Jump to content
M1152

NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

Recommended Posts

And another (Not Mine) informal transcript:

 

Quote

(((ANJRPC Lawsuit Update)))

*** Today's Personal Transcripts From Siegel TRO Hearing ***

Had to get this out now. Will clean up a little later when I get home if necessary.

_______________________________________

Judge Bumb enters the Courtroom at 9:46am

Starts with Arguments first. Judge Bumb quickly makes it a point to say that she sees no evidence to persade her from making any changes to her TRO ruling in the Koons Case. Tell Cai she will be able to explain were the court errored on their decision.

***Multi Use Property Claim***

Dan starts of with the language use in Section 7a described on page 11 of Dan's moving brief. Dan questions what are schools? The Multi Use issue affects places of worship(names the plaintiff Varga). Church sits on a 14 acres of land that also has a a school on it. Due to this fact it exepts him from carrying while at the church. The language in the law doesn't allow carry in places like strip malls depending on what's attached to it. Dan says that these places have shared parking so even outside of the building would be an issue. If a daycare is in that strip mall the entire property be exempt from carry. Judge believes it wasnt he intent of the legislators to makes strip malls and parking lots such a problem. She questioned if that was the case why not just make all parking lots a sensitive place. She thinks it was the job of the legislators to solve this issue of multi use.q

Dan makes more examples of the mult use issuse by talking about professional office buildings. These building could have a random doctors office on the first floor in the back. Which would make the entire building prohibited. Says we need construction that says just the doctors office is prohibited and no other part of the building. Dan Brings up Plaintiff Cuozzo that has a church problem as well. She has multiple issues because everything is all in one building. It has a Sunday School and Adult Bible classes in another room from the sanctuary. Because of this it eliminates the right to carry and even the ability to hire security at the church. Judge Bumb stops Dan and says she has a slight disagreement. She doesn't believe that Bible school and Sunday School are considered actual schools. Dan goes farther on to issue the question could a music school be considered an actual school? Or how about the School of Rock? Anyone can name something a school. What about karate schools. It's could be called the Karate School of Medford or be called the Wing Chun Center of West Orange. Does the names with school in it change anything? Judge questions if legislators actually defined what is a school would plaintiffs still question it on court? Dan drives the point that this is criminal statue and it needs to be well defined and that's not the case here. Dan says he teaches CLE classes and sometimes they're at a hotel. So does that make it a classrom? Judge Bumb agrees with Dan and says his point are fair. She says it's unfortunate that legislators didn't define this. She then goes on to ask of there are any other statutes that can help define this? Dan says Yes, but they're different. The legislators could have fixed this issue but they didn't bring up any. Judge makes a note that she finds it odd that she has to sit here today attempting to draft legislation. Dan pauses and out right says that this bill was drafted in a fit of Rage to spite the Supreme Court and Bruen. This bill was fast tracked and had a lot of mistakes. Some we were able to correct and get removed but there's still a mess left on the table. Dan wants to remove the unconstitutional defects. A reasonable construction would be to only limit restrictions solely to specific places not entire building or entire parking lots. Maybe only the daycare parking lot. Real-estate is complex. There could be other things beside parking lots. Maybe grassy areas or fields that are apart of the grounds. There needs to be a very narrow construction and not so broad.

Judge Bumb Questions Cai how how does the State justify this Mult Use Restriction. She thinks is way more expansive that what Bruen allows. Cai says this isn't a Bruen Problem but at Legislative intent statutory interpretation issue. Cites that plaintiffs are looking at..........

Section 7C-4

transport a concealed handgun between a vehicle parked within a prohibited parking lot area and a place other than a prohibited place enumerated in subsection a. of this section, provided that the person immediately leaves the parking lot area and does not enter into or on the grounds of the prohibited place with the handgun.

Section 7D

The holder of a valid and lawfully issued permit to carry under N.J.S.2C:58-4 shall not be in violation of subsection a. of this section while the holder is traveling along a public right-of-way that touches or crosses any of the places enumerated in subsection a. of this section if the concealed handgun is carried on their person in accordance with the provisions of this act or is being transported in a vehicle by the permit holder in accordance with all other applicable provisions of law.

