Jump to content
M1152

NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Bushmaster1313 said:

Anyone see where in the opinion or order it addresses health care facilities etc. I.e. subpart 21 ?

Health care is a no go, denied, due to lack of standing I think.

A a handful of items were denied TRO purely for lack of standing.

Share this post


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

how did we lose on the public transportation hubs?    how are people who rely on buses and trains supposed to carry.

will this be addressed in PI

Everything will be addressed at the PI stage. The only things granted in the TRO in laymans terms have a) a substantial chance to affect the plantiffs prior to the PI and B) have a high chance of success in winning at the PI stage. 

The judge said everything not granted a TRO will be fully worked through in the PI stage, buy everything else is also still on the table. Some blocked now could be allowed later if the state provides additional evidence or arguments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Carolina Native said:

Health care is a no go, denied, due to lack of standing I think.

A a handful of items were denied TRO purely for lack of standing.

Correct, the TRO was denied on some counts simply because the plantiffs couldn't show they would be impacted before the PI. The judge said she wanted to hear everything at the PI, but stated without standing A TRO can't be granted in the mean time. 

Share this post


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

ANJRPC will have a brief breakdown today and a FULL report by Dan Schmutter ASAP! - 

ANJRPC's email just came out.  And thanks, @DirtyDigz, for breaking the news here first.

All in all, a pretty fine result!   Of course, it would be even better if I'd received my permit...

Share this post


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

I don't see that public transportation was even addressed in the complaint.  We didn't lose, it just wasn't a part of the case, at least not that I can see.

It was addressed, however the judge felt the Plaintiff’s didn’t have standing.  So no judgment made as of yet on the constitutionality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.53.0.pdf

Great preemptive directions by the court. In essence Bumb is telling the Senate & Assembly can come to the party but not to whine about public interest or how dangerous firearms are. Those days are over, I love winning.

===

This matter comes before the Court upon the Motion to Intervene on Short Notice by Nicholas P. Scutari, President of the New Jersey Senate, and Craig J. Coughlin, speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly (together, the “Presiding Officers”). . .

At the same time, the Court implores the Presiding Officers to focus their argument on the legitimate legal issues pending before this Court after the clear dictate from the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S., 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). The Presiding Officers note that they intend to “provide perspective on the critical public health, safety and welfare issues that led the Legislature to enact Chapter 131.” [Docket No. 47-1, at 7.] But the Bruen Court expressly stated that “the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest” in the Second Amendment context. Id. at 2126. Instead, “the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id.

Additionally, pursuant to Rule 65, relevant factors for the Court to consider at the preliminary injunction phase include the public interest and possibility of harm to other interested persons. As the Court considered in its earlier Opinion in Koons, the State, thus far, has failed to present any “empirical evidence to suggest that concealed carry permit holders are responsible for gun crimes or an increase in gun crimes in New Jersey, which they cite as justification for the law.” [Docket No. 34.] Such evidence is certainly relevant to these factors. However, the Presiding Officers must keep the litigation progressing on the right track. All agree that violent crimes involving firearms are tragic. But the dictate of Bruen is clear: “legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate — [but] it is not deference that the Constitution demands here.” Bruen, 142 S.Ct. at 2131. While the Legislature may disagree with Bruen, it may not disobey it.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Judge also ruled on the Scutari/Coughlin intervention motion - she's going to allow it, but made some juicy comments:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.53.0.pdf

image.png.b099664796cf870d4d7f3cf47185c658.png

 

-----

image.png.6a309471b52b176149fbe6c55482950b.png

Hell, show me the empirical evidence that holders of the FPID card are a cause of gun violence much less ccw's! 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Correct, the TRO was denied on some counts simply because the plantiffs couldn't show they would be impacted before the PI. The judge said she wanted to hear everything at the PI, but stated without standing A TRO can't be granted in the mean time. 

Is standing required for the PI?  Just because it may not effect the plaintiffs in the immediate future does not mean it will not effect others in the near future. 

Share this post


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

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.53.0.pdf

Great preemptive directions by the court. In essence Bumb is telling the Senate & Assembly can come to the party but not to whine about public interest or how dangerous firearms are. Those days are over, I love winning.

