Jump to content
M1152

NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Mr.Stu said:

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.

Right I was referring to the strap in my mind :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Koons v. Platkin - NJ Advises judge that they're going to file an appeal to the 3rd circuit because "the TRO has been outstanding for so long", but they'll totally not file an appeal if the judge lifts the TRO or rules against a preliminary injunction.

Every day the TRO stands and CCW'ers are not spilling blood in the streets makes NJ look worse and worse...

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.104.0.pdf

image.png.0e6f221560e6af49ce3a9c34a76f8bb8.png

Share this post


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

In Koons v. Platkin - NJ Advises judge that they're going to file an appeal to the 3rd circuit because "the TRO has been outstanding for so long", but they'll totally not file an appeal if the judge lifts the TRO or rules against a preliminary injunction.

Every day the TRO stands and CCW'ers are not spilling blood in the streets makes NJ look worse and worse...
 

 New Jersey is either intentionally trying to piss off judge Bumb or the attorney general is just plain stupid. 

Share this post


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

 New Jersey is either intentionally trying to piss off judge Bumb or the attorney general is just plain stupid. 

The AG is ignorant about the Bill of Rights. The bottom line is that this crass individual doesn't want us to have any rights. That is tyranny my friends. There are thousands of CCW holders in NJ right now and there are zero problems.  I hope that the state loses this "appeal" that's only purpose is to take away our constitutional and God given rights.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy, NJ got a leetle wrist slapping on their complaining/threatening to file an appeal for a TRO stay:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66677437/koons-v-reynolds/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#entry-106

(I added some spacing for readability)
 

Quote

TEXT ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon the March 3, 2023, letter filed by Defendants (ECF No. 104) advising the Court that Defendants will appeal, and seek a stay of, this Court's Orders on Plaintiffs' TRO Motions (ECF Nos. 35 and 51).

The Court makes the following observations.

Following this Court's decisions on those motions, the parties agreed to their own briefing schedule on Plaintiffs' Motions for a Preliminary Injunction and later extended the date for Plaintiffs to file reply briefs to February 24, 2023. (ECF Nos. 61, 74).

The Court since received over 2000 pages in briefing from the parties, the intervenors, and amici curiae, including numerous certifications with exhibits annexed thereto from Defendants, with the last filing of another certification by Defendants yesterday, on March 6, 2023 (ECF Nos. 75-91, 93, 96, 97-101, and 103).

Given the parties' agreement on the briefing schedule, consent for time extensions, and conduct, the parties led this Court to conclude that they had agreed that "good cause" existed to extend the duration of the TROs throughout the Preliminary Injunction phase of this litigation.

Defendants have now seemed to alter the course they agreed to with Plaintiffs and represented to this Court.

Notwithstanding, the Court intends to hold oral argument on Plaintiffs' Motions for a Preliminary Injunction on March 17, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., to address several issues that Defendants did not sufficiently address in their briefs. The Court notes, however, that if Defendants file an appeal as stated in their letter and the appeal is taken, the Court questions whether it still retains jurisdiction to hear this matter and, thus, will require the parties to address the issue of the Court's continued jurisdiction because of Defendants' appeal. So Ordered by Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 03/07/2023. (Costigan, Roberta) (Entered: 03/07/2023)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I am concerned though - If NJ manages to weasel a TRO stay out of the 3rd circuit, and then jurisdiction gets transferred to the 3rd circuit, we'll all be back to "no carry anywhere, including your car" for months.

I have a feeling that's where things are headed.  Hope I'm wrong.

Share this post


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

I am concerned though - If NJ manages to weasel a TRO stay out of the 3rd circuit, and then jurisdiction gets transferred to the 3rd circuit, we'll all be back to "no carry anywhere, including your car" for months.

Who leads the 3rd circuit? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Tunaman said:

i believe it is Alito

 

I believe you are correct. 
 

I remember reading a post here about how Alito felt about FAFO with this case…

I don’t think he would allow NJ to ‘weasel’ a TRO in this case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Displaced Texan said:

I believe you are correct. 
 

I remember reading a post here about how Alito felt about FAFO with this case…

I don’t think he would allow NJ to ‘weasel’ a TRO in this case. 

I think we are going to be just fine.  Alito will do the right thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alito would be the justice at the SCOTUS that would review an appeal to a 3rd circuit order.  We aren’t there yet.  
 

Basically Bumb is saying you agreed to the tine table, if you appeal I’m putting my pencil down.  On appeal to the 3rd by the state my guess is the 3rd will say they are not touching it until Bumb rules on the PI which is based on timing the State already agreed to.

Share this post


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

Alito would be the justice at the SCOTUS that would review an appeal to a 3rd circuit order.  We aren’t there yet.  
 

Basically Bumb is saying you agreed to the tine table, if you appeal I’m putting my pencil down.  On appeal to the 3rd by the state my guess is the 3rd will say they are not touching it until Bumb rules on the PI which is based on timing the State already agreed to.

Agree. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like they backed away because they realize they overplayed their hand and ticked the judge off (as laid out in the video above). Good. I'm delighted they're fumbling this. They're going against the U.S. Constitution, they have no justifiable case only empty politics,  savvy Judge Bumb knows it... and hopefully, they'll get their asses handed to them with more delicious snarky quotes we can all enjoy.

Winning. Gosh, it feels quite nice for a change, doesn't it? ;)

  • Like 1
  • Agree 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When all is said and done I believe that this unconstitutional law will end up being heard by the 3rd circuit court of appeals. At that point I believe that the court will rule in our favor but if it goes the other way the Bolshevics win.   Meanwhile I remain cautiously optimistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, DAHL said:

When all is said and done I believe that this unconstitutional law will end up being heard by the 3rd circuit court of appeals. At that point I believe that the court will rule in our favor but if it goes the other way the Bolshevics win.   Meanwhile I remain cautiously optimistic.

Of course it will end up at the 3rd circuit.  It's just a matter of when.  

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far thousands of people are now carrying. Have you heard of ONE SINGLE INCIDENT of ANY permit holder committing a crime?   NJ State lawmakers will never be able to hide the fact that they were wrong,  and law abiding  citizens do not commit crimes.  Admit you are barking up the wrong tree with your nonsense about bail reform and non equitable incarcerations.  We the people will prove you wrong again.

Share this post


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

"They" don't care about you or me and will keep throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks.  Pumping gas, bag bans, etc. are just two examples.

Coming soon... baby wipe ban!!!

  • 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...