Jump to content
M1152

NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, g17owner said:
Im live tweeting and providing updates during the hearing using the hashtag #NJCarryKiller. For those unable to listen in, you might be able to stay up to date by checking in on that hashtag.
 
Anyone else planning to tweet stuff out during the hearing, please use that hashtag and maybe we can get a nice feed going.
If there's a lull between 10:30-11 its because I was forced into a meeting 

Great work on the feed today!  Very much appreciate the ability to follow along without having to dig through FB comments.  Love the site too.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RegRasc1 said:

Great work on the feed today!  Very much appreciate the ability to follow along without having to dig through FB comments.  Love the site too.

Thank you! It was hard work but worth the effort! Glad I had a partner to tag team with.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today was the first time I had an opportunity to hear these lawyers.  In the past, I had read comments which characterized Cai as a bumbling moron.  What I heard from her today was clear and focused.  She was very well-prepared.  I totally disagree with her arguments and premise, but she is no dummy.  Jensen was an absolute mess.  Schmutter was just ok - he was sort of all over the place, and unfocused.  Judge Bumb even asked him a couple of times why he was arguing with her.  It was a rough performance.  I have a feeling he was off his game due to having to clean up the mess that Jensen left for him.  

Both parties must submit further documentation to her by the 27th.  What happens after that, I have no clue, but today's hearing left me a bit shaken.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Fawkesguy said:

Today was the first time I had an opportunity to hear these lawyers.  In the past, I had read comments which characterized Cai as a bumbling moron.  What I heard from her today was clear and focused.  She was very well-prepared.  I totally disagree with her arguments and premise, but she is no dummy.  Jensen was an absolute mess.  Schmutter was just ok - he was sort of all over the place, and unfocused.  Judge Bumb even asked him a couple of times why he was arguing with her.  It was a rough performance.  I have a feeling he was off his game due to having to clean up the mess that Jensen left for him.  

Both parties must submit further documentation to her by the 27th.  What happens after that, I have no clue, but today's hearing left me a bit shaken.  

Couldn’t agree more.  Cai was much better prepared today.  I think her argument that just because there wasn’t a law on the books doesn’t mean the founders wouldn’t have prohibited regulation of the kind gave Blumb some pause, but in the end SCOTUS was clear we have to go by what was there not by what could have been.

Jensen was a disaster. Schmutter ok but did’t hammer down on the point that all of the states historical references are off base.

The last attorney who presented for the legislature was also a disaster, but he was successful in getting Bumb to go down the balancing of interests which is a no no.  I think he was even surprised Bumb went there.

Will be interesting to see how this comes out.  Was really surprised how few question or challenges Bumb had for the State, she kind of just let them talk.  Hoping she just has her mind made up but from her order where she chastised the state for not answering her questions in their brief was surprised there wasn’t more heat on the state, not that there wasn’t any hut I didn’t get the sense the State was knocked of balance.  Jensen and Scmutter had a lot of awkward pauses when pressed by Bumb.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Spartiati said:

The last attorney who presented for the legislature was also a disaster, but he was successful in getting Bumb to go down the balancing of interests which is a no no.  I think he was even surprised Bumb went there.

They were not talking about using interest balancing to decide the case on the merits.

The balancing is between the harms that each party say they would suffer if there was a PI or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

They were not talking about using interest balancing to decide the case on the merits.

The balancing is between the harms that each party say they would suffer if there was a PI or not.

Ah ok, was in and out working and listening, that makes a lit more sense. 

Share this post


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

Can Jenson and Schmutter not confer or work together?  Seems like they should since the cases were consolidated.  And if they are allowed, seems like they need to do a better job at working as a cohesive team.  

It honestly sounded like they had never discussed these cases with each other.  It was shocking and disappointing.

  • Agree 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

It honestly sounded like they had never discussed these cases with each other.  It was shocking and disappointing.

and everything i'm reading that you guys are saying about this almost sounds like they're taking a dive

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

and everything i'm reading that you guys are saying about this almost sounds like they're taking a dive

I certainly hope not, but NJ's arguments are so weak, today should have been a cakewalk for the plaintiffs.  Schmutter's filings have been extremely well written, but damn, his presentation today was really off.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone... breathe! When I mentioned my concern a few posts upthread, I didn't mean to open up a negative train of thought to which everyone would then pile on! My impression is that lawyers working on big cases are often reticent, with good reason, to share their strategy with ANYONE. They want to stave off leaks and thus prevent giving an edge to their opposition. When I heard the cases were combined, I thought this close-to-the-vest attitude could perhaps bubble up at some point within the (2) pro-2A teams  - particularly if the lawyers involved hadn't worked together before, didn't have a level of trust built over time, etc. (...and I'm only guessing that might be the situation). So yes, I think it's entirely possible (though not a given) that there wasn't a ton of advance coordination because of how lawyers zealously guard case strategy. I mean, these are still in many respects still 2 different cases, right? There's just being heard together for convenience because of the many overlapping issues. So, if (and that's still a big IF) their strategy today revealed any weaknesses which, in fact, led to them stepping on each other's toes a bit, well... they'll just have to immediately pivot and heighten their level of coordination. It seems to me that legal cases are by their nature long, drawn out affairs... with a ton of moving parts... I'm sure strategy adjustments happen often.