Cai brings up the church on 14 acres of land. Cai doesn't believe that enforcement would happen as Dan is concerned about. She then goes on to accuse the plaintiffs of haste. Doesn't see any credible treat to people. Says she needs to see the mapping of the property to make a better determination. Bumb disagrees.

Judge questions if Cai is correct. Dan still doesn't believe these section of the law will protect people. Judge may order no enforcement entering between locations. Cai thinks a school is determined if it falls under the States Department of Education requirements. Cites if the place has a certain amount of fire exits or curtain safety precautions. Doesn't believe going to someone house for music lessons makes it a school. Cai also doesn't believe Sunday School or Karate lessons are a school. Bumb is still willing to assist with the definition of what is a school. Dan request this to be fine tuned in the Preliminary Injunction stage. Bumb is open to it. Requests Cai and Dan talk about how to work this out. Judges thinks legislation reads too broadly. Says plaintiffs are in fear of criminal liability because the law is just not clear.

*** STANDING ***

Dan thinks Standing has been fully briefed. Judge reminds that in the Koons case the sensitive location were targeted to people everyday life and because of this it motivated the court to make the decision to implement a TRO. Judge questions whether the remain locations affect the plaintiffs everyday life. Dan says our case is more detailed with facts and records. Dan says the State can't use outliers to establish historical tradition. Bruen disallows restrictions of places with crowds. Bruen says that the State has to show a numerosity of tradition and not random events throughout history. Dan says that the court can find standing in the aggregate because of the choices the legislators made. Judge asks Dan if she should parce out certain sections of the law? Dan says Yes. He goes on to cite section 21 of Sensitive locations.

Section 21

a health care facility, including but not limited to a general hospital, special hospital, psychiatric hospital, public health center, diagnostic center, treatment center, rehabilitation center, extended care facility, skilled nursing home, nursing home, intermediate care facility, tuberculosis hospital, chronic disease hospital, maternity hospital, outpatient clinic, dispensary, assisted living center, home health care agency, residential treatment facility, residential health care facility, medical office, or ambulatory care facility;

There's at least a paragraph of locations and people can't be required to show standing on all of them. Judge says that's what Antonyuk did for sensitive locations. Dan says this is the legislators fault. If they think all of this places listed are the same then we should be able to challenge them as the same. Dan goes on to bring up movie sets and says they are more common than you think. He has stumbled on movie set while trying to grab lunch inwhich he had to walk right through a blocked off movie set on a street just to get lunch. Judge thinks something like this can be addressed in the PI stage. Cai states that she has four different standing arguments set for the PI stage.

*** Public Gatherings ***

Judge things the state should be willing to concede standing on this because there stance is if you want to know if a place is a public gathering then people should check the website. Judge sarcastically says we will address that some other day. The state requests plaintiffs to show standing and the Judge thinks this is silly. Cai isn't convinced that a plaintiff will visit a public gathering all the way up to 6 plus months down the road. Judge doesn't think she can say that. Dan is offering to wait until the PI and Cai finally agrees.

*** Movie Sets ***

Dan's willing to give up on the TRO and save for PI if the State Agrees to wave standing until PI. Cai is not willing to concede. Dan says that no one can show standing on something like this because you don't know when they will happen. Judge agrees. Dan thinks the state is trying to position the plaintiff to not be able to show standing. Cai strongly disagrees and won't budge. Judge Bumb can't understand why she doesn't want to concede on this. Bumb wants to avoid a merry go round of litigation. Makes more sense to address everything in one feel swoop. Cai not willing to wave jurisdiction. Judge says she can't force the State to do it.

