Jump to content
M1152

NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, CMJeepster said:

Kommiefornia trying to shove their shit bill through again:  California Democrats try again to rewrite concealed-carry gun law (yahoo.com)

Yep, paying attention.  All the anti-states are going to try again now that they've gained some "battle experience" in the courts.  We'll see if they can come up with anything new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Years ago IIRC, Barrett refused to sell to state and local officials in CA because it citizens could not purchase the same product. The firearm industry should boycott the tyrannical states like ours and not do business with them. I realize that would be a problem for PD's all over the state but maybe it's time. They can always buy through surrogates in PA or elsewhere. Yes it would be an inconvenience and cost more but it would send a message. Imagine if the NJSP issued a PO to SIG USA and they returned it with an explanation. Sorry we don't do business with government agencies in states that are actively trying to put us out of business. Then SIG gets on FOX and explains what happened and why. SIG could always change that policy once NJ changes their ways.

Share this post


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

The firearm industry should boycott the tyrannical states like ours and not do business with them.

I believe PD's can purchase direct from the manufacturer but the PD's would be free to purchase from wholesalers at an inflated rate.

In order for this to work Glock must be on board as well as S&W, and Mossberg. I'm not sure if Remington is still actively producing shotguns and rifles.

While I totally agree with this tactic it will only cost the taxpayers in the tyrannical states more money and it's painfully obvious that they don't care how they waste taxpayer dollars.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, here’s a follow up question for the group. I was told by somebody whom I trust, that the TRO is selectively enforced, or not enforced, depending on the municipality. Is it really the discretion of the municipal police department whether or not they are going to follow the law as written by Mr. Murphy vs. the instructions in the TRO? For example, the ability to carry in one’s own vehicle, versus removing any ammunition and magazines, and locking a firearm in the trunk and storing the ammunition in a separate locked container. Seeking an absolute here, not conjecture, as it might mean the difference between legal CCW versus a potential arrest for brandishing.

Edited by almach5
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, almach5 said:

OK, here’s a follow up question for the group. I was told by somebody whom I trust, that the TRO is selectively enforced, or not enforced, depending on the municipality. Is it really the discretion of the municipal police department whether or not they are going to follow the law as written by Mr. Murphy vs. the instructions in the TRO? For example, the ability to carry in one’s own vehicle, versus removing any ammunition and magazines, and locking a firearm in the trunk and storing the ammunition in a separate locked container. Seeking an absolute here, not conjecture, as it might mean the difference between legal CCW versus a potential arrest for brandishing.

It SHOULD be an absolute, but NJ being NJ, you never know.

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, almach5 said:

OK, here’s a follow up question for the group. I was told by somebody whom I trust, that the TRO is selectively enforced, or not enforced, depending on the municipality. Is it really the discretion of the municipal police department whether or not they are going to follow the law as written by Mr. Murphy vs. the instructions in the TRO? For example, the ability to carry in one’s own vehicle, versus removing any ammunition and magazines, and locking a firearm in the trunk and storing the ammunition in a separate locked container. Seeking an absolute here, not conjecture, as it might mean the difference between legal CCW versus a potential arrest for brandishing.

In all likelihood, if an officer knows about the TRO, or a full department, and they decide to disregard it, I would bet they'd lose qualified immunity and you can sue them personally. Any arrest would not be made in good faith.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, almach5 said:

OK, here’s a follow up question for the group. I was told by somebody whom I trust, that the TRO is selectively enforced, or not enforced, depending on the municipality. Is it really the discretion of the municipal police department whether or not they are going to follow the law as written by Mr. Murphy vs. the instructions in the TRO? For example, the ability to carry in one’s own vehicle, versus removing any ammunition and magazines, and locking a firearm in the trunk and storing the ammunition in a separate locked container. Seeking an absolute here, not conjecture, as it might mean the difference between legal CCW versus a potential arrest for brandishing.


They can’t disobey a court order. The judge’s order is binding on all of New Jersey. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of Judge Bumb's colleagues in CA who has been applying law correctly pre-Bruen, is Judge Benitez.
Full San Francisco Chronicle article is behind a paywall but viewable as text only here.

Here's two pull quotes that are telling:

The American Bar Association rated Benitez as unqualified, largely because of what foes described as his unfavorable temperament. But Feinstein (that would be CA's very liberal/progressive US Senator) — who 10 years earlier had sponsored a nationwide federal ban on large-capacity, semiautomatic weapons, which Congress allowed to expire in 2004 — praised Benitez’s “superb demeanor, intelligence, pragmatism and fairness,” and helped him win Senate confirmation on a 98-1 vote.

In his April 2020 decision overturning voter-approved background checks for buyers of ammunition, Benitez observed, “Criminals, terrorists and tyrants don’t do background checks.”
“I don’t believe this judge would uphold a single gun law anywhere,” Robyn Thomas, then-executive director of the San Francisco-based Gifford Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said after Benitez’s 2021 ruling.
Gun advocates said the criticisms were unfounded.
“The judge is a fair, thorough and thoughtful jurist who holds the state to its burden of proof,” C.D. Michel, attorney for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, the NRA’s state affiliate, said Wednesday. “As a refugee from the Cuban revolution, he has seen tyranny up close and personal.”
Michel said the Supreme Court’s new standard “requires the state to present evidence, not platitudes or press conferences, to justify the infringement of the Second Amendment’s fundamental protections. That’s what the governor resents.”
Another advocacy group, the Firearms Policy Coalition, called Newsom “just another opportunistic authoritarian politician with a hair stylist.” In the upcoming cases, the group said, “he will lose and he knows it.”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2023 at 7:46 AM, DirtyDigz said:

"Ask Gov. Murphy" aired last night, and he took a question on the TRO's, said they'll appeal and urged private property owners to put up "no guns allowed" signs:

25:32 - 28:53

https://westchester.news12.com/ask-gov-murphy-jan-31-2023



 

As a person who owns a sign business, it will be fun when someone calls asking for this.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Redipski said:

As a person who owns a sign business, it will be fun when someone calls asking for this.

