Jump to content
M1152

NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

Recommended Posts

On 1/24/2023 at 4:21 PM, DAHL said:

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.

Same case, same judge. Unless you think that this case will keep going until this judge retires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2023 at 4:21 PM, DAHL said:

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.

Probably an attempt to drag this out so that it can't get to the Supreme Court before June.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but I tend to agree with Peel’s thoughts….that the NJAG thinks this law isn’t defendable in court, and the legislators  have lost confidence in him. 
 

This should be fun. 
 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Maybe, but I tend to agree with Peel’s thoughts….that the NJAG thinks this law isn’t defendable in court, and the legislators  have lost confidence in him. 
 

This should be fun. 
 

 

Couldn’t agree more.  There’s only so much people can take.  The AG office knows this is not defendable and are tired of looking like morons in court.  So instead the state will take unlimited tax payer money hire outside counsel who are trained to say anything for money.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Spartiati said:

Couldn’t agree more.  There’s only so much people can take.  The AG office knows this is not defendable and are tired of looking like morons in court.  So instead the state will take unlimited tax payer money hire outside counsel who are trained to say anything for money.

Do they have the right to hire counsel? Or is this basically self representation? Because if it's the latter, this ought to be funny. 

Share this post


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

Do they have the right to hire counsel? Or is this basically self representation? Because if it's the latter, this ought to be funny. 

I’d love to be a fly on the wall if this is the case…

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know AGs can hire "special assistants", but I don't think they can just take over the entire case and boot the AG. 

I do beleive the AG has sole discretion on this, though. The legislature can't just hire someone to replace the AG, a clear issue with separation of power. 

Share this post


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

Do they have the right to hire counsel? Or is this basically self representation? Because if it's the latter, this ought to be funny. 

Wow!  If they have the right to hire counsel "contractors", we might as well abolish the Attorney General's Office.  There  are dozens of Deputy Attorney Generals, in salary grades 1 through 4, that do everything from preparing for cases (grade 1) to fetching coffee for the grade 1 (salary grade 4).

We could save a lot of money........

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dilbert1967 said:

Wow!  If they have the right to hire counsel "contractors", we might as well abolish the Attorney General's Office.  There  are dozens of Deputy Attorney Generals, in salary grades 1 through 4, that do everything from preparing for cases (grade 1) to fetching coffee for the grade 1 (salary grade 4).

We could save a lot of money........

Oh they bring in outside counsel a lot, the question is if they cna while invoking these methods of intervention. IF they can, I will bet that this is a move by the consortium of gun grabber lawyers. 

Share this post


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

Oh they bring in outside counsel a lot, the question is if they cna while invoking these methods of intervention. IF they can, I will bet that this is a move by the consortium of gun grabber lawyers. 

I beleive the AG at the end of all of this is still the one who has to argue to case. There was a SCOTUS opinion on this somewhere about special interests, and to bring in outside council still requires complete oversight of the AGs office. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I beleive the AG at the end of all of this is still the one who has to argue to case. There was a SCOTUS opinion on this somewhere about special interests, and to bring in outside council still requires complete oversight of the AGs office. 

Good.  I hope that's still true.

The legislature handed the AG an indefensible shit-sandwich, so i hope he and everyone in his office look like babbling morons as they try to attack Bruen and the Supreme Court.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dilbert1967 said:

There  are dozens of Deputy Attorney Generals, in salary grades 1 through 4, that do everything from preparing for cases (grade 1) to fetching coffee for the grade 1 (salary grade 4).

We could save a lot of money........

I know that in the early 90's, NJ had something like 400 Deputy Attorneys General scattered around the state.  I think the Assistant Attorneys General numbered in the dozens.

I've no idea how that number may have changed over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dilbert1967 said:

Wow!  If they have the right to hire counsel "contractors", we might as well abolish the Attorney General's Office.  There  are dozens of Deputy Attorney Generals, in salary grades 1 through 4, that do everything from preparing for cases (grade 1) to fetching coffee for the grade 1 (salary grade 4).