*** Koons Provisions ***

Cai speaks on The Government as a Proprietor. Example use is airports. Cai brings up a postal service lawsuit and a parking lot lawsuit that Judge Bumb tells her both are Pre Bruen. She then brings up Buses. Says Lakeland Bus Company is private but NJ Transit is Public. Thinks is not logical the government can prohibit firearms on public busses as well. Bumb Says that it seems to her that Bruen changed the entire analysis. If that's the case the State of NJ can no firearms on all of the highways we own. Cai responds by saying there's no private highways that she's aware of. Bruen didn't make the distinction on private or public property. But requires the state to pass the historical tests. Bumb thinks qualifying a place as a government owned kinds of eviscerats Bruen. If the Govornment can claim its private as well it creates a wide latitude of what they want to do. Again she reiterates that it eviscerats the Bruen Decision. Judge concludes that the state doesn't have a proficient argument so it needs to be flushed out to the PI stage.

*** Private Property ***

Cai brings up Heller and McDonald. Judge believes that in public means in the community which means private property. Cai thinks that private owners had the right to exclude firearms all the way from Blackstone to present. Believes nothing in Bruen can change that. Cai states that people can put a sign up. State believes that they can outright exclude carry through this. Judge Bumb questions Cai's claims that because the private property owners have the right to exclude it then translates that theres no Presumption of the right to carry. Judge doesn't know how Cai can come to this determination. Judge request that's Cai shows her some historical analogs that show this. Bumb paints the scenario of Thomas Jefferson riding on his horse and he stops on the edge of the acreage and does what? Ask if he could carry his firearm on someone property? I don't think your going to find such analog.. Cai Then tries to intertwine Trespassing Laws with firearm entry. Cai thinks putting no firearms on your website is an acceptable way of letting people know if firearms are allowed. Judge believes this is a clever way for the State to ban carry using private property owners.

Cai cites Exhibit 21 and Table A5 and A6

Says it's the States job to educate the public and not to punish law abiding citizens. Cai gives the example of a media campaign to inform people of their rights. Speaks on the media telling people you "should" be putting up no firearms allowed signs. Judge Bumb immediately stops her and says Not we "Should" but you "May" put up signs. Cai continues to bring up that they have more historical evidence. This frustrates Judge Bumb because She believes she should have all the evidence now. "What are you hiding?" Where not hiding anything. We didn't think it was appropriate to introduce at the TRO stage. Brings up the founding and reconstruction Era Statutes as more evidence. Brings up 1771 Prohibition of Trespassing.

Dan responds by saying 1771 statute is considered an outlier. Cites Fish and Game regulations(cant possess an uncaseed firearm in a vehicle while hunting). Reminds the State that you can have special rules for a Constitutional right. When it comes to private property you can't make a rule that says if you're Gay or Black that you're required to have express permission to enter private property. You just can't do that and this is literally the same thing we are dealing with firearms and private property restrictions. Responding to the posting of signs. Dan Brings up the AG made a post on social media this weekend saying..........

ATTENTION NJ BAR AND RESTAURANT OWNERS

No matter what you've heard, here's a fact: you CAN display signs prohibiting guns in and around your establishment. Whether they're sporting midnight green or rooting for Big Blue, let's keep all fans and patrons safe this weekend.

Judge asks Dan if the State runs a public campain advising citizen on what the law allows would you come to court saying it violates the 2nd Amendment? Dan isn't sure if or how much they can encourage this. Judge says this is where the nuance is. Willing to respond to this during the PI Stage. She then goes on to correct Dan and says is it encouraging or educating?

Judge talks about the Preliminary Injunction schedule request provided by the state. Judge Bumb doesn't agree with it at all. Sides with Dan 100%. Says it doesn't make sense. Says that she wants to deal with this all in one go. Offically denies the States motion. Judge wants everything resolved expeditiously as possible. Says that it's an ambitious but also a fair. Knows an appeal will be coming. Doesn't want a revolving door of challenges. Asks Dan and Jensen to come up with a schedule that's inline with the State.

 

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Motion to Intervene in NJ Carry Law Challenge a Sign of WEAKNESS

It's an action of no confidence against the AG.  They are basically saying he is incapable of pushing the leftist agenda and they are bringing in a ringer.  The end result will be the same, but the ringer is going to make a shitload of money, YOUR tax dollars at work against you, and all they will achieve is delaying the inevitable.

The Ds don't care that they will lose, they will resist resist resist because they have virtually unlimited funds and resources.

