Jump to content
M1152

NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

Recommended Posts

At what point can our side start to sue for financial damages, lawyer fee's and all that   we know that murphy will not stop at attacking the constitution and there will certainly be a "carry killer bill 2.0" coming. when can they be held personally liable for civil rights violations.  for example the cop that subdued that guy in Minnesota was sued civilly for violating someones civil rights.   If murphy continues to act outside the law as well as any other public official at what point are they vulnerable.     

Share this post


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

At what point can our side start to sue for financial damages, lawyer fee's and all that   we know that murphy will not stop at attacking the constitution and there will certainly be a "carry killer bill 2.0" coming. when can they be held personally liable for civil rights violations.  for example the cop that subdued that guy in Minnesota was sued civilly for violating someones civil rights.   If murphy continues to act outside the law as well as any other public official at what point are they vulnerable.     

LOL.... Sue the government.... Good one

Share this post


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

LOL.... Sue the government.... Good one

True, but isn't ANJPRC also trying to recoup legal costs here? Not the same thing I know but maybe enough losses like this and the state will figure it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Kurt Lundy on FB:

(((ANJRPC Lawsuit Update)))
Personal Transcript From Today's Hearing with Judge Williams
_______________________________________
Judge Williams Enters the Courtroom at 1:36 PM


((( CONSOLIDATION )))
Judge Williams thinks its fair to say that both parties want to consolidate but maybe have not agreed on which judge to consolidate with.

Angela Cai makes it a point to say that she doesn't want to wait until the courts start making rulings for parties to sway their opinions on which Judge one may favor that leans towards their argument.

The Judge brings up the letter David Jensen from the Koons case submitted around noon just before the court hearing. The letter pretty much had to do with the reasonings why he doesn't believe Koons should be consolidated to another Judge. Dan states that he did not see the letter from Jensen however the Judge gave him a quick summary. Dan thinks that at this point the state has stepped in quicksand. Factors in Rule 42 more so favor consolidation into the Koons case rather than Koons into Siegel. Dan honestly believes that it's highly unlikely for Judge Bumb's outcome in her TRO decision to change in the preliminary injunction stage. He believes that the state only wants this in order to pick a favorable judge. Judge Williams says no one has any idea on how she will rule on a firearm's case. Especially seeing how she hasn't ruled on one yet. Dan thinks the state doesn't want to go with Judge Bumb because she has already ruled against them.

First filed rules state that the first filed judge makes the decision on how consolidation is handled, however it does not say which way the consolidation goes. Dan makes it a point to say that the dockets were filed within minutes of each other. 4763 and 4764. Associated numbers come in when you open the shell. Koons was technically filed first. Dan thinks that if the state really wanted to save money they would prefer the case to be consolidated into the Koons Lawsuit.

Angela Cai thinks that Dan only wants Judge Bumb because it provided a favorable ruling the plaintiffs.

Koons succeeded in their order to show clause. The Siegel case is way behind even though Williams had the earlier docket number. Judge Williams was very surprised when she went to set a court date but noticed that Judge Bumb already set her first hearing for a date sooner than she was able to in the system. Williams' says to thinks that anybody would want to Judge shop her to view both cases is a bit disingenuous seeing how she's the newbie.

Angela Cai states that decisions in consolidations always goes to the 1st docket number. She believes that the main reason to consolidate is to prevent inconsistencies. The Siegel case is much more vast than Koons. Cai says that they haven't submitted an appeal yet. Mentions that the Preliminary Injunction hearing dates haven't been set. Wanted to wait until today's ruling to submit. 

((( TRO AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION )))
From what I got Dan is looking for a TRO on just the Sensitive Places and the Preliminary Injunction on most of the other sections in the lawsuit.

