/NJ2AS with Jensen as the lead attorney and is being heard by Judge Renee Marie Bumb.

Siegel is the much broader challenge to A4769 and other statutes and regulations. This case challenges almost every part of A4769. e.g. A4769 expressly declared parks as sensitive areas, which is duplicative of the Admin Code for State Parks, so if A4769 is unconstitutional in that respect, so is the pre-existing Admin Code. This is being run by ANJRPC with Schmutter as the lead attorney and is being heard by Judge Karen M. Williams.

Both these cases were initially filed on the day A4769 was signed by the Governor. Koons is on a slightly faster track, but there is currently only a couple of days difference.

NJ had to file their response to Koons last Friday, 12/30/22 and Jensen had to file his reply by yesterday, 1/3/23. The hearing in Federal District Court is tomorrow, 1/5/23 at 11am. The Koons case can be followed here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66677437/koons-v-reynolds/

NJ had to file their response to Siegel last Friday, 12/30/22 as well, but the reply from Schmutter is not due until today, 1/4/23. The hearing is scheduled for 1/9/23. The Siegel case can be tracked here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66677439/siegel-v-platkin/

Parallel to this, NJ has requested that both cases are consolidated. The decision on the consolidation is expected 1/17/23 or soon after.

[Mike77 169]

8 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

Koons is the narrow case trying to block the sensitive areas part of A4769. They initially asked for a TRO, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction. Since the exchange of briefs for the TRO, they are now asking that the temporary injunction is granted. This is being run by SAF/FPC/CNJFO/NJ2AS with Jensen as the lead attorney and is being heard by Judge Renee Marie Bumb.

Siegel is the much broader challenge to A4769 and other statutes and regulations. This case challenges almost every part of A4769. e.g. A4769 expressly declared parks as sensitive areas, which is duplicative of the Admin Code for State Parks, so if A4769 is unconstitutional in that respect, so is the pre-existing Admin Code. This is being run by ANJRPC with Schmutter as the lead attorney and is being heard by Judge Karen M. Williams.

Both these cases were initially filed on the day A4769 was signed by the Governor. Koons is on a slightly faster track, but there is currently only a couple of days difference.

NJ had to file their response to Koons last Friday, 12/30/22 and Jensen had to file his reply by yesterday, 1/3/23. The hearing in Federal District Court is tomorrow, 1/5/23 at 11am. The Koons case can be followed here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66677437/koons-v-reynolds/

NJ had to file their response to Siegel last Friday, 12/30/22 as well, but the reply from Schmutter is not due until today, 1/4/23. The hearing is scheduled for 1/9/23. The Siegel case can be tracked here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66677439/siegel-v-platkin/

Parallel to this, NJ has requested that both cases are consolidated. The decision on the consolidation is expected 1/17/23 or soon after.

Thank you for that. With the names, dates, links flying around, some of us cant keep track of what is what. I had to go back to the link from yesterday to see that was Koons. 

Im hoping to have my PTC in next weeks. CamdenCo courts still working on last week of November paperwork. You would think it would just fly thru now that they shouldn't even have it anymore. 

[CMJeepster 2,777]

Supreme Court asked to intervene in legal fight over New York gun law (msn.com)

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

1 hour ago, JackDaWack said:

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. 

Wrong.  It's still a hearing on a TRO.  The "conversion" was from an online zoom hearing to an in-person hearing.

[Mr.Stu 1,916]

The reply by Schmutter in the Siegel case is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506026/gov.uscourts.njd.506026.17.0.pdf

It is another well reasoned and easily understood piece of writing from Dan - I encourage everyone to read it.

[Mike77 169]

Is anyone going today? If so, please keep us posted! 

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

There's several people from NJ Firearms Owners Syndicate FB group attending, but no reports yet.  Cellphones have to be powered off in the court room.

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

Only very general comments out of those who attended hearing:

 

Quote

Hearing is over. The judge plans to render a decision as expeditiously as possible.