  • Agree 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DirtyDigz said:
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

Smackety, smack, smack smack!!!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although Cai comes off looking like she is a high school age  intern for a law firm keep in mind #1 she is employed by the state of nj so thats where she gets her marching orders  from      #2   she was ordered to defend a law that was written in direct defiance to carefully thought out SC decision which she knows is a losing proposition.   #3    the only reason she is coming off looking the way she does is because a leftist activist judge is not hearing the case.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, revenger said:

Although Cai comes off looking like she is a high school age  intern for a law firm keep in mind #1 she is employed by the state of nj so thats where she gets her marching orders  from      #2   she was ordered to defend a law that was written in direct defiance to carefully thought out SC decision which she knows is a losing proposition.   #3    the only reason she is coming off looking the way she does is because a leftist activist judge is not hearing the case.

Beleive it or not, most lawyers fresh out of school end up working for an AG or government entity after serving as a clerk. 

Cai has been practing law for about 5 years in this capacity. 

The really good lawyers don't work for the state, they become associates of a firm and work toward partner... yet, she left the private firm for this gov job. 

While she is under the states thumb on this case, you can hear a lot of her inexperience coming through with Bumbs frustrations in the way she characterizes some arguments highlighted above. Such as the concept of characterizing state property as "private". Or instituting education campaigns where the correct verbiage isnt "should" but "may".

An experienced lawyer wouldn't be subjecting themselves to this garbage, which is why Cai is in the court room. Good lawyers never want to "look" stupid, this case will be with Cai basically forever, and the stupid arguments she makes are still her arguments regardless of who she has to placate. 

 

Share this post


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

was this the case challenging the insurance requirement?

Siegel v Platkin was consolidated into Koons v Reynolds, so the insurance part of Siegel will be argued in the preliminary injunction hearing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, revenger said:

Although Cai comes off looking like she is a high school age  intern for a law firm keep in mind #1 she is employed by the state of nj so thats where she gets her marching orders  from      #2   she was ordered to defend a law that was written in direct defiance to carefully thought out SC decision which she knows is a losing proposition.   #3    the only reason she is coming off looking the way she does is because a leftist activist judge is not hearing the case.

Maybe she's hoping to get on the D ticket as VP in 2032

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

TRO Status – SIEGEL v. PLATKIN
1. TRO DENIED Subpart 6 (prohibiting handguns “within 100 feet of a place for a public gathering, demonstration or event is held for which a government permit is required, during the conduct of such gathering, demonstration or event”);
2. TRO DENIED Subpart 9 (prohibition on carrying handguns at a zoo only);
3. TRO GRANTED Subpart 10 (prohibiting handguns at “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”);
4. TRO DENIED Subpart 11 (prohibiting handguns “at youth sports events, as defined in N.J.S.5: 17-1, during and immediately preceding in following the conduct of the event . . .”);
5. TRO GRANTED Subpart 12 (prohibiting handguns in “a publicly owned or leased library or museum”);
6. TRO GRANTEDSubpart 15 (prohibiting handguns in “a bar or restaurant where alcohol is served, and any other site or facility where alcohol is sold for consumption on the premises”);
7. TRO GRANTED *Subpart 17 (prohibiting handguns in “a privately or publicly owned and operated entertainment facility within this State, including but not limited to a theater, stadium, museum, arena, racetrack or other place where performances, concerts, exhibits, games or contests are held”);
8. TRO GRANTED Subpart 18 (prohibiting handguns at “a casino and related facilities, including but not limited to appurtenant hotels, retail premises, restaurant and bar facilities, and entertainment in recreational venues located within the casino property);
9. TRO DENIED Subpart 20 (prohibiting handguns at “an airport or public transportation hub”);
10. TRO DENIED Subpart 21 (prohibiting handguns at “a health care facility, including but not limited to a general hospital, special hospital, mental psychiatric hospital, public health center, diagnostic center, treatment center, rehabilitation center, extended care facility, skilled nursing home, nursing home, intermediate care facility, tuberculosis hospital, chronic disease hospital, maternity hospital, outpatient clinic, dispensary, assisted living center, home health care agency, residential treatment facility, or residential healthcare facility“);
11. TRO DENIED Subpart 22 (prohibiting handguns in 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)
12. TRO DENIED Subpart 23 (prohibiting handguns at “ 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“) ; and
13. TRO GRANTED *Subpart 24 (prohibiting handguns in “private property, including but not limited to residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, institutional or undeveloped property, unless the owner has provided express consent or has posted a sign indicating that it is permissible to carry on the premises a concealed handgun with a valid and lawfully issued permit under N.J.S.2C:58-4, provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to affect the authority to keep or carry a firearm established under subsection e. of N.J.S.2C:39-6”).

