Jump to content
M1152

NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

Recommended Posts

On 5/22/2023 at 4:26 PM, DirtyDigz said:

NJ (D) legislators will never admit they were wrong:

That's because to them laws should be adjudicated on matters of feeling, not matters of fact.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Tunaman said:

These assholes will never get the fact that THEY work for US.

Ahhh ... and therein lies the problem.  Unfortunately that "US" is not you, it's all your NJ neighbors who voted for Obama, Hillary, Biden, Murphy ...

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, YankeeSC said:

Ahhh ... and therein lies the problem.  Unfortunately that "US" is not you, it's all your NJ neighbors who voted for Obama, Hillary, Biden, Murphy ...

Yup. This is an important distinction. The NJ Govt may not be doing what you think is right for your interests, but like it or not - the Gov we have here is the Gov that was elected by the majority of NJ residents. They are doing the work that the “majority”of NJ residents want done. You just happen to be in the minority in this state.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

Yup. This is an important distinction. The NJ Govt may not be doing what you think is right for your interests, but like it or not - the Gov we have here is the Gov that was elected by the majority of NJ residents. They are doing the work that the “majority”of NJ residents want done. You just happen to be in the minority in this state.

Exactly.  Gun owners are a *tiny* minority in NJ, and this is by design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, High Exposure said:

Yup. This is an important distinction. The NJ Govt may not be doing what you think is right for your interests, but like it or not - the Gov we have here is the Gov that was elected by the majority of NJ residents. They are doing the work that the “majority”of NJ residents want done. You just happen to be in the minority in this state.

 

12 minutes ago, Fawkesguy said:

Exactly.  Gun owners are a *tiny* minority in NJ, and this is by design.

True. However, the states still must abide by COTUS, which applies to all citizens of this country. 
 

Hence, the constitutional ‘bitch slapping’ many states are receiving recently, regarding overreaching gun laws. 
 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I get it.  But about 90% of NJ's population don't own guns.  Our only hope is the courts, not elected officials. Don't hope that the electorate will suddenly start voting for Constitution-respecting politicians.  That ship sailed long ago, if it ever even existed in this state. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

I'm not sure about that. As lackluster the campaign run by Ciatterelli seemed to me, I wonder what the outcome would have been if not for the "legitimate" voting process.

didn't we all go to bed with citeralli having a rather comfortable lead, then suddenly when we woke up it had pretty much reversed? kinda fishy like?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

didn't we all go to bed with citeralli having a rather comfortable lead, then suddenly when we woke up it had pretty much reversed? kinda fishy like?

Sounds remarkably like the middle of the night vote drops in Atlanta and Milwaukee in '20.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

didn't we all go to bed with citeralli having a rather comfortable lead, then suddenly when we woke up it had pretty much reversed? kinda fishy like?

It is kinda weird that the early drop box ballots are the very last to be counted.  It is very convenient for fraud.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Yeah, I get it.  But about 90% of NJ's population don't own guns.  Our only hope is the courts, not elected officials. Don't hope that the electorate will suddenly start voting for Constitution-respecting politicians.  That ship sailed long ago, if it ever even existed in this state. 

Yes. That is our only recourse now. That and federal law such as national reciprocity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NJ AG Platkin is whining:

https://www.nj.com/news/2023/05/njs-appeals-ruling-that-dismantled-conceal-gun-carry-restrictions.html

Non-paywalled archive.ph link:

https://archive.ph/Rc24N#selection-191.1-195.224

 

Quote

We are dealing with an unprecedented number of lawsuits challenging, really all aspects of our firearm regulatory system,” he told NJ Advance Media, ticking off a host of lawsuits and other filings.

“Everything from our permitting processes to large capacity magazines, to the assault weapons ban, to retired law enforcement officers — whether and how they can carry — to 3D printing firearms, and you go on down the list.

Good.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

He can cry me a river, the damn communist. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Tunaman said:

If anyone wants to watch 2000 Mules,  I think you will find it interesting.  I know I did.  PM me for instructions on how to view it for free.

