Jump to content
M1152

NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

Recommended Posts

I must say that I am impressed with some of the posters here and their understanding of the legal system. And how they seek out knowledge like the actual transcripts.

I believe that if there is any delay in the decision, it will be so the judge can cite his decision well enough to make any attempt to overturn it to fruitless or make the appeals court decision to overturn it to appear be blatantly political rather than grounded in law.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2023 at 7:59 PM, Walkinguf61 said:

I must say that I am impressed with some of the posters here and their understanding of the legal system. And how they seek out knowledge like the actual transcripts.

I believe that if there is any delay in the decision, it will be so the judge can cite his decision well enough to make any attempt to overturn it to fruitless or make the appeals court decision to overturn it to appear be blatantly political rather than grounded in law.

The problem pre Bruen, is that most decisions never estashed a "test", and their decision were as muddy as the laws they struck down. Which is why I has asked what was so clear about some cases and no one actually responded to my question. 

 

NJ legislators clearly didn't read Bruen, and just assumed it was as "Muddy" as something like Heller, where the only clear cut understanding was typical handguns can't be banned inside the home. Yet, Cali still has a ban on popular handgun models because they argue semi auto pistols are still allowed, they just banned the "dangerous" ones to society that lacked safety features. Pre Bruen decisions required some give by conservative judges, to get a majority opinion... that doesn't seem to be the case anymore.. 

If you were to combine Bruen and Heller, you could strike down just about any semi auto ban(AWB), we will see how that works out in MD. 

The Judge in this case saw right through the states BS because they continued to use the same old approach to banning guns, and Bruen explicitly states they can't do that. When asked by the Judge for any evidence that would be admissible under Bruen the state either supplied insufficient material, or stated they would provide it later. I love how the judge asked how the legislature used this data that couldnt be provided to the courts. 

Bruen still doesn't outline a specific test, but at least it makes 2 very important things very clear. Historical significance, and States Interest. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The problem pre Bruen, is that most decisions never estashed a "test", and their decision were as muddy as the laws they struck down. Which is why I has asked what was so clear about some cases and no one actually responded to my question. 

 

NJ legislators clearly didn't read Bruen, and just assumed it was as "Muddy" as something like Heller, where the only clear cut understanding was typical handguns can't be banned inside the home. Yet, Cali still has a ban on popular handgun models because they argue semi auto pistols are still allowed, they just banned the "dangerous" ones to society that lacked safety features. Pre Bruen decisions required some give by conservative judges, to get a majority opinion... that doesn't seem to be the case anymore.. 

If you were to combine Bruen and Heller, you could strike down just about any semi auto ban(AWB), we will see how that works out in MD. 

The Judge in this case saw right through the states BS because they continued to use the same old approach to banning guns, and Bruen explicitly states they can't do that. When asked by the Judge for any evidence that would be admissible under Bruen the state either supplied insufficient material, or stated they would provide it later. I love how the judge asked how the legislature used this data that couldnt be provided to the courts. 

Bruen still doesn't outline a specific test, but at least it makes 2 very important things very clear. Historical significance, and States Interest. 

I have a different take. I believe they clearly read Bruen as they have to be able to defend anything we throw at them. However, I genuinely believe they are playing the game of misinterpretation on purpose. Listening to the TRO hearing, anyone with 2 brain cells can tell that the vehicle restrictions does not pass the sniff test. It is also clear that the counsel representing NJ is NOT stupid and very well educated. She is doing her job and defending her client to the best of her ability. That is why she cannot concede ANY ground because the moment she's caught saying anything that undermines the law in question, she lost. So instead she'll say anything to tip toe around the issue and changing the topic when strategically beneficial. Amongst her friends she'll probably say "This new law makes no sense and clearly bans virtually all places, but I'll argue anyway that it follows Bruen, by taking any any snippets in the decision that support my argument while ignoring the rest.

They are playing the game. As long as they dont admit they know its unconstitutional, they can just claim they thought it was within they're lane and theyll take the slap on the wrist.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

I have a different take. I believe they clearly read Bruen as they have to be able to defend anything we throw at them. However, I genuinely believe they are playing the game of misinterpretation on purpose. Listening to the TRO hearing, anyone with 2 brain cells can tell that the vehicle restrictions does not pass the sniff test. It is also clear that the counsel representing NJ is NOT stupid and very well educated. She is doing her job and defending her client to the best of her ability. That is why she cannot concede ANY ground because the moment she's caught saying anything that undermines the law in question, she lost. So instead she'll say anything to tip toe around the issue and changing the topic when strategically beneficial. Amongst her friends she'll probably say "This new law makes no sense and clearly bans virtually all places, but I'll argue anyway that it follows Bruen, by taking any any snippets in the decision that support my argument while ignoring the rest.

They are playing the game. As long as they dont admit they know its unconstitutional, they can just claim they thought it was within they're lane and theyll take the slap on the wrist.