 

Share this post


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

in english

IANAL

Bold = TRO win / can carry.

TRO Status – SIEGEL v. PLATKIN


1. TRO DENIED Subpart 6 (prohibiting handguns “within 100 feet of a place for a public gathering, demonstration or event is held for which a government permit is required, during the conduct of such gathering, demonstration or event”);
 

2. TRO DENIED Subpart 9 (prohibition on carrying handguns at a zoo only);
 

3. TRO GRANTED Subpart 10 (prohibiting handguns at “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”);
 

4. TRO DENIED Subpart 11 (prohibiting handguns “at youth sports events, as defined in N.J.S.5: 17-1, during and immediately preceding in following the conduct of the event . . .”);
 

5. TRO GRANTED Subpart 12 (prohibiting handguns in “a publicly owned or leased library or museum”);
 

6. TRO GRANTED Subpart 15 (prohibiting handguns in “a bar or restaurant where alcohol is served, and any other site or facility where alcohol is sold for consumption on the premises”);
 

7. TRO GRANTED *Subpart 17 (prohibiting handguns in “a privately or publicly owned and operated entertainment facility within this State, including but not limited to a theater, stadium, museum, arena, racetrack or other place where performances, concerts, exhibits, games or contests are held”);
 

8. TRO GRANTED Subpart 18 (prohibiting handguns at “a casino and related facilities, including but not limited to appurtenant hotels, retail premises, restaurant and bar facilities, and entertainment in recreational venues located within the casino property);
 

9. TRO DENIED Subpart 20 (prohibiting handguns at “an airport or public transportation hub”);
 

10. TRO DENIED Subpart 21 (prohibiting handguns at “a health care facility, including but not limited to a general hospital, special hospital, mental psychiatric hospital, public health center, diagnostic center, treatment center, rehabilitation center, extended care facility, skilled nursing home, nursing home, intermediate care facility, tuberculosis hospital, chronic disease hospital, maternity hospital, outpatient clinic, dispensary, assisted living center, home health care agency, residential treatment facility, or residential healthcare facility“);
 

11. TRO DENIED Subpart 22 (prohibiting handguns in 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)
 

12. TRO DENIED Subpart 23 (prohibiting handguns at “ 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“) ; and
 

13. TRO GRANTED *Subpart 24 (prohibiting handguns in “private property, including but not limited to residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, institutional or undeveloped property, unless the owner has provided express consent or has posted a sign indicating that it is permissible to carry on the premises a concealed handgun with a valid and lawfully issued permit under N.J.S.2C:58-4, provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to affect the authority to keep or carry a firearm established under subsection e. of N.J.S.2C:39-6”).

Share this post


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

in english

We just got a few more places to carry: libraries, museums, casinos, parks, beaches

Also clarification that for "mixed use" properties that contain a restricted "sensitive space", the ban on carry is only for the particular "sensitive space" and not the entire property.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can now carry in:

Parks, beaches, recreational facilities

Libraries and museums

Bars, restaurants where alcohol is served (!!!)

entertainment facilities

casinos (!!!)

Private property

functional firearms in vehicles allowed

 

Cannot carry in:

Airports/public transportation hubs

Movie and film sets

Medical facilities

School grounds

playgrounds and  day cares

Youth sporting events

Public demonstrations

zoos

 

Interestingly enough, it was found that strip malls weren't really school grounds, and school really was only K-12 and higher ed. At least that's my read on it.

 

 

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...