None of that changes the fact that, with Bruen, it seems that SCOTUS has set a very pre-determined, narrow pathway by which these 2A cases need to be decided. Based on Judge Bumb's prior questions, (to this non-lawyer anyway), it sounds like she's well aware of the legal precedent, the legal chain of command, and her responsibilities within it. And I'm sure she's savvy enough to distinguish between the state's blatantly unconstitutional ideas (even if presented with swagger today) and our sides constitutionally sound ideas (presented today with some slight pauses). She can weigh those 2 things accordingly and make the right decisions, I'm sure. 

In other words, though today's performance raised a question about coordination levels... I think it's far too early for pearl-clutching, garment-rending, or conspiracy-spouting. These 2A teams have been GREAT thus far. I am sure they'll quickly regain their footing. So, let's not be the usual beaten down, negative Joisey folks of the past. Let's not abandon ship at the first minor glitch in the case. Stay the course. That's my attitude anyway! 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

Everyone... breathe! When I mentioned my concern a few posts upthread, I didn't mean to open up a negative train of thought to which everyone would then pile on!

with me it had nothing to do with what you said. it has to do with the fact that i'm thoroughly shocked that we've even gotten this far in nj. the govt is more crooked in this state than prohibition era/gangster era chigago govt

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full recap on the "sensitive places" Preliminary Injunction hearing from this past Friday. We converted our live Tweet-fest into a more comprehensible format that tells the story of what went down during the hearing.

https://www.news2a.com/new-jersey/carry-killer/oral-arguments-heard-in-pi-phase-of-nj-carry-killer-case/

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Information coming in for NY gun owners from the 2nd circuit court of appeals today doesn't read too positive but what can be expected from hard leftists judges that vehemently oppose your constitutional and God given rights.  

Share this post


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

Information coming in for NY gun owners from the 2nd circuit court of appeals today doesn't read too positive but what can be expected from hard leftists judges that vehemently oppose your constitutional and God given rights.  

Mark Smith did his first live Twitter feed, as always his content is tight.

https://mobile.twitter.com/fourboxesdiner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no proof of what is going on here with Mr Jensen for the bad showing, but I can tell you that political retribution was used in the past to push through anti-gun laws in NJ.  Jensen is a respected lawyer so why would he suddenly make a bad showing?

Share this post


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

I have no proof of what is going on here with Mr Jensen for the bad showing, but I can tell you that political retribution was used in the past to push through anti-gun laws in NJ.  Jensen is a respected lawyer so why would he suddenly make a bad showing?

with todays tech, he shouldn't fear political retribution. if he's had threats, he should have them recorded and make them known.

Share this post


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

NJ gun laws: We know strict concealed carry works. This is why | Opinion (yahoo.com)

"There is just no argument when it comes to banning the concealed carry of firearms: it works."

------

Except for the fact that criminals don't follow laws, idiot. :facepalm:

There are so many fallacies in that “opinion”.  
 

Quote

Recently, Acting Attorney General Matthew Platkin discussed New Jersey’s decrease in gun violence and pointed to our state’s strict gun laws as one of the main reasons for this decline. 

Except CCW laws only got relaxed in 2022 and really that impact wasn’t see until late in the year.   Has no bearing on the decrease in “gun violence”. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Shocker said:

I hate hate hate hate that term “common sense” laws. These clowns try to use that term as a magical shield, like, who could ever argue with common sense?
 

Except it’s all just a euphemism for “my opinion”

Common sense == opinion

Opinions are like assholes

therefore these assholes have common sense.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a guess but I would say that the decision on a preliminary injunction to the cancel carry bill will be issued this week or possibly  a week later.  The court may not be able to drag the decision out much longer as "El Supremo" (our governor) is gathering his minions for the appeal to the 3 rd circuit court to uphold this unconstitutional law if they lose. In the end if this gets all the way to the Supreme Court the state will lose. Many of us have been carrying every day for the past 7 months and El Supremo should understand that there has not been a single problem from the 75,000 or so permit holders.

  • Like 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...