Jump to content
M1152

NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

Recommended Posts

1 hour 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.  :facepalm:

State Sen. Neil Anderson expects a legal challenge and an immediate stay on implementation if the measure is approved with an immediate effective date. Supporting what he said is a violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms is a violation of elected officials’ oath, he said.

“All of us are going to raise our right hand [Wednesday with the 103rd General Assembly] and pledge an oath to uphold the constitution of Illinois and the constitution of the United States,” Anderson said. “All of you thinking about voting for this today, you should resign.”

Senate President Don Harmon (D) expects the legal battle.

 Harmon said. “We’ll see you in court.”

 

Lets hope that in the upcoming cases, the Supreme Court reminds these officials, in writing, that they took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and that writing, passing, and enforcing these unconstitutional laws they are violating their oath and perjuring themselves.    

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As if I have to show how illogical Murphy and his minions are, I'm printing this small exchange between the Judge and the State defendants in Koons. It is also humorous as a study in language.

Under the legislation, a gun owner faces prosecution even when he does not know that the property owner does not consent to his possession of a firearm and by the time he finds out, he has already committed a criminal violation. At oral argument, the State conceded this troubling point:

THE COURT: [D]oes the UPS man, woman, violate the law when he gets up to the front door and the owner says you should not have come on my property if you’re armed?

MS. CAI: Yes. Yes.

THE COURT: But to make it liable for trespassing under New Jersey, it has to be known to the potential trespasser ahead of time before he or she can be charged with trespassing. This law has no such provision. This law says you can walk down the winding driveway, get to the front door and the [armed] repairmen is told [by the owner you do not have consent and] have just now violated the law, I’m calling the police.

MS. CAI: And that’s exactly what the law provides…

THE COURT: But I think you’re ignoring one salient fact, is that you’re now making it criminal for a person who has a license to conceal carry to not know in advance what that right is.

MS. CAI: So that’s right, Your Honor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Siegel vs Platkin was adjourned yesterday until Thursday in light of the Koons TRO and the Range vs DC en banc grant.

The parties in Siegel were told to submit simultaneous briefs on the impact of these events on the Siegel TRO and the motion to consolidate Koons into Siegel.

The briefs are here:

Plaintiffs: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506026/gov.uscourts.njd.506026.26.0.pdf

Defendants: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506026/gov.uscourts.njd.506026.25.0.pdf

Notable is that the Plaintiffs oppose Koons being consolidated into Siegel, but support the reverse, Siegel being consolidated into Koons. That would move Siegel into Bumb's courtroom which may be a very good thing.

Replies to the other party's briefs are due by 8pm tomorrow.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supreme Court is not going to help:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed a New York gun control law that was enacted in the wake of the high court’s landmark ruling in June that dramatically expanded the right to bear arms outside the home to remain in effect while a legal challenge against it continues.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/11/supreme-court-allows-new-york-gun-law-to-remain-in-effect.html

  • Sad 1
  • FacePalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BigGuns said:

Supreme Court is not going to help:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed a New York gun control law that was enacted in the wake of the high court’s landmark ruling in June that dramatically expanded the right to bear arms outside the home to remain in effect while a legal challenge against it continues.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/11/supreme-court-allows-new-york-gun-law-to-remain-in-effect.html

At least Sotomayor, who oversees the 2nd circuit, is not going to help. Lets see where it goes from here.

Share this post


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

Different states, different laws, different systems.

 

2 minutes ago, CMJeepster said:

Different circuits and judges.

Just amazing that a high court says "you can" and the courts below go... "Hhmmmm, nah, you cant" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Confused. This was the appeal to Sotomayor? Why does the article quote Alito? Is there even a point in appealing to another justice? All Robert's recent words ring hollow? How does this not embolden the enemies of 2A? Unless I am missing something, this seems to bode poorly for us while this mess works its way through the courts.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Xtors said:

Confused. This was the appeal to Sotomayor? Why does the article quote Alito? Is there even a point in appealing to another justice? All Robert's recent words ring hollow? How does this not embolden the enemies of 2A? Unless I am missing something, this seems to bode poorly for us while this mess works its way through the courts.