The Standing, Historical Tradition and Irreparable Harm argument from the state is basically the same.  Dan thinks standing in his case is much stronger. The analysis to historical traditions applies to all of the other sensitive places. Very little has to be done based on Judge Bumb's opinion.  The Judge Williams questioned Dan saying that if Judge Bumb Has already resolved most of the issues, why does he need a decision from her? Dan Believes that consolidation should be decided before the TRO in Siegel. Judge Williams was surprised by this and ask Cai if she agrees with what Dan said. Cai says the decision is solely up to her on that matter. This saves Judge Williams from having to use extra resources in order to make a ruling. Dan thinks most of the work is already done. He believes that Judge Williams should use Judge Bumb's 60 page opinion to make a ruling, seeing how 98% of the work is technically already completed. He tells Judge Williams that she should map out the analysis already done by Bumb because it can be directly applied to all the other sensitive places. Dan says the state has interpreted Bruen wrong by picking and choosing sections of it without full context. Bruen provides a broad sense of self defense outside the home. The state and legislators went on record saying how they will undermine the Bruen decision. On December 22nd the day the law was signed, The Governor, The Attorney General, Gifford's, Assemblyman and the Speaker all gave their personal and unconstitutional reasons on why they believe citizens shouldn't be able carry firearms.  The moment you walk out of your front door you have to lock up your firearm under this law. Which defeats the purpose of the right to carry. The state uses outliers to explain historical tradition but it wasn't long standing. They cited Texas law that only lasted a year. The State is trying to make up artificial context to support their argument . Heller and McDonald both dealt with possession. Bruen is all about outside the home. All three cases dealt with modern handguns. Dan cites Page 21-33 of Bruen/Sensitive Places. We had pretty much the same so called sensitive places back in 1791. There are no new sensitive places in 2023. On Tuesday the brief from the state claims that Bruen invited States to interpret which it didn't. Bruen says there should be a broad sense of carry except in places where core governmental functions happen. Dan says crowds don't count. Everywhere is crowded. New Jersey is the most dense and crowded state in the United States. Reminding the court on standing. The Attorney General is by constitution the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in New Jersey. The Court could trump the AG to make sure he doesn't do anything inconsistent. 

The Judge asked how does the 5 sensitive places in the Koons case translate here? Cai doesn't think the Judge should look at those in this Lawsuit. 

Judge Williams has a suspicion that the state wants her to reverse Judge Bumb's Decision. She asks why she shouldn't think this?

Judge has been struggling with the motion to consolidate for the past 2 days. Says she favors Bumb more on this matter.  It appears that Kai thinks it would be better to consolidate the other way. Siegel has many more provisions. Judge Williams questions whether the only thing left is a Preliminary Injunction and to consolidate this case into Koons. Cai states that she doesn't think the remaining places correlate to Judge Bumb's opinion.  Judge says again that she doesn't think she needs to deal with the temporary restraining order at all. She mentions that the plaintiffs have conceded to the consolidation attempt. Williams' thinks that Bumb's opinion holds a lot of weight.

Judge Williams reminisced on the fact that Dan mentioned that this case is 98% done. She then ask him if there's another 14 or so sensitive places that have not been discussed what is the other 2% that hes talking about seeing how Bumb only spoke about 5 places so far. Dan says that the 2% includes actually entering the order on the remaining sensitive places. There's no additional Bruen analysis that needs to be done in order to add those extra places. The state's historical examples on both cases are all the same.

Cai claims that she has more evidence that Judge Bumb doesn't have to support not granting a temporary restraining order in the remaining places.

Cai cites exhibit....
*5 - a location being used as a polling place during the conduct of an election and places used for the storage or tabulation of ballots;
*8 - a child care facility, including a day care center; 
*10 - a park, beach, recreation facility or area or playground owned or controlled by a State, county or local government unit, or any part of such a place, which is designated as a gun free zone by the governing authority based on considerations of public safety; 
*22 - a facility licensed or regulated by the Department of Human Services, Department of  Children and Families, or Department of Health, other than a health care facility, that provides addiction or mental health treatment or support services; 

The claims and evidence are only currently before Judge Williams and have not been visited by Judge Bumb yet.
Section 9 - a nursery school, pre-school, zoo, or summer camp
Section 10 - Parks and Beaches are only talking about merit problems. 

Cai Brought up the fact that places like Central Park and (I believe she referred to Fairmont park) banned firearms and that many other parks followed their restrictions soon after.

She also brought up the following Sections.....
*11 - youth sports events, as defined in N.J.S.5:17-1, during and immediately preceding and following the conduct of the event, except that this provision shall not apply to participants of a youth sports event which is a firearm shooting competition to which paragraph (3) of subsection b. of section 14 of P.L.1979, c.179 (C.2C:58-6.1) applies; 
*18 - a casino and related facilities, including but not limited to appurtenant hotels, retail premises, restaurant and bar facilities, and entertainment and recreational venues located within the casino property;  
*23 - a public location being used for making motion picture or television images for theatrical, commercial or educational purposes, during the time such location is being used for that purpose; 

Cai Went on to say that these sections simply didn't exist in the founding time period. Says places like airports didn't exist either.  She also cited Texas law where public shows would restrict firearms and it could also tie into movie sets.