===

This matter comes before the Court upon the Motion to Intervene on Short Notice by Nicholas P. Scutari, President of the New Jersey Senate, and Craig J. Coughlin, speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly (together, the “Presiding Officers”). . .

At the same time, the Court implores the Presiding Officers to focus their argument on the legitimate legal issues pending before this Court after the clear dictate from the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S., 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). The Presiding Officers note that they intend to “provide perspective on the critical public health, safety and welfare issues that led the Legislature to enact Chapter 131.” [Docket No. 47-1, at 7.] But the Bruen Court expressly stated that “the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest” in the Second Amendment context. Id. at 2126. Instead, “the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id.

Additionally, pursuant to Rule 65, relevant factors for the Court to consider at the preliminary injunction phase include the public interest and possibility of harm to other interested persons. As the Court considered in its earlier Opinion in Koons, the State, thus far, has failed to present any “empirical evidence to suggest that concealed carry permit holders are responsible for gun crimes or an increase in gun crimes in New Jersey, which they cite as justification for the law.” [Docket No. 34.] Such evidence is certainly relevant to these factors. However, the Presiding Officers must keep the litigation progressing on the right track. All agree that violent crimes involving firearms are tragic. But the dictate of Bruen is clear: “legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate — [but] it is not deference that the Constitution demands here.” Bruen, 142 S.Ct. at 2131. While the Legislature may disagree with Bruen, it may not disobey it.

This may well work in our favor.  The politicians will use the usual BS of why this legislation needs to be passed and enforced.  Judge will hopefully say that does not pass Bruen and no longer can be used to pass legislation.  Next time they try to pass legislation using those arguments, just point back here where a judge says that is unconstitutional.  

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Is standing required for the PI?  Just because it may not effect the plaintiffs in the immediate future does not mean it will not effect others in the near future. 

Standing is required at all stages, but imminence of harm is more important at the TRO stage than the PI stage, especially as Judge Bumb is doing all she can to keep this on an expedited schedule.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

whats the status on the insurance requirement,   was that addressed or still in a holding pattern for the PI

For anyone interested, I attended a presentation by a representative from US LawShield at WeShoot USA yesterday morning.  He told the group that USL is working to build an insurance package that would the meet the requirements under the revised NJ law.  They anticipate to have it ready by late spring.

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


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

Is standing required for the PI?  Just because it may not effect the plaintiffs in the immediate future does not mean it will not effect others in the near future. 

Kinda but its different for a TRO, and this case. It's kinda like a pre-trial, only what is immediately obvious. The TRO should follow throughout the case and basically be the final opinion unless something significant changes by then. Everything else basically needs to be argued that doesn't pose an urgency. 

The Judge seems rather open to waiving strict standing as means to consolidate the case efficiently. 

Share this post


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

Of course, it would be even better if I'd received my permit...

Mine spent 71 days at the court. If you're around that timeframe it should be soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, brucin said:

Mine spent 71 days at the court. If you're around that timeframe it should be soon.

I have friend who recently received his PTC directly from PD, no detour to the county court.

Submitted on Dec 02, received on Jan 25, unrestricted, from Burlington Township, and the fee is still $50.

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Sad Trombone Noises]

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/30/federal-judge-blocks-more-of-new-jersey-gun-carry-law-00080245

Quote

“We are disappointed that the court invalidated common-sense restrictions on the right to carry firearms in public, which are fully consistent with the Second Amendment,” Murphy spokesperson Tyler Jones said. “We look forward to being able to appeal the ruling and are confident that it will be reversed.”

Quote

“We are disappointed that the court has undermined important and longstanding protections against firearms violence in our public parks and in casinos,” Platkin said. “Today’s order is bad for public safety and inconsistent with the Second Amendment. But these orders remain temporary, and we look forward to pressing our case, including ultimately on appeal.”

Quote

“Our law pursues common sense boundaries that keep dangerous weapons out of places of learning and recreation where there are children, families, and folks going about their lives in peace,” Coughlin said in a statement. “I am disappointed, but we have joined the lawsuit to ensure our voice is heard in the legal process and look forward to the full law taking effect to keep our communities safe.”

 

[Victorious Fanfare]
 

Quote

“This marks the beginning of the end for Governor Murphy’s blatantly unconstitutional new carry law, which is going down in flames,” Scott Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, said in a statement. “Murphy has clearly demonstrated that constitutional issues are indeed above his pay grade.”