We could save a lot of money........

I can’t say this can legally happen in NJ but if California is similar enough, the AG turned down the defense of a law that would require the plaintiffs to pay the state of CA the whole legal bill if they lost one part of their case but won all the others.

The governor then had his lawyer attempt to defend the law . And lost . But it was legal to have an outside council defend the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some initial observer feedback on today's hearing:

 

Quote

Details Coming Soon on the Siegel TRO Hearing. Was a Good Day. To give you guys a little tea Judge Bumb denied The States Preliminary Injunction Schedule. Out right says it makes no sense. Sides with Dan on this one. Wants to decide everything all at once

Quote

Dan (Schmutter) did an excellent job with Angela Cai not very articulate and sometimes frustrating Judge Bumb.

 

  • Like 5
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Renee Marie Bumb: Motion Hearing held on 1/26/2023. Continued Hearing on 8 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by consolidated `plaintiffs. Decision Reserved. Ordered the parties to confer and send the Court a proposed schedule to resolve the litigation all together. (Court Reporter, John Kurz (856-576-7094)) (ar1, ) (Entered: 01/26/2023)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
     HOME         
ABOUT
        
NEWS
        
REPORTS & PUBLIC HEARINGS
        CONTACT US  

Today's SCI

The SCI is an independent fact-finding agency whose mission is to investigate waste, fraud and abuse of government tax dollars. It is empowered to monitor and assess the threat posed by organized crime and to recommend new laws and other systemic remedies to protect the integrity of the governmental process on behalf of the citizens of New Jersey.

The Commission is required by law to pursue these investigations beyond the sphere of political influence or favoritism. The law requires the SCI's findings to be made public through written reports and/or public hearings.

Over the course of more than 50 years since the Commission's establishment in 1968, it has conducted more than 120 investigations. The Commission's work has saved taxpayers millions of dollars and has been the catalyst for numerous important statutory, regulatory and administrative reforms bolstering the integrity of government at all levels.

ABOUT THE SCI

 


         we should should tips to the SCI about the waste   of our tax dollars in this case

