NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

[xXxplosive 824]

Hmmm.....now this and  7/1.

[Walkinguf61 40]

56 minutes ago, CMJeepster said:

IANAL, but signs would be obvious.  Perhaps government regulation / legislation as well?  A town can pass an ordinance restricting.

It’s why LEOSA was written the way it was. To prevent an out of state LEO  from violating some small town ordinance while traveling with a firearm . Some states have a presumption clause in such laws, and others have it in case law. 
The private property BS is what effected LEOSA for me but that part of the injunction is still in effect . As long as they don’t drink , retired and current LEOs can carry in restaurants that serve alcohol as well as carry in “restricted “ areas as long it’s not government property, the private owner does not bans guns or it’s not a violation of federal law. 
The judge or SCOTUS has to make a ruling to have a similar effect on what they strike down in these laws to prevent a local government from passing such ordinances. Just to give an example , the second circuit has set a ten round “bottom “ to these magazine restrictions but NYC still has a 5 round limit on long guns.

[Ferris 78]

5 hours ago, xXxplosive said:

As usual, they've succeeded in making this very confusing....better watch it....omo.

I believe that's the point, by making it confusing and it easy to violate the law, they can then arrest and prosecute you. Of course they'll offer you a deal because  when all is said and done you end up a felon that has lost his gun rights. Disarming through lawfare.

No different the Fed having laws that people violate and don't even realize. Then arresting you when politically advantageous.

 

[Grima Squeakersen 482]

5 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

...that's not on him. if he's unloading, placing in a lockbox that's fastened in the vehicle, then he has complied with the law. if it's stolen at that point, then it is on the legislature, and/or the judges that just reinstated this crap, and perhaps they should all be sued accordingly...

I know that he is not legally culpable, that seems obvious, even in this thoroughly effed up state. OTOH, he is the one who could be out  ~$1000 for the handgun, lockbox, and whatever else might have been inside, and he is the one who could need to go through the paperwork hassle to replace it, in addition to the purchase cost. *THAT* was my point.

[Grima Squeakersen 482]

8 hours ago, xXxplosive said:

some day citizens will honor, respect and obey the US Constitution as written and not put up with this attempt to disarm ......any longer.....omo.

No matter what gets shoehorned into it via amendment or by future SCOTUS decisions? Sorry, I cannot make that commitment. The Constitution was the best attempt to date at limiting the inevitable creeping encroachment by a central government on individual liberties, but it isn't a magic charm. Frankly, I would have been happier had they stopped modifying it after the first ten amendments. I wouldn't argue too strongly against anyone who wanted to extend that sweet spot as far as the Fourteenth, but imo that's about when politicians and Federal bureaucrats began understanding how it could be converted into a potential instrument to repress individual liberties, rather than safeguard them.

[b47356 21]

21 hours ago, Vdep217 said:

There was time limits imposed if I'm not mistaken

I'd love to see a link where any court ever got a time limit.

[voyager9 3,434]

9 hours ago, 124gr9mm said:

 

Is there any definition of an "entertainment facility"????

Is that a football/baseball stadium?

Not if your a Jets fan..

[voyager9 3,434]

9 hours ago, ESB said:

Anyone know why those items where unblocked?  States arguments for it where solid?  ANJRPC arguments against didn't hold up?  Wondering if this is forshadowing for the final outcome?  Not as optimistic as the initial TRO.  

The two judges that voted to stay portions of the PI in this case also dissented in the en banc review of the Range case (possession by non violent felons).   Take that for what you will.  

[1LtCAP 4,264]

1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

The two judges that voted to stay portions of the PI in this case also dissented in the en banc review of the Range case (possession by non violent felons).   Take that for what you will.  

they were obummer appointees

[Krdshrk 3,877]

No opinion or comments - they just said "nope"....

[GrumpyOldRetiree 38]

Could our side request an en banc review? If we can, is there any downside to doing so?

[DAHL 59]

9 minutes ago, GrumpyOldRetiree said:

Could our side request an en banc review? If we can, is there any downside to doing so?

I believe that it is possible to get an en banc decision on the cancel carry bill but it appears some strings are being pulled to get the law reviewed during trial by the liberal justices. Those two Liberals did a job on us by granting a stay on the states request. Most sensitive places are now back in effect. Will these awful  leftists be the judges in the Sept /Oct trial that decide on the constitutionally of the cancel carry bill or we will get an en banc decision from the entire 3rd circuit court of appeals?

[Walkinguf61 40]

53 minutes ago, GrumpyOldRetiree said:

Could our side request an en banc review? If we can, is there any downside to doing so?

It’s not likely for a temporary injunction but possible. Not worth the trouble/money. Let the actual decision come down then see where it goes. The important thing is the private property presumption was kicked by two liberal justices— an indication it’s a slam dunk at the appeal hearing .

[GRIZ 3,369]

 1 remember18 months ago there were so many that said we would never have concealed carry in NJ.  2 steps forward one step back.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

I've said this before, but I think it's worth repeating.  It's a bit troubling to realize that our Constitutional rights hinge on the political whims of the particular judges who handle these cases. 

[Fawkesguy 57]

29 minutes ago, Old Glock guy said:

I've said this before, but I think it's worth repeating.  It's a bit to realize that our Constitutional rights hinge on the political whims of the particular judges who handle these cases. 

