Jump to content
M1152

NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, gunforhire said:

You all know we have court Thursday to remove all that extra illegal requirements?

Yes, and we're all waiting patiently to get this B.S. settled.

$150 to the municipality?  For what?

10 minutes ago, Xtors said:

Anyone notice the following is no longer present on that form?

  1. Written proof of ownership and qualification with the handgun(s) you intend on carrying.

    1. Proof of ownership can be a purchase receipt or purchase permit or a notarized letter of ownership listing make, model, and serial number of handgun(s).

 

Yep!!!

Share this post


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

You all know we have court Thursday to remove all that extra illegal requirements?

I wouldn’t put the cart before the horse, but yeah, I think this crap is gonna be killed by the judge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2023 at 5:23 PM, Displaced Texan said:

I wouldn’t put the cart before the horse, but yeah, I think this crap is gonna be killed by the judge. 

IMO, its difficult to say how much of the cancel carry bill will be struck down on a TRO and what items will be retained or kept. Even if we get a TRO on all of the worse parts of the law, there will still be a trial at the third circuit court of appeals to determine the final outcome.  TRO means temporary restraining order. To receive a permanent injunction; this brings with it more legal challenges and it is likely that far left NJ will continue to press to deny our second amendment rights until the very end. I am optimistic for a good legal ruling by judge Bumb this Thursday but even so this is not the end of the fight to keep our second amendment rights..

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2023 at 3:01 PM, gunforhire said:

You all know we have court Thursday to remove all that extra illegal requirements?

This.

Probably a good idea for those who haven't applied yet to wait just a little more to see how things play out.

 

@gunforhire - thanks again for all the work helping to get things this far.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 124gr9mm said:

This.

Probably a good idea for those who haven't applied yet to wait just a little more to see how things play out.

 

@gunforhire - thanks again for all the work helping to get things this far.

Welcome - There will be sensitive place changes coming in a week or so, the rest will take months at least. So I would apply in a few weeks. PS the NJSP says it will all be online in June, but they did not specify what year! LOL

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Welcome - There will be sensitive place changes coming in a week or so, the rest will take months at least. So I would apply in a few weeks. PS the NJSP says it will all be online in June, but they did not specify what year! LOL

That's perfect!  The past six months have been busy at work and it's due to slow down by the end of March.  I'll apply then.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All, Quick question, I have to run out to do errands and also  need to stop at my Dr. Office which is in the hospital.  

Can I unload and put it in the rear storage area?  At the back hatch the floor has a latch and door that opens for access to spare tire, first aid kit, jumper cables etc..  It does not lock.


I believe there are different vehicles storage requirements for Securing the gun while driving and securing the gun while parking in a restricted location.  I believe one required a safe  type container and could be up front and One had to be in the trunk/rear area? Don’t quote me on any of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.46.0.pdf

I don't know what this all means but can guess that it presents a request by the state for a long drawn out delay process. It seems to have to do with a preliminary injunction.. The way I read it the state wants to keep things going until they get in front of an activist left wing judge.  Any legal minds reading this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not a legal mind, but that’s kind of how I read it. Judge will probably reject this, especially since SCOTUS kinda bitch slapped the 2nd Circuit court the other day about delaying hearing the NY cases. 
 

I imagine Judge Bumb would have seen that, and probably won’t want to delay such a hotbed topic. 
 

Just my gut feeling. 

Share this post


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

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.46.0.pdf

I don't know what this all means but can guess that it presents a request by the state for a long drawn out delay process. It seems to have to do with a preliminary injunction.. The way I read it the state wants to keep things going until they get in front of an activist left wing judge.  Any legal minds reading this?

Meh.  Standard schedule proposal.

Share this post


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

Meh.  Standard schedule proposal.

Yes but the question is;  does the state have the right to request those PI hearings? If they do the process extends on.  After the TRO there is probably a hearing for a permanent injunction, then it goes to trial.  Bottom line is that we are not free and clear just yet. I believe the state is looking to bring this case before an activist left wing judge who will reject the PI. 

Share this post


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

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.46.0.pdf

I don't know what this all means but can guess that it presents a request by the state for a long drawn out delay process. It seems to have to do with a preliminary injunction.. The way I read it the state wants to keep things going until they get in front of an activist left wing judge.  Any legal minds reading this?

My read is the state is pretty taking it that they will come out on the losing end in the PI, and are trying to break it up into separate hearing for separate parts to drag it out. Unless they are stupid, they do not expect the 3rd circuit to be as accommodating as the second, and the second just got warned really hard. I suspect (and I would be shocked if they didn't as well), that SCOTUS won't differentiate between the 2nd circuit ignoring their warning and the third circuit ignoring their warning. So even if the 3rd carries water for them, they will run right into Alito looking to fuck them up bad like. 

So yeah, it's clearly a delaying tactic to some degree. If they get it it buys them time, and possibly a small victory they can attribute to their strategy if any of the bill remains intact. 

But I'm not buying the goal being to maximize their ability to say "we did what we could". 

I wouldn't put big money on it, but I think we are in for the newest grabber tactic that can only be done in places like NJ where it is essentially a one party system with no way out in the near future. I suspect the next dirty trick we will see is a constant flow of new legislation to moot existing cases hoping to leverage bias in district and circuit courts to avoid being penalized for it and dragging that out as long as possible. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

wouldn't put big money on it, but I think we are in for the newest grabber tactic that can only be done in places like NJ where it is essentially a one party system with no way out in the near future. I suspect the next dirty trick we will see is a constant flow of new legislation to moot existing cases hoping to leverage bias in district and circuit courts to avoid being penalized for it and dragging that out as long as possible. 