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

Dumb question: what about parks with a playground located inside?

 

1 hour ago, JackDaWack said:

Don't go in the playground.

@Xtors, it's not a dumb question at all. And, @JackDaWack, with all due respect, I'm not so sure about that advice... what defines the boundaries of a playground from the rest of the park it resides within? How would you know where those boundaries were? Would you need to go to the municipality and pull the latest blueprints on file? Would that even be legally sufficient?

Since all of these carry issues - including the playground aspect - will be hashed out and ruled on before too long, why not act out of an abundance of caution? Simply avoid parks with children's playgrounds (that leaves you with plenty of recreational options and you're not risking felony arrest while this combined case works its way through the system). Or at the very least, discuss with an actual attorney. I have a feeling a lot of these answers will be forthcoming soon anyway from a variety of 2A legal presentations, etc.

4 hours ago, dilbert1967 said:

For anyone interested, I attended a presentation by a representative from US LawShield at WeShoot USA yesterday morning.  He told the group that USL is working to build an insurance package that would the meet the requirements under the revised NJ law.  They anticipate to have it ready by late spring.

Personally? I'm hoping the whole insurance requirement gets tossed altogether. We don't need mandatory insurance to exercise any of the other amendments, so why for the 2nd? It's ridiculous. It's just a blatant scam by the state to make gun ownership more expensive and onerous. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Dumb question: what about parks with a playground located inside?

If you take the example of a school in a strip mall part of the TRO:
https://www.njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/105458-nj-concealed-carry-locations-and-regulations/
The Court acknowledged the State’s concession that notwithstanding the very broad language used in the statute (“any part of the buildings, grounds, or parking area”) the scope of prohibition on multi-use property (strip malls, office buildings, churches with schools, etc.) is limited only to the actual prohibited use itself and not other uses and also does not include shared features such as shared parking lots, hallways, elevators, etc.
then so long as you are not in the playground, it would appear you are in the park which is legal for now. Even if the playground shares parking, paths and grassy fields, you and the PO should know where the playground is. Interestingly there was discussion on the lack of clear definition of "school" in the new law. Same goes for "playground". Is the baseball field a playground? How about the basketball court? This all needs to be hashed out so we can protect our children.

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Moutinas said:

If you take the example of a school in a strip mall part of the TRO:
https://www.njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/105458-nj-concealed-carry-locations-and-regulations/
The Court acknowledged the State’s concession that notwithstanding the very broad language used in the statute (“any part of the buildings, grounds, or parking area”) the scope of prohibition on multi-use property (strip malls, office buildings, churches with schools, etc.) is limited only to the actual prohibited use itself and not other uses and also does not include shared features such as shared parking lots, hallways, elevators, etc.
then so long as you are not in the playground, it would appear you are in the park which is legal for now. Even if the playground shares parking, paths and grassy fields, you and the PO should know where the playground is. Interestingly there was discussion on the lack of clear definition of "school" in the new law. Same goes for "playground". Is the baseball field a playground? How about the basketball court? This all needs to be hashed out so we can protect our children.

 

Thats exactly how I approached it. 

The playground is a specific area, and 99% of the time is fenced off from the general area. 

A 200 acre park isn't off limits because of a 200 square foot playground sits on it. 

The judge outlined we can carry in the public right of way around sensitive places. 

It's no different than walking along side a playground or school on a side walk the borders it. 

People are putting too much energy in things the TRO already satisfied.  

Share this post


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

.. what defines the boundaries of a playground from the rest of the park it resides within? How would you know where those boundaries were? Would you need to go to the municipality and pull the latest blueprints on file? Would that even be legally sufficient

Playground safety is regulated by the state and federal government. There is a requirement to have a layer of padding a certain distance around all equipment. Where this padding ends is the end of the playground.

Most of Denville's playgrounds have a fence separating them from the rest of the park. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Moutinas said:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.53.0.pdf

Great preemptive directions by the court. In essence Bumb is telling the Senate & Assembly can come to the party but not to whine about public interest or how dangerous firearms are. Those days are over, I love winning.

Personally, I'd love to see them get kicked in their collective legislative nuts in open court.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

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...