Judge Williams then cuts Cai off and says that all she thinks she's hearing is to revisit Bumb's opinion. Williams honestly believes that one judge should be deciding these things. It serves the best interests of everyone.  Bumb's opinion on Bruen is extensive and exhaustive. Visually viewing the stress on Judge William's face she says that she's struggling with how to address what's before her today.  She goes on to say that Bumb has the perfect roadmap to reach a resolution. Cai brings up the Supreme Courts Decision to uphold the 2nd Circuit's Stay on NY's carry law and that she saw how they respected the judicial process. Judge Williams saw what they said and wasn't tricked by the ruling. Judge Williams' then goes on to say that The Supreme Court has spoken. Sometimes we wish they were less ambiguous however this isn’t the case this time, is it. Mic Drop

As Cai proceeds to go deeper into her argument the judge has more and more concerns about not consolidating. Cai thinks the Judge should reach a decision on the remaining places.

Williams goes on to say that both parties brief and supplemental briefs were written and submitted in superb fashion.

Dan says that Justice Alito's opinion yesterday shows that he isn't happy with what's going on.  He further presses that Koons reasoning carries over to the remaining sensitive places.  Dan mentions that the state never Brought up churches and their unique situation. One of the plaintiffs houses of worship is attached to a school. So it effectively eliminates their ability to carry under this law. He then cites the Multi Use Purpose/Law is too overbroad. Judge Williams then goes on to question if this portion of the law is worthy of TRO?(meaning should it be pushed into the PI stage)  Dan responds by saying that this is a major 2nd amendment problem.  Places like strip malls have multiple stores that are attached to each other in a development. If one of the stores is an educational institution then the entire building would be considered a sensitive place including the parking lot. Which poses a major risk to plaintiffs and their right to carry. Cai's response to this is to refer back to standing. 

Judge Williams then starts to think for a moment, then proceeds to call for a 15 minute recess.  When she returns she states that when it comes to the 5 sections of the law that a TRO was placed on,  She finds no reason to have a different result than what Judge Bumb granted. She then goes on to say that consolidation of Siegel into Koons is the appropriate course of action.  It would save many of the court's resources and also mentions that the court has discretion due to the unique situation, based upon the close timing of both cases being filled.  There's a couple different ways to look at it but technically the Koons case was filed first.  Preliminary Injunction briefing schedule is set to be made soon.

Judge Williams also said that her opinion and orders will be released either tonight or tomorrow. More than likely tomorrow.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 5
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, GlockityGlockGlock said:

And the taxpayers get stuck with the bill regardless. Sucks. 

Kinda.  Gun owners are a small portion of NJ tax payers.  Given the makeup of NJ politicians I would guess the majority in NJ is Dems.  The silver lining is that means Dems just paid for us to get our Freedom back!  :)  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

From Kurt Lundy on FB:

(((ANJRPC Lawsuit Update)))
Personal Transcript From Today's Hearing with Judge Williams
_______________________________________
Judge Williams Enters the Courtroom at 1:36 PM...

Thanks for sharing that!

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Bruen was a NY law that was challenged but effected NJ and other states...

Bruen was a SCOTUS decision.  The Delaware law is currently at a Federal district court.

Similar to how the 5th circuit recently ruled that the bump stock ban is not enforceable, but that judgement is currently only effective in the states the 5th circuit covers.

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The good news coming off yesterday was that the Sielgel vs Platkin and the Koons vs Reynolds cases were combined and will be sent back to judge Bumb.  The complaints of the entire case are now up for review by judge Bumb and it is unknown what parts will fall under the TRO and what parts will not.  For instance the part of the law that takes the issuing authority away from the courts could stand but all of the higher fees and the other parts of the law that require registration of all firearms may also be maintained. The state has yet to make its move but I would not rule out an appeal to the third circuit court to rescind the TRO. 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


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

Thanks to @gunforhirefor sharing this.  Added to the pinned post.

 

vJ8bwv2.jpg

So the following places are OK then, since they are under National Park Services, not "any park, beach, rec facility playground owned/controlled by state, county, or muni gov't, or part of above designated gun free zone". Right?

