NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

Scutari / Coughlin's "Emergency Intervention" Brief is out! :

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.75.0.pdf

------


-----

 

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

-----

[CMJeepster 2,777]

Grasping at straws and deflection.  JFC...

[Displaced Texan 11,731]

I’m jet lagged and tired, but am I reading that correctly?? 
So, the state says one is not allowed to defend themselves just because there are a lot of people around??? 
 

Holy hell…what a bunch of idiots. 

 

[GlockityGlockGlock 21]

So 47 pages of bullshit

Not even worth printing to use as toilet paper lol

[siderman 1,136]

But didn't the legislature rely on those (non existent) stats to prop up their bill?? Lol !

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

ANJRPC recommends boycotting Atlantic City Casinos:

https://www.anjrpc.org/page/CasinosBanCarryANJRPCBansCASINOS

 

Quote

February 13, 2023. ANJRPC is calling upon the Garden State's one million gun owners to boycott all Atlantic City casinos, in the wake of an orchestrated joint effort to ban right to carry on casino premises as "private property." Given the many millions in taxpayer-funded bailouts of those casinos over many years, it is debatable whether their property can even qualify as "private" anymore. But either way, gun owners are encouraged to vote with their feet and shun all establishments attempting to ban Second Amendment rights.

 

Last week, the Casino Association of New Jersey issued a statement on behalf of all Atlantic City casinos banning right to carry on all casino property, in order to ensure "the well-being and safety of our guests and employees." See the statement by CLICKING HERE. See news coverage of the announcement by CLICKING HERE and HERE.

 

Casinos have received millions in taxpayer-funded bailouts for many years, including recently under the Murphy Administration, which may have leaned on the owners to ban carry if they are to receive further state funding. Ironically, that state funding may jeopardize the casino ban itself, since government-funded entities may be prohibited from banning the exercise of constitutional rights.

 

Please do not patronize Atlantic Cuty [sic] casinos, and stay tuned for further updates.

 

[exfed2002 4]

There have been bans on carry in casinos for years, even for on duty LE.

Section 13:69D-1.13 - Firearms; possession within casino or casino simulcasting facility (a) No person, including the security department members, shall possess or be permitted to possess any pistol or firearm within a casino or casino simulcasting facility without the express written approval of the Division provided that employees and agents of the Division may possess such pistols or firearms at the discretion of the director of the Division. At the request of the casino licensee's security department and upon its notification to the State Police, a law enforcement officer may, in an emergency situation, enter a casino or casino simulcasting facility with a

[RichP 115]

Am I  reading this right? You shouldn't be able to carry a handgun because you have a higher chance of being shot by a police officer? Is there a secret hand signal that we should know about?

And in the same document, CCW holders are a risk to injuring or killing innocent people due to density?

[DAHL 58]

The states arguments are based upon gross mistrust of vetted, trained and tested NJ Gun Owners. What they are saying is that good citizens that have led exemplary lives, somehow become bad people when they possess a firearm. They can't explain how this process occurs as it doesn't. Perhaps people become bad people when they become Democrats. Their actions prove this.

[ESB 244]

Bruen explicitly knocks down Point III.  

 

[CMJeepster 2,777]

10 hours ago, ESB said:

Bruen explicitly knocks down Point III.  

 

The state doesn't care.  Guns in the hands of regular people are bad.

[Displaced Texan 11,731]

This is why the state will go down in flames on this law. 

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

NJ’s brief in opposition to a preliminary injunction is filed.

Don’t have time to dig out any highlights right now, but I bet there’s some howlers in there:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.91.0.pdf

[EngineerJet 191]

2 hours ago, CMJeepster said:

The state doesn't care.  Guns in the hands of regular people are bad.

I read, for the record, cops need better training to not shoot innocent civilians

[CMJeepster 2,777]

3 minutes ago, EngineerJet said:

I read, for the record, cops need better training to not shoot innocent civilians

I'd tell my own story about this, but don't want to get off topic.

[EngineerJet 191]

1 minute ago, CMJeepster said:

I'd tell my own story about this, but don't want to get off topic.

keeping on topic, they are actually trying to argue that easing up on permits there is a correlation of cops shooting civilians. I don't think its going to help their case like they think it will.