It's a full-court vote. Not surprised that they denied overturning the 2nd Circuit. Alito said it all. It is to respect the lower court's procedure and the purview of their own colleague Sotomayor, who extended the courtesy of presenting the petition to the full court in the first place instead of ruling by her own. But it doesn't say anything negative about the merits of the original complaint. On the contrary, I can almost smell that Alito and Thomas are goading the plaintiffs to bring it on full speed. And there is also a subtle warning to the 2nd Circuit not to drag it out. It feels like Alito and Thomas almost are hoping something really bad coming out of the 2nd Circuit, so they can have another chance to smack NYS and ilk squarely on the head.

22A557 Antonyuk v. Nigrelli (01/11/2023) (supremecourt.gov) 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, doublepar said:

It's a full-court vote. Not surprised that they denied overturning the 2nd Circuit. Alito said it all. It is to respect the lower court's procedure and the purview of their own colleague Sotomayor, who extended the courtesy of presenting the petition to the full court in the first place instead of ruling by her own. But it doesn't say anything negative about the merits of the original complaint. On the contrary, I can almost smell that Alito and Thomas are goading the plaintiffs to bring it on full speed. And there is also a subtle warning to the 2nd Circuit not to drag it out. It feels like Alito and Thomas almost are hoping something really bad coming out of the 2nd Circuit, so they can have another chance to smack NYS and ilk squarely on the head.

22A557 Antonyuk v. Nigrelli (01/11/2023) (supremecourt.gov) 

Agree, SCOTUS not going to go out on a limb just yet when the 2nd hasn't even heard arguments yet for the injunction.  The message is clear from Alito though the 2nd needs to move their asses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused about this. The 2nd Circuit only issued a stay on the TRO from the District Court. What can they do on the hurry up until the District Court comes up with a ruling on at least the preliminary injunction? I don't see what the 2nd Circuit has in front of them to hear next.

Share this post


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

This was expected . What was not expected that the whole court  appears voted on the appeal . It sucks for most of NY.

 

 

They won’t appeal.  This was a unanimous court decision.  SCOTUS wont touch until the 2nd here’s arguments and issues a ruling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Spartiati said:

They won’t appeal.  This was a unanimous court decision.  SCOTUS wont touch until the 2nd here’s arguments and issues a ruling.

Yep. There is also a chance they will remove the stay of the injunction after receiving initial arguments ( I am not holding my breath).

The good news is that most cops aren’t going to enforce it unless pushed into the situation. NY made a mistake when they made the law and its exceptions. Out of state retirees can carry on public transportation on LEOSA but not active out of state cops on vacation? 
Retired police officers are exempted from the private property restrictions but a retired peace officer is not— good potential for a great complainant for additional legal action.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the 2 new briefs from Seigel.  

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.anjrpc.org/resource/resmgr/legal_motions___briefs/doc_26_-_011023_-_plaintiffs.pdf

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.anjrpc.org/resource/resmgr/legal_motions___briefs/doc_25_-_011023_-_defendants.pdf

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

 

The most interesting thing is that the plaintiffs give very valid reasons for not Consolidating Koons into Siegel under Williams (both plaintiffs do not want that), but give good arguments for consolidating Siegel into Koons under Bumb (no idea if Koons wants that).  

The State's brief also gives good reason to consolidate, however those reasons would only be valid if Siegel was consolidated into Koons under Bumb.  But the very last line says Koons should be consolidated into Siegel.  

 

We can only hope and pray that Williams will consolidate Siegel into Koons under Bumb.  It would certainly be helpful if Koons was not opposed to that, yet remain opposed to consolidating Koons into Siegel under Williams.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BigGuns said:

Supreme Court is not going to help:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed a New York gun control law that was enacted in the wake of the high court’s landmark ruling in June that dramatically expanded the right to bear arms outside the home to remain in effect while a legal challenge against it continues.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/11/supreme-court-allows-new-york-gun-law-to-remain-in-effect.html

For anyone interested, the Four Boxes Diner does the best job I've seen explaining and analyzing all the current 2A laws and court cases. This video covers the NY stay issue and why it is not bad news.

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


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

For anyone interested, the Four Boxes Diner does the best job I've seen explaining and analyzing all the current 2A laws and court cases. This video covers the NY stay issue and why it is not bad news.

 

Love four boxes diner. Great content

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Mr.Stu said:

Siegel vs Platkin was adjourned yesterday until Thursday in light of the Koons TRO and the Range vs DC en banc grant.

