Jump to content
M1152

NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

Recommended Posts

The NJ AG has repeatedly used the phrase 'bad constitutional law' in reference to the Bruen decision...most recently in the statement he issued above.

It's too bad there isn't some higher authority, who can make the final determination as to what is 'good' constitutional law.

Oh, wait...guess he wasn't paying attention in class that day.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun rights advocates win major challenge to N.J.’s tough concealed carry law - nj.com

Bumb, a President George W. Bush appointee, sharply criticized state authorities, writing that New Jersey had “failed to offer any evidence that law-abiding responsible citizens who carry firearms in public for self-defense are responsible for an increase in gun violence.”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CMJeepster said:
Quote

The state attorney general assailed the decision as “bad constitutional law,” writing in a statement that the court “now insists that we are powerless to protect New Jersey residents....

Isn't that just like NJ, use the full force of the law, and whatever laws they want to make up on the fly to suit their needs, to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.  All the while, letting rapists and other criminals off easy with no cash bail schemes.

What the actual fuck.

I wonder how much taxpayer money NJ has spent stepping on 2A over the years?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thankful that there is a PI for most of the "sensitive places", but the permitting requirements and the loss regarding private property are brutal.   I'm disappointed that Bumb did research for the state, and in my opinion, got a lot of it wrong.  

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

So this means any time I go to someone’s home I have to have permission from them to carry?

Could be.

And this will be problematic for those who visit private homes as part of their business (eg plumber, electrician)

Share this post


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

My emphasis added.

This is worse.  Under the TRO, you didn't need permission to carry into someone's home.

Under the PI, it appears you do.  So now if you're "out and about" and need to stop at someone's house that you don't have prior permission for, you'll need to "de-gun" before entering their property.

Or you tell everyone to presume you are armed and if you aren’t invited in, they invite your gun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, RadioGunner said:

Yes and the fee was upheld. 

Uhg, no. 

 

This is all PRELIMINARY. 

 

Nothing has been struck down or upheld, yet. 

 

The fee issue doesn't warrant preliminary injunction, the plantiffs can't meet the high standards even if they can show its unconstitutional. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys , I have had a quick read .

Health care facilities are NOT open. The plaintiff only had standing to their specfic doctor /medical facility. The following were ruled as not having standing: general hospital, kidney care facilities, nursing homes , outpatient etc etc.[ I can’t get the cut and paste to work on the document.].
 

The good news was it was just an issue of standing— and he excused the plaintiffs from specific doctor offices. So a new plaintiff who has to go to hospital Ms on a regular basis might win the case.

 

my reading of the default rule( the default is the owner bans guns unless they say otherwise new rule) is that judge said it does not conform to the history and tradition of the 2nd ( page 144)

 

parks and playgrounds are the same as the TRO— page 172

youth events — same as TRO— off limits page 179

 

Libraries , Casinos etc — can carry from my reading of it 

 

I could be wrong so don’t go by me

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wait? anti-brandishing?

 

 so.....say for instance, you need to draw.......and upon seeing the firearm, the assailant de-escalates.  in the meantime, someone saw you draw, and calls 911. now are you guilty of brandishing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

So if the 3rd stays the PI, does the TRO get stayed as well?

There tro pending the pi. Since we got the pi, the tro doesn’t exist anymore, it’s superseded by the pi. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, b47356 said:

Anything to keep it tied up in court for 5 years.

It’s not going 5 years especially if the 3rd circuit keeps the injunction in place. The appeal only covers the PI. The judge will turn around and give a permanent injunction of some type after the appeal just like what happened in NY. 
The 3d circuit is overseen by Justice Alito , not Sotomeyer like the 2nd circuit is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Walkinguf61 said:

The 3d circuit is overseen by Justice Alito , not Sotomeyer like the 2nd circuit is. 

I don't know why this keeps getting thrown out like it means something. Alito isn't going to show up in Philly and say "We really meant it when Bruen was written" and "poof", like magic, all the same courts that ignored Heller for years are going to say "My bad" and start following SCOTUS.