I‘m no lawyer, but I feel really good about how today went. The judge seemed to see right through the State’s BS and made Kai and the legislators look extremely ridiculous at times.

Quote

Judge had great questions and the state was fumbling

Quote

Kai was representing the state, there were other attorneys representing I think Atlantic and Sussex counties, but they didn’t do anything

I think by "Kai" they mean I think they mean Angela Cai from the NJ AG's office who appeared for the state of NJ.

 

Quote

The judge had one good question. If I am against guns, and I post a sign that says I do not allow guns, wouldn’t that give criminals the opportunity to enter into my home, knowing that I am against guns or there’s a possibility that I do not have of gun? In other words, why would I broadcast to criminals that there’s a possibility i don’t have a gun in my personal property?

Quote

She also asked if the UPS guy drops off a package and has a gun, will he be prosecuted as a criminal? Should he leave the package on the road? Also, under de minimus, we are still considered criminals according to their new law, therefore di minimus does not exclude us by mistaking a of bringing a gun to someone’s home or personal property.

 

[kc17 622]

Anyone know if there will be transcripts made public?

 

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

2 minutes ago, kc17 said:

Anyone know if there will be transcripts made public?

 

Yes, but they likely won't be free.  Hopefully someone with PACER access will make them available to us.

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

Quote

it seemed her biggest concern was the idiocy of having to “brandish” it while removing from the trunk and placing back in the trunk when returning. She went through a whole hypothetical scenario of someone having to do this repeatedly when making multiple stops in a trip, and also approaching private property to get consent to carry and going back to your vehicle to get your firearm. Cai had some bs answer to this that I don’t think the judge was buying

Quote

she also questioned having “reassemble or reload” in the event of a threat

 

[Tesla2014 1]

41 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

 

43 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

The judge had one good question. If I am against guns, and I post a sign that says I do not allow guns, wouldn’t that give criminals the opportunity to enter into my home, knowing that I am against guns or there’s a possibility that I do not have of gun? In other words, why would I broadcast to criminals that there’s a possibility i don’t have a gun in my personal property?

the judge’s argument was that it should be presumed concealed carry is legal on private property and people should be required to post signs if they don’t allow it on their property

 

 

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

NJ2AS update post-hearing:

 

[Moutinas 59]

1 hour ago, DirtyDigz said:

NJ2AS update post-hearing:

 

Good news

 

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

All hearsay so far.  I'm super curious to read a transcript, assuming we get one before the judge issues a decision.

[Displaced Texan 11,731]

It sounds encouraging, anxious to see the decision! 

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

Got a rough "transcript" (more like an observer's notes) from one of the attendees to the hearing today.  To save "screen space" I'll put it in another post and just post a link here.
 

https://www.njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/105412-koons-v-reynolds-010523-hearing-notes/

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

3 hours ago, Displaced Texan said:

It sounds encouraging, anxious to see the decision! 

I, for one, appreciate that a certain "displaced and now re-placed Texan" is still rootin' for the rest of us left back here in Joisey! 

[GRIZ 3,369]

On 12/23/2022 at 8:56 AM, samiam said:

As I have stated before, some way must be found to make the legislators, administration officials, and any other NJ employees who have taken an oath to defend the Consitutions of the US and of NJ, personally liable for the ongoing blatant efforts to rescind our Constitutional rights, whether that involves filing lawsuits against some of these wannabe tyrants personally, or filing criminal complaints against them based on the idea that NJ Statute Title 42 includes intential violations of those oaths in the definition of perjury. Until at least a few of these assclowns are made to pay for their arrogant stupidity by sacrificing their own property or freedom, not a damned thing will change in this state. And no, I am not at all willing to absolve any NJ employee who has taken such an oath freedom from such scrutiny on the basis that the employee was "just doing his or her job."  If your job requires intentionally infringing the indisputable rights of others, and you are not wlling to be held fully accountable for that infringement, resign!

Okay, that's not going to happen.  Legislators, judges, the Governor, and others have qualified immunity.

Before you fluff this off, if certain offices didn't have immunity who would take those jobs.

