NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

[10X 3,296]

3 minutes ago, MrPib said:

Surprisingly, most of the 200+ comments are pro-2A.  Of course there are ones calling us "ammosexual" gun fetishists.

That's not bad.  I may have to write that in the next time I'm asked to fill out a form with more than two choices for gender.

[Mike77 169]

3 minutes ago, MrPib said:

Here's the take on the ruling from The (Huffington Post-owned) Patch:

https://patch.com/new-jersey/riverdell/s/ijep6/court-strikes-down-njs-new-concealedcarry-law

The article implies that the entire law has been enjoined.

Surprisingly, most of the 200+ comments are pro-2A.  Of course there are ones calling us "ammosexual" gun fetishists.

 

 

 

"We are disappointed by the Court’s ruling, which is inconsistent with the Second Amendment and will make New Jerseyans considerably less safe. But this temporary order is just that: temporary," state Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin said in a statement. "And we look forward to continuing to press our case, including ultimately on appeal."

 

What drugs is he on??  Making people unsafe, when his atty stated there is no data to back that up!

[Jfoster99 80]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

NJ can, and almost certainly will appeal the TRO in the 3rd Circuit. That may or may not go better than NY in the 2nd Circuit. First, we have Judge Hardiman in the 3rd Circuit and he has been a 2A originalist for a long time. Also, the 3rd Circuit is overseen by Alito whereas the 2nd Circuit is overseen by Sotomayor. That may be significant.

It will be interesting to see what Sotomayor says about the stay on the NY TRO.

Crap… I need to temper my enthusiasm a little them and and stay focused for the fight ahead.

NY got the TRO overruled quickly. It was only a couple of weeks if I remember correctly.

Do you we have any clue how Quickly NJ could get this in front of the 3rd circuit?

 

[RadioGunner 218]

1 hour ago, JackDaWack said:

 You can carry in national parks, and on federal property.. IN certain buildings is different. 

If they placed the limit at state buildings were official duties are conducted, the only one with historic significance that would be likely. 

You said "Never" with a pretty broad range of places. 

Keep in mind this is the "mini" case against the state. Like I said, low hanging fruit... clearly. This was smart by all the 2a groups.. 

Yes, national parks are protected by the CARD act of 2007 which had an unrelated amendment that guaranteed the right to carry in national parks.

Federal buildings including on park property are off limits. A classic example of this is the Liberty bell monument in Philadelphia. You can carry on the park grounds but they do not allow you to carry in the building with the bell. 
 

Courthouse bans vary widely. Some states don’t even allow law enforcement officers to carry unless they are uniformed and responding. In contrast, some states allow non LEO citizens to carry in some areas of the courthouse. Some leave it up to the judge. Some like Pennsylvania require courthouses to have lockers to secure your firearm on entry. 
 

Other states have different rules for other government buildings. Texas requires any building that is owned by state or local government to allow concealed carry to license holders. I’ve attended conferences held in city owned conference centers in Texas and carried. Some states have “enhanced” licenses that will allow access to certain areas. Incidents with concealed carry license holders are extremely rare. Most of us are law abiding. Texas also has de-escalation as part of their training for their LTC.
 

PA also allows carry in polling places, and some even make it a point to openly carry. 
 

NJ and their phony restrictions aren’t in line with most of America. 

[10X 3,296]

13 minutes ago, Jfoster99 said:

Do you we have any clue how Quickly NJ could get this in front of the 3rd circuit?

I don't know, but after today they're unlikely to consider it a slam dunk and rush to get it in front of another judge as soon as possible.    I think they'll take a little time to reflect on WTF just happened to them, and see if they can refine their approach.   They'll try, but it's going to be very hard to get around Bruen.

[ESB 247]

5 hours ago, Krdshrk said:

t we know, Judge Williams has to rule on the consolidation as was first case in, but unsure if she has to also take the case. I believe Judge Williams could agree to consolidate but then Bumb could be the Judge. Dan Schumutter wasn’t sure and needed to see if was procedural just for William To rules, but Bumb could take the case.

Really, REALLY hope that if consolidated that Bumb takes the case and not Williams.  Bumb seems to understand what is going on, the gravity of it, and is taking it seriously.  Plus just bitched slapped the State.  Williams seems uneducated on the law (thought it doesn't take effect until June 2023???), doesn't plan on doing any homework until the morning of, and worse of all, is a Biden appointee.  