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
Siegel update from today (note: I've got 3 more pages on notes to go through but need to pick up my kids, I'll edit this this evening with the rest)
1/26 – Room 3D
Judge Bumb enters 9:50
Attorneys enter appearances
Bumb: Will hear parties on their arguments
States that arguments related to Koons – Basically don’t go there because there’s nothing to sway the courts opinion on her earlier decision
Dan states he’s available to answer any of the courts questions. He wants to point out the differences between Koons and Siegel re: Multi use properties
The state is prohibiting properties that are otherwise not prohibited/sensitive. i.e. Section 7 states all grounds and parking lots. Mentions one plaintiff is a church member that also has a school and based on his reading the entire 14 acre property is now prohibited.
At this point Dan was going a million miles an hour and the judge playfully yelled at him to slow down for the court reporter.
Next example was a strip mall with a daycare center there – everything on the property is prohibited including for example a pizza place that maybe wants to allow guns.
The judge asks if the court construes the language to mean that the parking lot of a school or school building can be prohibited only if its solely used with the sensitive place would that be helpful. Dan says yes
Bumb states that she feels the intent of the lab was that it would only apply to the sensitive places and not all parking lots or they would have declared all parking lots sensitive.
She then asked if Dans concerns were over if the above was stipulated, and if so, what remains?
Dan brings up Multi use buildings – for example a building with doctors, lawyers and accountants in it. A doctors office makes the entire building prohibited in addition to the shared parking lot.
Finally – Plaintiff Kwozo (sp?) attends a church which has 1 multi purpose building – to the left is a sanctuary for prayer and the right holds bible classes, educational things ,etc. Is Sunday school considered an actual school based on the law?
Bumb: She states she doesn’t think religious school is school.
Dan brings up – what about Karate school? The school of rock? Tae Kwon Do, etc.
Bumb: Does the court have to define school or should they say it’s vague? If the definition is provided by the legislators is it still vague
Dan: Depends on the definition
Dan: People generally think of school as K-12, colleges and universities. It needs to be easy to tell what is what. You can’t go based on the name having “School” in it.
Bumb: Said his point was fair and well taken. Asks if school is defined anywhere?
Dan: If so, they’re not references anywhere in the legislation. There are definitions in other statues that aren’t consistent.
Bumb: If the court construes the parking lots and multi use properties as discussed – what is left? Isn’t most of this solved? States it seems odd that the court should be writing legislation
Dan: This was bill was not well thought out, was written in a fit of rage in direct defiance of Bruen
It is the job of the court to determine if its unconstitutional or now
Bumb: The court is obligated to construe terms narrowly in light of Bruen .
Dan: Wraps up the differences between this and Koons – mentions parking lot argument for shared buildings, and asks that sensitive places for parking lot only be applied when used solely for the sensitive place.
Bumb: Asks the state – how can you justify multi use in light of Bruen which dictates sensitive places must be narrowly defined.
Cai: The question isn’t related to Bruen but rather legislative. She had no issue with plaintiffs arguments. States that they’re ignoring 7c/d however.
Discussed C4 – Concealed carrying between prohibited parking and a not prohibited place – they’re allowed to leave the parking lot.
7d: States that they wouldn’t be in violation on a public right of way when passing through
Bumb: You’re ignoring multi use buildings
Cai: Buildings like a church and school on the same property – like a daycare on the first floor and a pizza place on the third floor. Can states you’d not be in violation:
(e.g. having to go up a set of stairs to get to a non sensitive place passing through a sensitive place)
Cai states she hasn’t seen any specific building to say 1 way or the other, but would stipulate on Dan’s arguments – She states that Dan’s arguments were made quickly in haste.
Bumb: It’s not haste for the plaintiffs. Bumb then states that you’re not prohibited from going from a parking lot to a non sensitive place when passing through, then states to Dan “you’ve got a stipulation from the state” – this is now stipulated and you have no need to worry.
Dan: If the order reflects that our concerns are resolved.
Cai: Schools are defined in section 2c:35-9 – school means what is in NJ code, they’re under direction of department of education. Dan teaching a law class: not a school, someone teaching bagpipes: not a school. Sunday school: Not a school
Bumb: Asks if this is resolved for now?
Dan: For the PI stage will the state offer a definition of schools?
Bumb: I’m ok with ruling on this
Cai: Plaintiff brings up vagueness, but she wants examples
Bumb: States plaintiffs are exposed to criminal liability – asks if this is eleviated by the earler arguments
Cai states they don’t have standing
Bumb asks to hear Dan on any remaining issues
Dan states he’ll answer any questions on standing
Bumb: In Koons – the sensitive places are part and parcel to their everyday life. Some of these like movie sets aren’t parsed out and park of everyday life.
Dan: Facts here are more specific and granular re: Racetracks and Parks/Libraries
BUmb: She’ll deal with that – focus on the others