[Displaced Texan 11,731]

41 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

Okay, that's not going to happen.  Legislators, judges, the Governor, and others have qualified immunity.

Before you fluff this off, if certain offices didn't have immunity who would take those jobs.

If they are not going to uphold their oath of office to protect and defend the constitution of the United States they shouldn’t be writing laws, or for that matter, hold office in the first place. 

[xXxplosive 823]

It takes a certain kind of person to want a job like this.......no one that I associate with or want to know.

[Displaced Texan 11,731]

I’m not saying that the system isn’t corrupt, I’m just saying instead of bitching about it, you should get involved in the process and work to change it. Bitching and crying doesn’t work. 
Never has and never will. 

My stepmom grew up in a small east Texas town. Lived there for most of her life. Her father was the town doctor, and she owned a very successful business in town. They had a lot of family roots and friends there, and are well respected in the community. 
Many years ago, she decided she wanted to give back to the community, and ran for, and was elected to 2 terms as the mayor. 

She told us how appalled she was at the level of corruption in the city government. The town council abused their positions to further their own interests, and line their pockets. It was unbelievable, and it greatly saddened her to find out how fucked up the town she was born and raised in really was. 
She did quite a bit to expose and eliminate a lot of it in her two terms as mayor, and brought about many beneficial changes to the community. 
When her two terms were up, she and my dad retired, and moved to Georgetown. Her successor did well in that town for two more terms, but his successor is, unfortunately, a turd. 

My point is, the system CAN be changed. It takes effort, and perseverance. if you are not willing to get involved, and make changes to your local area, then you have no stance to complain about what’s wrong with your locale. 
Even though I’ve only lived in Georgetown for a little over a year, I’ve taken the time, even in my crazy schedule, to get to know the mayor, and several members of the city council. Many of them I like and will support in the future. A few I don’t, and have discussed my intention to support another candidate…and WHY I am doing so. 
I also take the time to engage potential candidates for the next elections. I express my views on what’s right, and WRONG with the community, and discuss how to bring about real changes. I also listen to the views of others, and their ideas for the future of our little community. 

Government starts at the local level and works its way up. 
Do your part to be involved in the solution, otherwise you are just another part of the problem. Leave your mark on your community, make it a positive one. 

 

 

 

 

 

[RadioGunner 218]

Jensen has asked for a preliminary injunction rather than a TRO. That is likely why it went to an in person hearing. Judge Bumb really ripped into the defendants. I think it will bode well for us. 

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

STOP! Just stop. There are posters who like to check in, take a quick glance at a few choice threads, and catch up on what's going on with these important cases - they don't need to have their time wasted by having to wade through 50 snarky comments. Get this thread back on track - keep it to updates on what's happening with the legislation and other relevant info. Next person to start attacking someone will be sitting in the clink. Act like brats, you'll be treated accordingly.

 

[Displaced Texan 11,731]

Waiting patiently for an update on this case…

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

Transcript is out:
 

Direct link to transcript:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506026/gov.uscourts.njd.506026.20.1.pdf

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

 

------

[Mike77 169]

Anyone else slapping their head reading Cai's notes???

Reading this, IMHO, I feel the judge is questioning the law as well, and feels it's wrong.

 

So if that is the case, can she throw out the law, or just the sensitive places part, etc?

[JackDaWack 2,895]

On 1/4/2023 at 3:28 PM, DirtyDigz said:

Wrong.  It's still a hearing on a TRO.  The "conversion" was from an online zoom hearing to an in-person hearing.

 

6 hours ago, RadioGunner said:

Jensen has asked for a preliminary injunction rather than a TRO. That is likely why it went to an in person hearing. Judge Bumb really ripped into the defendants. I think it will bode well for us. 

 

[Mr.Stu 1,916]

25 minutes ago, Mike77 said:

So if that is the case, can she throw out the law, or just the sensitive places part, etc?

The Judge can only rule on the sections challenged in the law suit.

Fortunately, we also have the Siegel case which challenges much, much more, but will probably take longer to work through the system.