 

If I remember correctly, didn’t DC do shit like this after the Heller decision? I think SCOTUS bitch slapped them for it pretty hard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2023 at 12:11 PM, DAHL said:

IMO, its difficult to say how much of the cancel carry bill will be struck down on a TRO and what items will be retained or kept. Even if we get a TRO on all of the worse parts of the law, there will still be a trial at the third circuit court of appeals to determine the final outcome.  TRO means temporary restraining order. To receive a permanent injunction; this brings with it more legal challenges and it is likely that far left NJ will continue to press to deny our second amendment rights until the very end. I am optimistic for a good legal ruling by judge Bumb this Thursday but even so this is not the end of the fight to keep our second amendment rights..

The problem is only the things brought up in the lawsuits can be struct down.  Koons got the important low hanging fruit TRO'd.  Seigal is much broader, but still does not encompass all of the unconstitutional laws in the bill.  If they aren't brought up in the lawsuits, they can't be struck down.  For example the news costs and process would remain.  At least that is my understanding.  IANAL.  

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

If I remember correctly, didn’t DC do shit like this after the Heller decision? I think SCOTUS bitch slapped them for it pretty hard. 

NY did it at SCOTUS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is interesting - NJ Legislators filing to intervene in Koons v. Reynolds:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.47.1.pdf

image.png.e996adde42fdb7c2c8265b8f402bacc9.png

My quick read  of the filing - it's establishing the basis for them to file a brief in the case, but nothing else at this time.

image.png.77feac32587b750fd993d92c9af93d9d.png

I'm wondering why they're choosing to do this instead of just relaying whatever it is they want to do through the NJAG lawyers? For the sound bites/clickbait headlines?

  • FacePalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice to "intervene"  Yes more court dates until the state gets the activist judges and the result that they want to destroy your Constitutional and God given rights to self defense. Notice that they want to schedule 4 court dates to achieve their purpose. If the state wins it will be appealed to the third circuit court of appeals and ultimately to the Supreme Court.

These liberal politicians are like spoiled babies.  These tyrants will whine pout and complain until they get their way but in the end they will lose. Hard as they try, they cannot rewrite the Bill of Rights.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

It would be great if someone filed an Open Public Records Act once these cases are done to find out how much NJ spent in legal fees.

Why bother.  Government loves to waste money:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/4-5-million-in-tax-fines-paid-by-mercer-county-state-comptroller/ar-AA16H8H1?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=d7a9d9ff8c3049ce85b875fe32e925b3

Share this post


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

For those too tired to click, lol, their theory is: The move suggests that legislative leaders may not be satisfied with the Attorney General's work, and/or that they have tried and failed to get the Attorney General to make arguments that the AG was not willing to make.

Not a lawyer, but that sounds pretty logical. Agree with what  @DAHL stated a few posts up... this sounds to me like the wailing and clenched-fist tantrum one would expect from toddlers, not from the heads of state legislative bodies! :facepalm:  The AGs office has likely chosen not to embarrass themselves in the courthouse (well, any more than they already have anyway) by going along with this nonsense.

These legislators are a JOKE! An embarrassment! And they presume to be speaking "for the public"? Oh, yeah? Really? What about the domestic violence victim who has a creepy ex- who keeps cropping up in her life as an omnipresent threat? Do they represent her? Or the guy whose work (like getting cash out of vending machines) takes him into bad neighborhoods that pose unique risks? Or hell, for that matter, what about the perfectly ordinary NJ residents who face NO "unique" threats at all, but merely read the news, use their critical thinking skills, and realize that CRIME can happen to ANYONE, at ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, and they'd simply like to have the means to protect themselves that their Constitution guarantees them? Maybe they'd just like to be treated like equal and full U.S. citizens (like their brethren right across the river in PA, for instance)? 

These 2 birdbrains don't "represent the public". Far from it!! Mealy-mouthed, moronic little attention-seekers with no respect for the law. They should both be recalled IMO and bounced to the curb!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mrs. Peel said:

For those too tired to click, lol, their theory is: The move suggests that legislative leaders may not be satisfied with the Attorney General's work, and/or that they have tried and failed to get the Attorney General to make arguments that the AG was not willing to make.

Not a lawyer, but that sounds pretty logical. Agree with what  @DAHL stated a few posts up... this sounds to me like the wailing and clenched-fist tantrum one would expect from toddlers, not from the heads of state legislative bodies! :facepalm:  The AGs office has likely chosen not to embarrass themselves in the courthouse (well, any more than they already have anyway) by going along with this nonsense.

These legislators are a JOKE! An embarrassment! And they presume to be speaking "for the public"? Oh, yeah? Really? What about the domestic violence victim who has a creepy ex- who keeps cropping up in her life as an omnipresent threat? Do they represent her? Or the guy whose work (like getting cash out of vending machines) takes him into bad neighborhoods that pose unique risks? Or hell, for that matter, what about the perfectly ordinary NJ residents who face NO "unique" threats at all, but merely read the news, use their critical thinking skills, and realize that CRIME can happen to ANYONE, at ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, and they'd simply like to have the means to protect themselves that their Constitution guarantees them? Maybe they'd just like to be treated like equal and full U.S. citizens (like their brethren right across the river in PA, for instance)? 

These 2 birdbrains don't "represent the public". Far from it!! Mealy-mouthed, moronic little attention-seekers with no respect for the law. They should both be recalled IMO and bounced to the curb!

That's now 2 beers I owe you.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

These 2 birdbrains don't "represent the public". Far from it!! Mealy-mouthed, moronic little attention-seekers with no respect for the law. They should both be recalled IMO and bounced to the curb!

Aw, Mrs. Peel, you need to stop holding back and tell us how you really feel.  :D

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, CMJeepster said:

Ridiculous. Is Hughes able/going to run again?

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...