[RadioGunner 218]

12 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

NJ can, and almost certainly will appeal the TRO in the 3rd Circuit. That may or may not go better than NY in the 2nd Circuit. First, we have Judge Hardiman in the 3rd Circuit and he has been a 2A originalist for a long time. Also, the 3rd Circuit is overseen by Alito whereas the 2nd Circuit is overseen by Sotomayor. That may be significant.

It will be interesting to see what Sotomayor says about the stay on the NY TRO.

TROs are generally not appealable. They are valid for 14 days and could be extended. This one was ordered to be in force until the preliminary injunction is ruled on. In NY in the Antonyuk case, plaintiffs went straight for PI and not TRO. Suddaby granted the PI and CA2 stayed it pending appeal. 

[Mr.Stu 1,918]

12 minutes ago, Jfoster99 said:

Do you we have any clue how Quickly NJ could get this in front of the 3rd circuit?

I could be wrong, but I believe they have to file an appeal within 10 days. Platkin has already said that they will, but we don't know when, yet.

[Krdshrk 3,877]

26 minutes ago, RadioGunner said:

TROs are generally not appealable. They are valid for 14 days and could be extended. This one was ordered to be in force until the preliminary injunction is ruled on. In NY in the Antonyuk case, plaintiffs went straight for PI and not TRO. Suddaby granted the PI and CA2 stayed it pending appeal. 

They didn't put a specific time frame on the TRO.  It's until the case is re-heard, and the judge also refused to give the state extra time to gather "historical documents"...

[Bushmaster1313 61]

46 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

I could be wrong, but I believe they have to file an appeal within 10 days. Platkin has already said that they will, but we don't know when, yet.

The TRO is immediately appealable. The longer the State waits to appeal the more foolish they will look when they say they need the TRO lifted immediately. 

[mustang69 505]

1 hour ago, Mr.Stu said:

NJ can, and almost certainly will appeal the TRO in the 3rd Circuit. That may or may not go better than NY in the 2nd Circuit. First, we have Judge Hardiman in the 3rd Circuit and he has been a 2A originalist for a long time. Also, the 3rd Circuit is overseen by Alito whereas the 2nd Circuit is overseen by Sotomayor. That may be significant.

It will be interesting to see what Sotomayor says about the stay on the NY TRO.

They will appeal, basically because there is no down-side to them doing so.  It's not like the care about attorney fees, it's not their money.  This case will go as high as it needs to before a court say "no more", regardless of which way it goes.  

I'm optimistic the entire law will be struck down, but not 100% sure.  And they'll try another one until they figure out what will work, all so they can say "See, we did something".  This issue is the new windmill for Dem politicians to tilt at.  It's easy for them to say they're trying something, since anything they try that doesn't work will be blamed on someone else.  It's not like the NJ voters will hold the Dems accountable for it.

[Walkinguf61 40]

2 hours ago, CMJeepster said:

That's what PA does.

PA does . Some federal buildings do that, but many other states do not.  NJ and NY will not. 

[Jfoster99 80]

33 minutes ago, RadioGunner said:

plaintiffs went straight for PI and not TRO. Suddaby granted the PI and CA2 stayed it pending appeal. 

Thanks  for explanation!!

And for those like me with no legal expertise. I will save you the trip to Google to see what  difference is between a TRO and a PI.

https://pjtagency.com/difference-between-temporary-restraining-order-preliminary-injunction/

I have learned more about our Legal System and Government  thru my 2A interests in the last year then in 6 years of college.

[Walkinguf61 40]

1 hour ago, Jfoster99 said:

My son just reminded me with a smirk to ruin my day that NY got a TRO for most of their CC improvement Law but then the State appealed to a Three judge panel that overturned their TRO.

Someone please tell me that is not possible here and that the Thursday court case can only add to the TRO to make it better, not remove or make it worse…

 

 

The NY preliminary injunction was “ stayed” until the 2nd circuit heard the appeal. What happened? SCOTUS is asking why. ( SCOTUS hasn’t made a decision yet as to overturning the stay yet). The appeals courts just were put on notice and it is less likely to happen as a result. And unlike NY’s 2nd circuit, NJ’s circuit reports to Justice Alito, not Sotomeyer. 
A stay pending the appeal could happen but it’s less likely than what happened in the 2nd circuit.

[RadioGunner 218]

15 minutes ago, Bushmaster1313 said:

The TRO is immediately appealable. The longer the State waits to appeal the more foolish they will look when they say they need the TRO lifted immediately. 

TROs are generally not appealable. 
 

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/immediate-appeals-of-temporary-5067258/

The state can try but it is a high bar. 

[MrAceJD 21]

The New York Times picked it up as well...  Lengthy article...