Dan: Brings up that the legislators groups things together because that’s the only way for them to provide multiple historical analogues. There is no historical tradition for these. 1-3 examples doesn’t cut it and Bruen was very clear on this.
Bumb: In Koons she restained the whole thing. Should she not parse out individual places? i.e. If we’re talking about parks and beaches and rec centers should she not parse them out individually for standing purposes?
Dan: Plaintiffs shouldn’t need to show standing for 25 places – it can’t be based on name alone
Bumb: Antonyuk case they parsed out every place on its own
Dan: Siegel in part 22 – does he need to go to all 25 places to have standing? The legislature groups things together on purpose – with the Bruen challenge if you say similar then we’re challenging on similar grounds.
Dan: Judge had previously asked about things not in daily lives like movie sets. Dan mentions that he had previously walked through a Sopranos set one time – you don’t know where these are going to be. Same goes for news reporters.
Bumb mentions this would be more persuasive in the PI stage
Dan: Understands the standing analysis is different for this. In this in insufficient now – its never going to be.
Bumb: This will be resolved in PI
Dan: Will the state argue standing?
Bumb: Asks about public gatherings
Cai: Plaintiff says time to time and has the burden to prove.
Bumb: Does the state have permits for public gatherings? Do they not have standing?
Cai: In the TRO stage no
Bumb: Will there be public gatherings between now and PI?
Cai: I don’t know
Bumb: By PI – the state can’t challenge standing, there will be standing
Cai: OK Sure
Bumb states theres a concession on public gatherings.
Move to film locations/movie sets:
Cai: No allegations from plaintiff
Dan: Will withdraw TRO if state concedes standing.
Cai: state can’t stipulate – plaintiff can cure by submitting specificis
Bumb: They would say im going to a movie set
Cai: State won’t concede theres immenence
Dan: Then no plaintiff will ever have standing
Bumb: what concerns me is the state says no standing. What happens if someone goes to a movie set – do we need an entire new lawsuit? Why wouldn’t the state want to resolve all of these issues and invite more efficiency?
Cai: cannot waive standing – it’s black letter law. Parties can’t waive jurisdiction
Bumb: Seems to me its prudent for the state to stipulate to standing so the constitutionality issues are resolved in 1 fell swoop to resolve everything.
Bumb to Cai – focus on….theres no reason to deviate from Koons decision. She previously criticized the private property provisions…
Cai: In Koons public libraries and museums the government is the proprietors. This applies to airports and government builings – does the 2A ever cover buildings like this?
Bumb mentions all of the case related to this is pre Bruen
Cai mentions that the government as a proprietor – its similar to NJ transit is a state owned bus company – its no different then if a private bus company states no firearms.
Bumb states that Bruen changed all of this – there must be a historical tradition. What about state owned highways – does that count?
Cai: The government is in competition with private companies
Bumb: Then square that with Bruen. Private vs. Public – there is N DISTINCTION in Bruen. Every case mentioned is pre Bruen .
Cai: Bruen doesn’t explain enough or answer when the government is competing in an open marketplace.
Bumb: It’s difficult to understand how if the government owns something it eviscerates Bruen,
Cai: What she can do – if the government acts as a private owner….
Bump interrupts: That’s grounds for mischief on the part of the government – If Bruen says no analogue they can say we’re just acting as a private business.
Bumb: Cases for the government as market participants is for the PI stage – she wants to see.
Cai: Does person have a 2A right in someone elses property – that’s not protected by 2A
She makes the argument that Bruen/Heller/McDonald extend a right to carry in public not a residence/business – that’s not what the court meant by public.
Bumb: Public means outside in the community. Nothing supports right to exclude trespassing, This could be limited by other laws i.e. right to exclude as property owner – not changed by Bruen
The plaintiff is not saying that if a property owner puts up a no gun sign that’s not ok. The state says since they are excluded theres no right to carry and you need to show historical analogues.
When Jefferson rode on his horse – did he stop and ask if he could carry on someones property? No.
Cai: The government can change the law of trespassing. Instead of putting up a sign – they can post on the internet – that’s not a 2A argument
Bumb: But you’re not doing this for trespassing – you’re only doing it for firearms! Why is the state interfering with trespassing only for firearms when it’s been fine forever.
I don’t understand the argument – Private properties is a clever way for the state to say it’s protecting property owners. What you’re doing is unconstitutional – persuade me!
Cai: Mentions exhibit 21 which is a study about ow people believe you shouldn’t be able to carry in peoples homes without permission
Bumb: then why not educate the public instead of going after gun owners
Cai: Discusses a public campaign saying YOU SHOULD PUT UP SIGNS TO NOT ALLOW GUNS
Bumb: NOT THAT YOU SHOULD – THAT YOU MAY!
Cai: They can provide historical analgues for PI
Bumb> That’s about poaching – you’re ignoring the title!
Cai: Poaching is just one part
Bumb: State says you have it and you haven’t given it to me. What are you hiding? Give it to me!
It’s unfortunate – I keep asking for where it is and you keep ignoring it!
Bumb mentions shes hoping to avoid the colonial vs reconstructionist argument