[DAHL 58]

My rebuttal to New Jerseys argument is that the historical record clearly shows that concealed carry holders have never been a problem in the 47 states where it has been allowed. Even liberal Massachusetts has about 500,000 CCW holders and they have never posed any problems. I would also point to the fact that NJ now has several thousand PTC holders, maybe even 100K and we have all been honest and law abiding. Only the rule of tyranny would not accept these stats but notice that governor Murphy is guarded by troopers with guns. Murphy believes strongly in the second amendment for him, but not for you.

[CMJeepster 2,777]

"They" don't want you to have guns.  Period.  Full stop.

[njJoniGuy 2,131]

I don't want to derail this particular thread, but I just watched this video (after subbing to a couple of the gun lawyer youtube channels) and the readers of this thread are keeping up with the rapid (from a long-term perspective) advancements in our 2A rights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n34YLYZ_jAI

This 9th circus situation would have ENORMOUS implications on everyone, but especially us, caught behind enemy lines.

[CMJeepster 2,777]

Cliff's notes?

[njJoniGuy 2,131]

51 minutes ago, CMJeepster said:

Cliff's notes?

The fall of most current Federal gun statutes for lack of being able to satisfy Bruin requirements.

[GRIZ 3,369]

4 hours ago, njJoniGuy said:

I don't want to derail this particular thread, but I just watched this video (after subbing to a couple of the gun lawyer youtube channels) and the readers of this thread are keeping up with the rapid (from a long-term perspective) advancements in our 2A rights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n34YLYZ_jAI

This 9th circus situation would have ENORMOUS implications on everyone, but especially us, caught behind enemy lines.

CA's argument would mean TV, radio, podcasts, etc  are not protected by the 1A.

[1LtCAP 4,262]

7 hours ago, njJoniGuy said:

I don't want to derail this particular thread, but I just watched this video (after subbing to a couple of the gun lawyer youtube channels) and the readers of this thread are keeping up with the rapid (from a long-term perspective) advancements in our 2A rights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n34YLYZ_jAI

This 9th circus situation would have ENORMOUS implications on everyone, but especially us, caught behind enemy lines.

check out armed attorneys.

[njJoniGuy 2,131]

It was Four Boxes Diner and Armed Scholar.

I'll check out Armed Attorneys. Thanks John.

[njJoniGuy 2,131]

Reading the latest doc filed in theJudge Bumb case(s), interesting point made by Dan Schmutter on page 61 referring to "carry" as used in Bruen, about 'pocket (or non-holster) carry' : (my bold and underline)

C. Section 7(b) – The ban on carrying in vehicles violates the Second Amendment. In Bruen, the state of New York allowed Mr. “Koch to ‘carry to and from work’” only, and the Supreme Court held that was not enough to satisfy the Second Amendment. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2125. New Jersey’s law not only prohibits carriage both on private and public property (thus reinventing the offending act from Bruen as the sum of its parts, instead of the whole), it places even more severe restrictions on carriage in a vehicle than were present in that case. Defendants are as wrong on this front as it is on all others. 1. To begin, Defendants conflate the concepts of “carry,” “transport” and “storage.” State Br. at 62–63. In so doing, Defendants argue that they are just regulating the manner of carry, i.e., how one carries a firearm in a vehicle. Not so. The Second Amendment preserved the right to “public carry for self-defense,” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2156, to “wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584 (cleaned up). It is a core aspect of Heller that a law requiring a citizen to “render [her firearm] inoperable” does not satisfy the Second Amendment’s protections. Heller, 554 U.S. at 628. Since section 7(b), as Defendants admit, requires citizens to carry their firearms in their vehicles “unloaded” and in a “securely fastened case” or “in the trunk,” see Op. 62, it plainly violates Heller and Bruen. Defendants’ attempt to defend this law as a “manner restriction” falls woefully short. A manner restriction refers to how the person may or may not carry the firearm, Case 1:22-cv-07464-RMB-AMD Document 97 Filed 02/24/23 Page 61 of 85 PageID: 3257 50 i.e., “in a manner likely to terrorize others,” or whether the arm is carried openly or concealed, Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2150 (“States could lawfully eliminate one kind of public carry—concealed carry—so long as they left open the option to carry openly.”). That is not what Defendants are doing here—rather, it is imposing an “inoperab[ility]” requirement foreclosed by Heller.