Agreed.....most defense attorneys know they are defending scum, that they broke the law, and that they need to do or say anything to try to twist the story, to be able to make them look innocent. Hell, OJ got off as well!!! LOL 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, EngineerJet said:

I have a different take. I believe they clearly read Bruen as they have to be able to defend anything we throw at them. However, I genuinely believe they are playing the game of misinterpretation on purpose. Listening to the TRO hearing, anyone with 2 brain cells can tell that the vehicle restrictions does not pass the sniff test. It is also clear that the counsel representing NJ is NOT stupid and very well educated. She is doing her job and defending her client to the best of her ability. That is why she cannot concede ANY ground because the moment she's caught saying anything that undermines the law in question, she lost. So instead she'll say anything to tip toe around the issue and changing the topic when strategically beneficial. Amongst her friends she'll probably say "This new law makes no sense and clearly bans virtually all places, but I'll argue anyway that it follows Bruen, by taking any any snippets in the decision that support my argument while ignoring the rest.

They are playing the game. As long as they dont admit they know its unconstitutional, they can just claim they thought it was within they're lane and theyll take the slap on the wrist.

You really think every NJ legislators that endorsed and also voted for this law read Bruen? 

I dont even think the author of the Bill or the sponsors really read Bruen. They were made aware of snippets where regulations had an open door and just threw as much shit hoping something would stick. 

 

Of course the lawyers read it. 

Share this post


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

You really think every NJ legislators that endorsed and also voted for this law read Bruen? 

I dont even think the author of the Bill or the sponsors really read Bruen. They were made aware of snippets where regulations had an open door and just threw as much shit hoping something would stick. 

 

Of course the lawyers read it. 

The ones who drafted the bill read the response. Wether or not every person who voted for it read it is irrelevant as they probably rely on the drafters to have read it. I'm very aware people who vote for bills don't always read but that's not the point of my post.

The point is that they know it's bullshit and have to defend it no matter what. People read the transcript and say how can NJ be so stupid. I see a lawyer who's playing the court game and making the best case she can because it's her job. It's unfortunate she was out in a position to defend such a bad law, but she knew that when she took the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, voyager9 said:

I doubt they actually read the bill.  

Exactly. 

It's pretty clear that the legislators like Danielson didn't read the Bruen decision. They are handed these Bills by staffers with cherry picked talking points, they don't actually write them either. As evident that Danielson couldn't even explain some of the language in the Bill itself, or offer explanations as to where carry would actually be allowed. 

Were not even at a significant level within the courts and the Judge is clearly flabbergasted at the states development of this law. That really does say a lot. Not to mention it comes on the heels of NYs own legislative shit show. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mike77 said:

Can't say that when their own atty said there is no data to show that. Lol

They can and will. You don't think for one second that when we finally win, they won't say it's due to the extremist right supreme court that laid the foundation for this?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mike77 said:

Can't say that when their own atty said there is no data to show that. Lol

Sure they can - who, outside those of us that are directly impacted by this will pay any attention to what actually occurred in court?

They rely on low information voters - voters who in turn rely on the soundbites spewed by the gun grabbing politicians.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

Sure they can - who, outside those of us that are directly impacted by this will pay any attention to what actually occurred in court?

They rely on low information voters - voters who in turn rely on the soundbites spewed by the gun grabbing politicians.

That, and that a large number do not want to take responsibility and give it to an authority of some type . It’s not just about guns but almost everything in life with these people . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a strategy heads up for all regarding our court date tomorrow. If we win, we win. If we lose, we still win. Ponder that. This is a 5D chess game and although the Judges may be a wild card, rest assured ANJRPC, CNJFO, NRA, NJ2AS, FPC, & SAF have without a doubt the best legal minds on the Fuckin planet! If you are not a donor or do not know of any of the groups I just listed, SHAME! 
Unity, Education, & Activism is key!
#supportthosewhosupportyou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Walkinguf61 said:

That, and that a large number do not want to take responsibility and give it to an authority of some type . It’s not just about guns but almost everything in life with these people . 

That's where I disagree to an extent. Not many people think deep down to the underlying principle of the gun laws. We see possible infringement and overreach, setting groundwork for further infringements and tyranny. The average citizen sees, gun bad, government take gun away, that mean government good. It's very simplistic and based on faulty logic that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of how ignorant it is, but that it reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, EngineerJet said:

That's where I disagree to an extent. Not many people think deep down to the underlying principle of the gun laws. We see possible infringement and overreach, setting groundwork for further infringements and tyranny. The average citizen sees, gun bad, government take gun away, that mean government good. It's very simplistic and based on faulty logic that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of how ignorant it is, but that it reality.

Additionally, they don't take the thought any farther.

If gun = bad and only government have guns, can we not derive that government = bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, EngineerJet said:

They can and will. You don't think for one second that when we finally win, they won't say it's due to the extremist right supreme court that laid the foundation for this?