New Jersey (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov)

Share this post


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

Thanks @Krdshrk for the chart. Anyone know what the rule is WRT to parking lots of prohibited places?

Parking lots used by courts, and municipal buildings are state/town property.  Post Offices are considered federal property and IMO all would be off limits to CCW. I believe that all parking lots associated with any prohibited carry location would fall under the same classification. If you must go to one of these places buy a steel car pistol safe bolt it in the trunk, park on the street and walk to the location but we will need clarification on the legality of storage of your pistol in ones unattended vehicle.

BTW, firearms are prohibited in some National Parks like Grand Canyon. It goes by the state laws where the park is located

Share this post


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

Thanks to @gunforhirefor sharing this.  Added to the pinned post.

 

vJ8bwv2.jpg

Thanks to Gun for Hire and you for reposting..

If we can get the Beaches, Parks and Playgrounds added for myself and I’m sure many of you I would be able to go weeks maybe months without having to go anyplace without carrying.while we continue the fight for the rest of them.

What about Public transit?  Can you take a bus or train is you don’t go to or through a hub? Secaucus or Hoboken hub?

 

Share this post


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

buy a steel car pistol safe bolt it in the trunk, park on the street and walk to the location but we will need clarification on the legality of storage of your pistol in ones unattended vehicle.

Not sure it NEEDS to be in trunk. Even Cai argued that. What's wrong with going there. Parking. Then lock up inside car. 

I highly doubt, someone is going to say "you should have stopped, locked up gun, then drove into lot"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is such an optimistic time for us gun owners. Its not over  yet but for once we have the momentum and the law on our side.

 

I have to say, I've been seeing some infighting lately and it is doing absolutely nothing but stroking internet egos. This is far from over, but there is great work being done on our behalf. No one ever thought carry would come to NJ or NY, and you know what, if everyone had that defeatist mentality, then no one would have taken the torch to bring the fight to court. All this naysaying does nothing but demoralize and does not help the cause. So while its your freedom of speech to always point out the worst case scenario, you are doing nothing to support and motivate. Being aware of negative outcomes is one thing, but constantly being told we will fail is something else. If that is you, I'm sure the community would rather you sit in a corner and let better men take up the fight to restore rights that you insisted wouldn't happen but will get to enjoy nonetheless if successful.

 

Let's keep it up. Donate when you can. Take a friend to the range.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a bit of parking lot discussion going on here. 

Think about this below. And personally, I think it confuses the issue more, rather than clarify.

We already know that we cannot possess firearms on postal property, that includes parking lots and sidewalks. That was already pre-existing law. 

For many years, Ramsey Outdoor in Ledgewood has been in the same building as the US Post Office. All of the stores are connected, share the same sidewalk. Staples sits in between Ramsey and the Post Office. Ramsey is full of guns and people walk in and out of that store with guns and ammo all the time. 

The question is, have we all been breaking the law, unwittingly, for all this time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, g17owner said:

I see a bit of parking lot discussion going on here. 

Think about this below. And personally, I think it confuses the issue more, rather than clarify.

We already know that we cannot possess firearms on postal property, that includes parking lots and sidewalks. That was already pre-existing law. 

For many years, Ramsey Outdoor in Ledgewood has been in the same building as the US Post Office. All of the stores are connected, share the same sidewalk. Staples sits in between Ramsey and the Post Office. Ramsey is full of guns and people walk in and out of that store with guns and ammo all the time. 

The question is, have we all been breaking the law, unwittingly, for all this time?

IMO, until there's case law, nobody knows for sure.  IANAL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

Bruen was a SCOTUS decision.  The Delaware law is currently at a Federal district court.

Similar to how the 5th circuit recently ruled that the bump stock ban is not enforceable, but that judgement is currently only effective in the states the 5th circuit covers.

Incorrect. The decision only affects the federal ban and not an individual state. But affects the entire federal enforcement until there is a split . And the other circuits ruled on bump stocks themselves as where the case in the 5th circuit went after how the rule was made .

Im not a lawyer so don’t take my interpretation as gospel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any updates on concealed vs open? Not that I would open but unfortunately I think I occasionally print (I'm buying bigger shirts and a different holster to hide it). 

I'm also probably just staring at it and it's something no one else would ever notice. 

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...