I assume you can print in 2 point font, in a suitable color combination.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, almach5 said:

Seeking an absolute here, not conjecture...

Respectfully, you shouldn't be coming to an internet forum like this for the kind of "absolute" you're looking for.

As the the question of municipalities selectively enforcing a TRO, it makes no sense.

The law was passed by Murphy.  The judge issued a TRO for parts of the law which essentially strikes them...temporarily.

Municipalities don't get to selectively enforce something that isn't a law.  Well, I guess they could try to, but as soon as you got in front of a judge the case would be tossed.

If you currently have a carry permit and are exercising it in a way that's protected by the TRO but would otherwise be against the law if it wasn't in place, then you would be very wise to stay on top of the court proceedings so you'll know which way the decision lands.

What's allowed one day could quickly be illegal the next.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2023 at 3:50 PM, DirtyDigz said:

A spokesperson for Murphy said the governor was “disappointed” by Tuesday’s order, but is “confident that this decision will be swiftly reversed on appeal.”

Next time these politicians say they are "confident" that it will go their way in the end, we should ask them to bet their career on it.  If they lose, they have to leave politics to the people who actually know and understand the constitution.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2023 at 8:51 AM, 1LtCAP said:

see? this is one of the places where our so-called republican representatives need to jump in.

 

 it's fine if he wants to encourage property owners to put those signs up. and they're free to put them up. if they DO so choose to disallow firearms on their property(business and/or personal), then there should be a new law(i just puked a little typing that) that those property owners MUST provide FREE and secure storage for our firearms while we are there   storage that only we as the firearm owner will have access to upon leaving their business.

Also that property owners who post these signs, removing our ability for self defense, are responsible civilly for any harm to anyone while on their property, regardless of who does the harm. 

Share this post


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

Also that property owners who post these signs, removing our ability for self defense, are responsible civilly for any harm to anyone while on their property, regardless of who does the harm. 

Sign or not, businesses already have civil liability with respect to neglect of customer safety. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2023 at 6:25 PM, almach5 said:

OK, here’s a follow up question for the group. I was told by somebody whom I trust, that the TRO is selectively enforced, or not enforced, depending on the municipality. Is it really the discretion of the municipal police department whether or not they are going to follow the law as written by Mr. Murphy vs. the instructions in the TRO? For example, the ability to carry in one’s own vehicle, versus removing any ammunition and magazines, and locking a firearm in the trunk and storing the ammunition in a separate locked container. Seeking an absolute here, not conjecture, as it might mean the difference between legal CCW versus a potential arrest for brandishing.

If you are really worried about municipalities selectively enforcing the original law vs TRO, print out a copy of the latest TRO and leave it in your car and save a copy on your phone.  As others have mentioned, they can't just ignore a court order.  

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another follow up that I am trying to corroborate.  A staff at Reloaderz in Wayne NJ advised that the CCW now covers any firearms that you own, whether you previously qualified with another weapon or not.  I did a quick search and could not find any laws or updates referring to this change.  Does anyone have the citation where I can see this (if indeed it is true)?  Personally, I would only CCW a firearm I qualified with - just in case and just my personal choice.  Thanks to all…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, almach5 said:

Another follow up that I am trying to corroborate.  A staff at Reloaderz in Wayne NJ advised that the CCW now covers any firearms that you own, whether you previously qualified with another weapon or not.  I did a quick search and could not find any laws or updates referring to this change.  Does anyone have the citation where I can see this (if indeed it is true)?  Personally, I would only CCW a firearm I qualified with - just in case and just my personal choice.  Thanks to all…

Te latest law passed by Murphy moved the approval process from the courts to the PD's effectively eliminated the limitation to just the gun(s) you qualified with.

The limitations were done by the courts (typically in a letter that was required to be carried along with the permit).

So if you got your permit after January from the PD there is likely no restriction (though it's still best to look at the boxed checked on the permit) and you can carry what you want.

If your permit came with a court order limiting you to a specific gun(s) then you'd be wise to abide by those rules until/unless you get a subsequent order nullifying the first one.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey 124gr9mm, that is the way I was taking it - I received mine from the Passaic County Court back in December, limiting me to the two firearms I qualified with.  In my case, I do not have to carry my court order per the Judge, but he did state that any future changes must occur at the PD level.  Not sure how I would get an order nullifying my limitation at the PD level… 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, almach5 said:

Hey 124gr9mm, that is the way I was taking it - I received mine from the Passaic County Court back in December, limiting me to the two firearms I qualified with.  In my case, I do not have to carry my court order per the Judge, but he did state that any future changes must occur at the PD level.  Not sure how I would get an order nullifying my limitation at the PD level… 

If you want a change to the order you need to contact the court and ask them.

Maybe start with an e-mail to the judge or the judge's clerk?

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...