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Lotta good stuff in there.  I particularly liked this line.

Dan: This was bill was not well thought out, was written in a fit of rage in direct defiance of Bruen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cai got her ass handed to her in this exchange.  The judge kept asking for standing and Cai just kept repeating bull shit like Rain Man, State owned, Whopners on at 5, K-mart sux, but but but, state owned.

 

39 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:
Cai: cannot waive standing – it’s black letter law. Parties can’t waive jurisdiction
Bumb: Seems to me its prudent for the state to stipulate to standing so the constitutionality issues are resolved in 1 fell swoop to resolve everything.
Bumb to Cai – focus on….theres no reason to deviate from Koons decision. She previously criticized the private property provisions…
Cai: In Koons public libraries and museums the government is the proprietors. This applies to airports and government builings – does the 2A ever cover buildings like this?
Bumb mentions all of the case related to this is pre Bruen
Cai mentions that the government as a proprietor – its similar to NJ transit is a state owned bus company – its no different then if a private bus company states no firearms.
Bumb states that Bruen changed all of this – there must be a historical tradition. What about state owned highways – does that count?
Cai: The government is in competition with private companies
Bumb: Then square that with Bruen. Private vs. Public – there is N DISTINCTION in Bruen. Every case mentioned is pre Bruen .
Cai: Bruen doesn’t explain enough or answer when the government is competing in an open marketplace.
Bumb: It’s difficult to understand how if the government owns something it eviscerates Bruen,
Cai: What she can do – if the government acts as a private owner….
Bump interrupts: That’s grounds for mischief on the part of the government – If Bruen says no analogue they can say we’re just acting as a private business.
Bumb: Cases for the government as market participants is for the PI stage – she wants to see.
Cai: Does person have a 2A right in someone elses property – that’s not protected by 2A
She makes the argument that Bruen/Heller/McDonald extend a right to carry in public not a residence/business – that’s not what the court meant by public.
Bumb: Public means outside in the community. Nothing supports right to exclude trespassing, This could be limited by other laws i.e. right to exclude as property owner – not changed by Bruen
The plaintiff is not saying that if a property owner puts up a no gun sign that’s not ok. The state says since they are excluded theres no right to carry and you need to show historical analogues.
When Jefferson rode on his horse – did he stop and ask if he could carry on someones property? No.
Cai: The government can change the law of trespassing. Instead of putting up a sign – they can post on the internet – that’s not a 2A argument
Bumb: But you’re not doing this for trespassing – you’re only doing it for firearms! Why is the state interfering with trespassing only for firearms when it’s been fine forever.

I love how casually Cai says the government can make up laws as they go.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And thank you @DirtyDigz - for your wonderfully detailed and lightning-fast-out-of-the-gate "informal transcript". Much appreciated by me... and I'm sure by others!

Update: He informed us downthread the transcript wasn't his... nonetheless, he's been one (of a handful of you) who've been really great at sharing information on this thread. Depending on how busy the workday is (I'm sure many agree), it's nice that I don't have to go searching multiple websites to get the "gist" of things.

And may I say... all of these hearings just sound absolutely DELICIOUS! Nice to be WINNING for a change. Can't wipe the smile off my face. :D

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

And thank you @DirtyDigz - for your wonderfully detailed and lightning-fast-out-of-the-gate "informal transcript". Much appreciated by me... and I'm sure by others!

Yes, thanks for efforts

NJ ANTI-GUNNERS RUNNING SCARED: Motion to Intervene in NJ Carry Law Challenge a Sign of WEAKNESS

Always a good analysis

 

Share this post


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

And thank you @DirtyDigz - for your wonderfully detailed and lightning-fast-out-of-the-gate "informal transcript". Much appreciated by me... and I'm sure by others!

To be clear - I didn't write that, just copy/pasted.

Many more notes in this reddit post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/NJGuns/comments/10lzu8b/tro_hearing_notes_12623_koonssiegel_carry_lawsuit/

  • Informative 2

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...