The parties in Siegel were told to submit simultaneous briefs on the impact of these events on the Siegel TRO and the motion to consolidate Koons into Siegel.

The briefs are here:

Plaintiffs: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506026/gov.uscourts.njd.506026.26.0.pdf

Defendants: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506026/gov.uscourts.njd.506026.25.0.pdf

Notable is that the Plaintiffs oppose Koons being consolidated into Siegel, but support the reverse, Siegel being consolidated into Koons. That would move Siegel into Bumb's courtroom which may be a very good thing.

Replies to the other party's briefs are due by 8pm tomorrow.

I read the Plaintiff's brief, very well reasoned. The Siegel judge should let that case consolidate into Koons. Bumb did the earlier "justifiable need" case and of course has time and resources already invested on her TRO order in Koons. The state wants consolidation the other way for obvious reasons. Bumb is no help to NJ's case and the Siegel court was a Democratic appointment.
I'm getting so used to winning that I expect this to go our way and Judge Bumb will continue to plow ahead helping dismantle NJ's terrible law.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Replies to the briefs are here.  

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.anjrpc.org/resource/resmgr/legal_motions___briefs/doc_28_-_011123_-_plaintiffs.pdf

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.anjrpc.org/resource/resmgr/legal_motions___briefs/doc_27_-_011123_-_defendants.pdf

 

The State seems to have put a lot more effort into this one.  They are fighting tooth and nail to consolidate the cases under Williams and not Bumb.    Very telling on multiple fronts.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2023 at 3:23 PM, DAHL said:

AFAIK no CCW holder nationwide was ever allowed to carry in a Federal building, Courthouse or a National Park. Koons vs Reynolds had to do with the NJ state government deciding that ALL Private property is a sensitive location. This was clearly wrong and hence the TRO was issued. Some sensitive locations are still in effect and I encourage everyone to understand where they are. You carry there and you are a felon. The full extent of the cancel carry bill has yet to be decided. I believe that more of this egregious cancel carry law will be found unconstitutional and I believe that it will be brought to  the 3rd circuit court of appeals to decide on its legitimacy.

Can we get a sticky with this info? I'm having a hard time even keeping up with what's legal and what's not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Cheflife15 said:

Can we get a sticky with this info? I'm having a hard time even keeping up with what's legal and what's not. 

I can't disagree. Things are moving so fast... my head is spinning too! I think we'll know a lot more after tomorrow - whether these TWO cases with some overlap are being consolidated or not. I'll tallk to @Krdshrk and maybe a couple of others who have a better grasp of this than myself - between us maybe we can figure out some kind of summary document - with links back to the original docs. (A locked thread with NO comments on it... that just gets updated as things change). If it's dependent on my schedule, don't expect anything until next week at the earliest - as I'm jammed through early next week...

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

I can't disagree. Things are moving so fast... my head is spinning too! I think we'll know a lot more after tomorrow - whether these TWO cases with some overlap are being consolidated or not. I'll tallk to @Krdshrk and maybe a couple of others who have a better grasp of this than myself - between us maybe we can figure out some kind of summary document - with links back to the original docs. (A locked thread with NO comments on it... that just gets updated as things change). If it's dependent on my schedule, don't expect anything until next week at the earliest - as I'm jammed through early next week...

 

Maks and I will be at SHOT Show all next week as well so we're fairly tied up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the meantime, in related coverage - I think someone mentioned (upthread?) that the Star-Ledger had posted a VERY snarky and incredibly disdainful article about 2A rights in NJ in light of the recent TRO. Link to the editorial here: http://thf-legal.s3.amazonaws.com/Star Ledger 2A Curse Article.pdf

Subsequently, the Heritage Foundation has responded directly to that editorial in a fairly blistering way, here:, here: https://www.heritage.org/firearms/commentary/second-amendment-blessing-not-curse-end-year-examples-defensive-gun-use - an enjoyable read! 

I sure do like the way that various 2A orgs and pro-2A think tanks are REALLY paying attention to New Jersey now! Bruen changed the landscape a lot, didn't it? 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Maks and I will be at SHOT Show all next week as well so we're fairly tied up.

OK, I'll do what I can without you! 

Now that you've ducked out of work, you better bring me some swag from the show.  ;)

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...