It was GREAT! Thanks @Tunaman!

And the rest of you who have not yet seen this film by Dinesh D'Souza should make a point to watch it.

Turn the speed up to 1.25 or 1.5 for a quicker watch with no downside.

Share this post


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

 

Did the Siegel/Koons plaintiffs file a response in the 3rd circuit appeal? Can't find anything, and it was due today..

And here's the PDF for Siegel v. Platkin:
SiegelAppealResponse20230530.pdf
 

And here's the PDF for Koons v. Platkin:
KoonsAppealResponse20230530.pdf

  • Informative 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a thought - the State undermines itself in its arguments.
 
Chapter 131 creates a vastly expanded enumerated list of so-called sensitive locations. The State attempts to justify many of these as locations where particularly vulnerable people assemble. The State fails to explain in what way these people are especially vulnerable. It may be presumed that they are vulnerable because they are less able to defend themselves from violent attack because they are children, mentally infirm, or substance abuse addicts. The State appears to presume that because these categories of people assemble in the defined locations for a specific reason (education, sports events, treatment, etc.) that they are the only people in those locations. This is clearly untrue as children do not educate themselves, referee their own sports matches, nor do the infirm treat their own ailments. There are always responsible, law-abiding adults also present to oversee and run the events at these locations as well as spectate at spots events. Indeed, officials at these events are required to submit to a State background check before engaging in running such events. Even children at playgrounds are required to be supervised by a responsible adult. The State’s blanket ban on firearms prevents these responsible adults from acting in defense of the vulnerable people present. It should also be noted that children, the mentally infirm and substance addicts are categorically prohibited from obtaining permits to carry handguns.
 
Chapter 131 also extends the categories of people associated with law enforcement who are exempt from the prohibition of carrying a firearm for the purpose of self-defense in the multitude of sensitive locations. The State argues that these categories of people are at a heightened risk of attack from vengeful criminals. This is unproven, but may be so, but the State saying that they to need to be equipped to defend themselves in the enumerated sensitive locations, is also the State is admitting that regardless of the law prohibiting ordinary people possessing firearms in these locations, there is still a risk that self-defense from a violent attack will be necessary. This is a clear admission that prohibiting firearms from sensitive locations does not eliminate bad actors from committing violent attacks in those places. In contrast, the sensitive locations acknowledged in the Bruen opinion have active measures to ensure the prohibition is observed – metal detectors, armed law enforcement personnel, etc. The vast majority of the new sensitive locations do not have such measures and are a prohibition on paper only. It is very easy to understand how a bad actor ignores the prohibition.
 
Even if an attacker has a particular person as a target, such as one of the newly enumerated exempt people in Chapter 131, it is usual for there to be indiscriminate gunfire from the bad actor. One only needs to look at the number of innocent bystanders injured or killed in the violence perpetrated in our cities to see this is true. Ordinary, law-abiding adults in these sensitive locations have a tangible need for self-defense, no less than the people associated with law enforcement.
 
If the State wishes to persevere with the notion that prohibiting vetted, law-abiding adults from possessing firearms in sensitive locations is effective, they must also admit that it is unnecessary for the newly enumerated associates of law enforcement to be exempt from that prohibition.
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, b47356 said:

So 3 weeks after Bumb's ruling, the Koons plaintiffs are now appealing.

I can't help but wonder if I'll die of old age before any of these cases are resolved.

 

As of now, you have the PI to carry you through til the grave. You good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Old Glock guy said:

Yes, that's what I'm banking on.

..........unless the 3rd Circuit issues a stay of the PI.  Then we're back to carrying in our living rooms until the case runs its course.

Share this post


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

..........unless the 3rd Circuit issues a stay of the PI.  Then we're back to carrying in our living rooms until the case runs its course.

Based on the 3rds history and recent rulings from individual 3rd circuit judges we have a better than average shot at keeping the injunction 

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...