Good point.  And may be on purpose in order to lay the grounds for Biden to expand the SCOTUS (as he implied he might during his election campaign) so he can appoint a liberal majority.  

Share this post


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

Just a strategy heads up for all regarding our court date tomorrow. If we win, we win. If we lose, we still win. Ponder that. This is a 5D chess game and although the Judges may be a wild card, rest assured ANJRPC, CNJFO, NRA, NJ2AS, FPC, & SAF have without a doubt the best legal minds on the Fuckin planet! If you are not a donor or do not know of any of the groups I just listed, SHAME! 
Unity, Education, & Activism is key!
#supportthosewhosupportyou

Please see this thread here for info and links to groups we should support because they are fighting for our rights!  Please consider joining or donating if you aren't currently.  

Which org to support to fight for our 2A rights in NJ. - Legislative Alerts and Rallies - New Jersey Gun Forums (njgunforums.com)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, gunforhire said:

Just a strategy heads up for all regarding our court date tomorrow. If we win, we win. If we lose, we still win. Ponder that. This is a 5D chess game and although the Judges may be a wild card, rest assured ANJRPC, CNJFO, NRA, NJ2AS, FPC, & SAF have without a doubt the best legal minds on the Fuckin planet! If you are not a donor or do not know of any of the groups I just listed, SHAME! 
Unity, Education, & Activism is key!
#supportthosewhosupportyou

Is tomorrow case covering sensitive places too? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Everything Just a strategy heads up for all regarding our court date tomorrow. If we win, we win. If we lose, we still win. Ponder that. This is a 5D chess game and although the Judges may be a wild card, rest assured ANJRPC, CNJFO, NRA, NJ2AS, FPC, & SAF have without a doubt the best legal minds on the Fuckin planet! If you are not a donor or do not know of any of the groups I just listed, SHAME! 
Unity, Education, & Activism is key!
#supportthosewhosupportyou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, ESB said:

Good point.  And may be on purpose in order to lay the grounds for Biden to expand the SCOTUS (as he implied he might during his election campaign) so he can appoint a liberal majority.  

Yes, I assume that is the Dem's long game.  Expand the court during Biden's 2nd term (or earlier, if possible), and ensure the court takes a case that reverses Bruen, as quickly as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fawkesguy said:

Yes, I assume that is the Dem's long game.  Expand the court during Biden's 2nd term (or earlier, if possible), and ensure the court takes a case that reverses Bruen, as quickly as possible.

That plan is now moot. They can’t expand the court without control of the House and the senate . 
The great news is that they went full retard on their new laws and flat out said it was In reaction to Bruen. There now will be case law against any future attempts to do  when attempt to pass a scaled down version. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 1/7/2023 at 12:08 PM, DAHL said:

We can only hope that the TRO is issued in Koons Vs Reynolds soon.  On the request for a TRO on the Siegel vs Platkin case it is to be heard on Monday by judge Karen Williams a Biden appointee.  The chances of seeing any relief there are IMO slim.

 

Anyone worried that a Biden appointee is hearing the Siegel case?  The latest SCOTUS judge Biden appointed was an activist judge who ruled not necessarily based on constitutionality or law but what would push forward the leftist agenda best she could.  Williams could rule against 2A freedoms to be seen as an activist judge who promotes leftist agendas in hopes of a bigger promotion by Dems. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Walkinguf61 said:

That plan is now moot. They can’t expand the court without control of the House and the senate . 
The great news is that they went full retard on their new laws and flat out said it was In reaction to Bruen. There now will be case law against any future attempts to do  when attempt to pass a scaled down version. 

Fair enough, regarding expansion of the court.  But they control the Senate, and assuming Biden is re-elected, there will likely be opportunities for Supreme Court nominations.  That's 100% a Senate thing.  As for "case law against any future attempts......", the Supreme Court has reversed itself many, many times, and this is an extremely contentious issue.  Hopefully I'm wrong.  Time will tell.

https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/

 

Share this post


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

 

 

Anyone worried that a Biden appointee is hearing the Siegel case?  The latest SCOTUS judge Biden appointed was an activist judge who ruled not necessarily based on constitutionality or law but what would push forward the leftist agenda best she could.  Williams could rule against 2A freedoms to be seen as an activist judge who promotes leftist agendas in hopes of a bigger promotion by Dems. 

 

 

We will see. Even a leftist judge might follow what SCOTUS says.

Share this post


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

assuming Biden is re-elected, there will likely be opportunities for Supreme Court nominations.

If Biden should be re-elected, nothing matters anymore!  America will be gone forever!  It's now or never for us all!:mad:

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

If Biden should be re-elected, nothing matters anymore!  America will be gone forever!  It's now or never for us all!:mad:

Sadly, at this point, I think it's pretty much guaranteed.  Does anyone actually believe he received 80+ million votes in 2020?

 

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...