[Moutinas 59]

2 hours ago, Jfoster99 said:

My son just reminded me with a smirk to ruin my day that NY got a TRO for most of their CC improvement Law but then the State appealed to a Three judge panel that overturned their TRO.

Someone please tell me that is not possible here and that the Thursday court case can only add to the TRO to make it better, not remove or make it worse…

 

 

If NJ decides to go the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, we stand a very good chance of pulling two out of three Republican appointed judges. The makeup of the 3rd changed from Democratic appointed control to Republican appointed during the Trump administration.

[Walkinguf61 40]

45 minutes ago, Moutinas said:

If NJ decides to go the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, we stand a very good chance of pulling two out of three Republican appointed judges. The makeup of the 3rd changed from Democratic appointed control to Republican appointed during the Trump administration.

The president who appointed a judge was not as important until Trump . There was an informal rule that a senator of the state the judge would cover , could veto that judge’s nomination.

https://www.npr.org/2014/05/29/317127117/old-senate-tradition-lies-behind-controversial-judges-nomination

Only certain judges could get through this part of the process. Especially in California, New York where the senators were/are more radical and militant. 

Trump broke this tradition. 
 

 

[Walkinguf61 40]

The fight isn’t over even if this Injunction stands. 
We need to get proper complainants in order to challenge some of the other sensitive locations . Like youth sports event, a plant that produces or transfers energy,( think the courts will say this doesn’t mean a gas station), public transportation hub/airport, a public place being used for a film set, etc .

And we need a doctor or nurse to challenge the health care facilities prohibition. The law is too broad even if they want to make some healthcare facilities a sensitive place.

I have a limited exemption to these sensitive places but it would be a real hassle if the place actually told me no. I can imagine the legal jeopardy a CCW might have if they needed emergency medical care. 

[drjjpdc 39]

If this ain't the best video on why Bruen should be law in NY and NJ I don't know what is!

Who is Going to Blink First? New York or the Supreme Court? - YouTube

[1LtCAP 4,262]

 

[CMJeepster 2,778]

16 hours ago, brucin said:

Been there, done that.

#metoo then I moved here. 

[CMJeepster 2,778]

15 hours ago, MrPib said:

Here's the take on the ruling from The (Huffington Post-owned) Patch:

https://patch.com/new-jersey/riverdell/s/ijep6/court-strikes-down-njs-new-concealedcarry-law

The article implies that the entire law has been enjoined.

Not permanently, yet.

[CMJeepster 2,778]

15 hours ago, Mike77 said:

What drugs is he on??  Making people unsafe, when his atty stated there is no data to back that up!

If he were worried about safety, he'd get rid of the no cash bail shit.  Turning criminals and suspected criminals back out onto the street to continue to commit crimes while waiting for a court date is just not "common sense."

[CMJeepster 2,778]

Did this get posted yet?

gov.uscourts.njd.506033.34.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

[CMJeepster 2,778]

Page 19:

"That Defendants dedicate a significant portion of their argument discussing 
the benefits of the firearms regulations and not evidence of historical analogues is 
quite telling."

   

[Scorpio64 5,153]

THIS is the cornerstone.

Quote

 

Plaintiff Muller, a victim of a vicious kidnapping, had obtained a carry permit pursuant to the pre

vious “justifiable need” standard. [Docket No. 12 ⁋⁋ 36.] After receiving his permit, he remained “very concerned about [his] personal safety, and [he] began to carry [his] handgun on a nearly constant basis.” [ Id.⁋8.] As a result of the new legislation, he avers, he has “no choice but to stop carrying a handgun away from [his] own home and property

According to Muller the irony of the State’s reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen protecting the right to bear arms is this legislation, pursuant to which “I have largely lost the ability to bear arms that I have had since 2011

 

At the very least, the goal post needs to be placed back to where it was pre Bruen.

[CMJeepster 2,778]

Page 49:

"It is worth noting, however, that the Iowa statute that Defendants cite for the 
proposition that Iowa prohibited firearms in and around mass transit is incorrect."

------

This is your state's A.G., folks.  They can't even read properly!!!

[CMJeepster 2,778]

Meanwhile, in Illinois:

‘See you in court,’ Illinois Senate President says as chamber passes gun ban (msn.com)

It's like they want to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.  

[brucin 923]

17 minutes ago, CMJeepster said:

Meanwhile, in Illinois:

‘See you in court,’ Illinois Senate President says as chamber passes gun ban (msn.com)

It's like they want to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.  

Just like a bunch of monkey's.