 

I'm an 'aging' (as many of us are!) non-attorney, but I don't remember seeing the holster requirement of the carry-kill law being challenged in any of the case already brought.

"Bueller??   Bueller??"

[Bomber 1,091]

On 2/21/2023 at 11:17 AM, DAHL said:

My rebuttal to New Jerseys argument is that the historical record clearly shows that concealed carry holders have never been a problem in the 47 states where it has been allowed. 

The state knows full well their arguments are full of shit and aren't supported by facts.

Its the very idea of armed honest citizens that sticks in their craw.. 

[Spartiati 63]

1 hour ago, njJoniGuy said:

Reading the latest doc filed in theJudge Bumb case(s), interesting point made by Dan Schmutter on page 61 referring to "carry" as used in Bruen, about 'pocket (or non-holster) carry' : (my bold and underline)

C. Section 7(b) – The ban on carrying in vehicles violates the Second Amendment. In Bruen, the state of New York allowed Mr. “Koch to ‘carry to and from work’” only, and the Supreme Court held that was not enough to satisfy the Second Amendment. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2125. New Jersey’s law not only prohibits carriage both on private and public property (thus reinventing the offending act from Bruen as the sum of its parts, instead of the whole), it places even more severe restrictions on carriage in a vehicle than were present in that case. Defendants are as wrong on this front as it is on all others. 1. To begin, Defendants conflate the concepts of “carry,” “transport” and “storage.” State Br. at 62–63. In so doing, Defendants argue that they are just regulating the manner of carry, i.e., how one carries a firearm in a vehicle. Not so. The Second Amendment preserved the right to “public carry for self-defense,” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2156, to “wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584 (cleaned up). It is a core aspect of Heller that a law requiring a citizen to “render [her firearm] inoperable” does not satisfy the Second Amendment’s protections. Heller, 554 U.S. at 628. Since section 7(b), as Defendants admit, requires citizens to carry their firearms in their vehicles “unloaded” and in a “securely fastened case” or “in the trunk,” see Op. 62, it plainly violates Heller and Bruen. Defendants’ attempt to defend this law as a “manner restriction” falls woefully short. A manner restriction refers to how the person may or may not carry the firearm, Case 1:22-cv-07464-RMB-AMD Document 97 Filed 02/24/23 Page 61 of 85 PageID: 3257 50 i.e., “in a manner likely to terrorize others,” or whether the arm is carried openly or concealed, Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2150 (“States could lawfully eliminate one kind of public carry—concealed carry—so long as they left open the option to carry openly.”). That is not what Defendants are doing here—rather, it is imposing an “inoperab[ility]” requirement foreclosed by Heller.

 

I'm an 'aging' (as many of us are!) non-attorney, but I don't remember seeing the holster requirement of the carry-kill law being challenged in any of the case already brought.

"Bueller??   Bueller??"

The holster requirement was removed from the bill.

[Mr.Stu 1,916]

24 minutes ago, Spartiati said:

The holster requirement was removed from the bill.

No it wasn't. The retaining strap requirement was removed, but the holster remains.

 

2C:58-4 Permits to carry handguns.

   2C:58-4. a. Scope and duration of authority. Any person who holds a valid permit to carry a handgun issued pursuant to this section shall be authorized to carry a handgun in a holster concealed on their person in all parts of this State, except as prohibited by subsection e. of N.J.S.2C:39-5 and section 7 of P.L.2022, c.131 (C.2C:58-4.6). One permit shall be sufficient for all handguns owned by the holder thereof, but the permit shall apply only to a handgun carried by the actual and legal holder of the permit and, except as otherwise provided in subsection b. of section 6 of P.L.2022, c.131 (C.2C:58-4.5), shall not be construed to authorize a holder to carry a handgun openly, provided that a brief, incidental exposure of a handgun while transferring it to or from a holster or due to the shifting of the person's body position or clothing shall be deemed a de minimis infraction within the contemplation of N.J.S.2C:2-11.

[CMJeepster 2,777]

18 hours ago, njJoniGuy said:

I'm an 'aging' (as many of us are!) non-attorney, but I don't remember seeing the holster requirement of the carry-kill law being challenged in any of the case already brought.

"Bueller??   Bueller??"

Not yet...