Agreed.  The NJ Executive branch, Legislative branch, and a large majority of the population are totally against fully recognizing the 2nd Amendment.  Gun owners are a tiny minority in NJ and carry no political weight.

Everything we've gained over the last year hangs by a thread, and the tidal wave of a hostile President, a complicit media, and a rapidly changing electorate trying to sweep those gains away is held back by only a handful of individuals on the Supreme Court.  Honestly, it's terrifying.  Will we have wins in the courts over the next few months and maybe a few years?  I think so, but that is only because we got lucky with President Trump's Supreme Court nominations.  It was an anomaly, and won't hold over the long-term.  Not with the way this country is headed.

[Grima Squeakersen 482]

On 6/21/2023 at 10:24 AM, Xtors said:

Agreed. And the state will expect us to be omniscient about it all...

Nah, they just expect to arrest, try, convict, and imprison any of us who guess incorrectly.

[GRIZ 3,369]

Law that is clearly written is a bit hard to follow.  I know. I dealt with that for over 30 years. A subject would have to.be in violation of all parts of the law.

Example? Trump being charged with espionage. I haven't seen anything where he supplied a foreign government with classified information. But that's another story.

NJ law on firearms is as clear as mud. Ive talked to Chiefs of police who don't understand it.

[Fred2 367]

On 6/22/2023 at 6:53 PM, Grima Squeakersen said:

Nah, they just expect to arrest, try, convict, and imprison any of us who guess incorrectly.

Look at what they are doing to the Marine that was on the subway in NYC.

Can you image what would have happened to him if he shot the crazy guy?

[1LtCAP 4,264]

11 hours ago, Fred2 said:

Look at what they are doing to the Marine that was on the subway in NYC.

Can you image what would have happened to him if he shot the crazy guy?

he'd be locked away somewhere under the shity never to be heard from again.

[brucin 923]

Have the judges for the third circuit panel been announced yet? over on Facebook New Jersey firearm syndicate they're saying it's the same three that issued the stay if that is the case we're hosed

[DAHL 59]

On 6/22/2023 at 7:30 AM, Fawkesguy said:

Agreed.  The NJ Executive branch, Legislative branch, and a large majority of the population are totally against fully recognizing the 2nd Amendment.  Gun owners are a tiny minority in NJ and carry no political weight.

 

Gun owners in NJ may be a tiny minority  but Czar Murphy won the governorship by less that 1% of the vote.  In a close election we can make a difference.

As for the trial on the cancel carry bill; it is likely that the same two far left judges will swing the ruling against us. They know we will seek an enbanc ruling from the entire court if the decision is not favorable so it may be that they will decide on a compromise BUT leftists are not ones to compromise. They want to legislate from the bench.

[Fawkesguy 57]

11 minutes ago, DAHL said:

Gun owners in NJ may be a tiny minority  but Czar Murphy won the governorship by less that 1% of the vote.  In a close election we can make a difference.

Can a small number of votes make a big difference?  Yes.  Are NJ gun owners any sort of unified, effective voting bloc?  No.  We are a fringe group in this state.  

[brucin 923]

They know we will seek an enbanc ruling from the entire court if the decision is not favorable so it may be that they will decide on a compromise 

 

According to gun for hire radio if the decision does not go our way the attorneys plan to appeal to SCOTUS and skip enbanc.

[DAHL 59]

46 minutes ago, brucin said:

They know we will seek an enbanc ruling from the entire court if the decision is not favorable so it may be that they will decide on a compromise 

 

According to gun for hire radio if the decision does not go our way the attorneys plan to appeal to SCOTUS and skip enbanc.

This could be the right strategy but it will just add time. We just might get a watered down carry ban since the 3rd circuit knows of the NRA/ANJRPC appeal plan and may just give us enough to thwart this off. On the plus side ANJRPC has hired a top attorney to take this the rest of the way.  Not withstanding, NJ carry laws are still very restrictive, with discriminatory; high fees, expensive training and no provisions for the inexperienced shooter, or the handicapped to exercise their 2nd amendment rights .

[Fawkesguy 57]

Oh yeah.  Pretty much all of NJ's gun laws are unconstitutional.  Hell, we need to seek the state's permission to even purchase a handgun.  Everything from FPID's on down needs to go.  But I'm not holding my breath.   

[xXxplosive 824]

guess we're all waitin' for 7/1...........Hmmm.

[Fawkesguy 57]

2 minutes ago, xXxplosive said:

guess we're all waitin' for 7/1...........Hmmm.

Ugh........yeah.

[siderman 1,138]

7/1 has a different meaning here in FL. Happy Permitless Carry Day!  Sorry for your issues in NJ.  60+ yrs of that bs state. Good riddance. 

[Grima Squeakersen 482]

On 6/28/2023 at 10:52 AM, DAHL said:

...

As for the trial on the cancel carry bill; it is likely that the same two far left judges will swing the ruling against us. They know we will seek an enbanc ruling from the entire court if the decision is not favorable so it may be that they will decide on a compromise BUT leftists are not ones to compromise. They want to legislate from the bench.

So, if the 3rd circuit decision is unfavorable, where does the appeal from that get heard?