When the 3rd slow walks things like the 2nd did (after removing the TRO), the same thing will happen - SCOTUS will write a sternly worded letter, and things will move at a slightly faster glacial pace. I don't know about the rest of you think, but didn't that mention by SCOTUS really speed things up in the 3rd? 2 months since oral argument, is there an over-under on how long they sit on ruling it? And during this wait, _nothing_ is going on in district court for these cases.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

So this means any time I go to someone’s home I have to have permission from them to carry?

Watch at 1.5x speed but I think I have it timestamped pretty well.

Default property rights rule - Judge Bumb rejected all associated with this.  States areas open to the public - eg stores, gas stations, etc... It also reads (to me) as open land property as well.  If you get pulled over and have to stop along the side of the road in a rural area - you don't know who you need to get permission from, so that can't be held against you.  

I'm still waiting on more clarification but this is how I read it.  I could be wrong - IANAL.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Facebook (Ed Berrios did a phenomenal interpretation that made it much easier to understand):

To address any confusion of visiting residential property, contrary to what the NJ AGO says, Judge Bumb wrote the following: First, the Default Rule implicates the text of the Second Amendment on private property that is held open to the public. There, the public has the implied consent to enter, unless such consent is conditioned or subsequently revoked by the property owner (e.g., ‘no trespassing’ or ‘no guns allowed’ signage). Such property ordinarily includes, but is not limited to, retail establishments and "the curtilage of residential property." (Emphasis added) She is making it clear that the area outside someone's dwelling is property open to the public absent some signage to the contrary. Thus, when the homeowner invites you into their dwelling, you have implied permission to enter as you are, including carrying concealed, because the historical analogue is that the default rule is that the invitation includes that you could be armed, so absent some reasonable notice or directive not to be armed, you do not violate the law. The homeowner is always free to ask you to leave.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Watch at 1.5x speed but I think I have it timestamped pretty well.

Default property rights rule - Judge Bumb rejected all associated with this.  States areas open to the public - eg stores, gas stations, etc... It also reads (to me) as open land property as well.  If you get pulled over and have to stop along the side of the road in a rural area - you don't know who you need to get permission from, so that can't be held against you.  

I'm still waiting on more clarification but this is how I read it.  I could be wrong - IANAL.

He tossed out that section based on its not in the history it tradition under Bruen 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, b47356 said:

I don't know why this keeps getting thrown out like it means something. Alito isn't going to show up in Philly and say "We really meant it when Bruen was written" and "poof", like magic, all the same courts that ignored Heller for years are going to say "My bad" and start following SCOTUS.

When the 3rd slow walks things like the 2nd did (after removing the TRO), the same thing will happen - SCOTUS will write a sternly worded letter, and things will move at a slightly faster glacial pace. I don't know about the rest of you think, but didn't that mention by SCOTUS really speed things up in the 3rd? 2 months since oral argument, is there an over-under on how long they sit on ruling it? And during this wait, _nothing_ is going on in district court for these cases.

Although I get your (understandably!) cynical point of view... it's also hard to ignore that there's one very serious difference between "then" and "now". Even if ALL these various cases move glacially, as you say, through the courts - as so many NJ gun cases have done in the past - in the meantime, law-abiding NJ citizens are at least carrying concealed. Frankly?... I never thought I'd see that day. Did you?  

I think this latest chapter - this decision by Judge Bumb - is yet another "win" no matter how you slice it. And the fact that this judge took so much time and turned out such a lengthy and carefully annotated product... makes me think that she KNEW damn well this case would be immediately appealed, and that it would be closely watched by other courts around the country, and she was making sure to dot the i's and cross the t's on this initial decision... so that it would withstand any future appeal process. I think she's going to be JUST as careful when the full case is heard and decided. And yes, the fact that Alito is over that next level court... if these combined cases ever get to that point, well, from my (albeit limited) understanding, it certainly doesn't hurt us!

For years, pro-2A NJ citizens had NOTHING but bad legislation and even worse legal decisions to despair over. But the fact is...  the Bruin case DID change things. It gave much-needed "teeth" to the pro-2A side... in the form of clear, compelling guidance on what courts need to do to decide 2A cases... and now we're seeing a series of wins as a direct result. You know, it's ok to crack a smile... perhaps even lift a celebratory glass... at each step we win. ;) 

  • Agree 8
  • Informative 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...