Jump to content
M1152

NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, DAHL said:

It should be noted that the cancel carry bill idea is not dead. It will be re-introduced for a vote within a few months or sooner. The question becomes how soon can it be challenged and struck down in the courts?

i'm figuring they pulled it due to the mid terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NY's CCIA Bill has been mostly enjoined, and a stay of the action pending appeal denied!

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829.78.0_1.pdf

image.png.ac98a4512d5cff92d28005f37afffbd2.pngimage.thumb.png.7e9f7244504f65f3e154b83c98f65572.pngimage.png.feea1a612dfa16d6c90040556a78b41c.png

The "vampire clause" is enjoined (that's the "restricted locations" provision contained in section 5 part).

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

NY's CCIA Bill has been mostly enjoined, and a stay of the action pending appeal denied!

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829.78.0_1.pdf

image.png.ac98a4512d5cff92d28005f37afffbd2.pngimage.thumb.png.7e9f7244504f65f3e154b83c98f65572.pngimage.png.feea1a612dfa16d6c90040556a78b41c.png

The "vampire clause" is enjoined (that's the "restricted locations" provision contained in section 5 part).

 

In layman's terms?  Court says "No" to Hochul and the bill is unconstitutional?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

In layman's terms?  Court says "No" to Hochul and the bill is unconstitutional?

A judge has ordered that large portions of the CCIA cannot be enforced pending resolution of the court case, and has denied staying that order.

Big parts of the CCIA cannot be enforced for the forseeable future, until the case is decided.

 

 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Summary from ARFCOM:

This may be easier to read from today's opinion:

ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Defendant Hochul is DISMISSED from this action as a party; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 6) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with this Decision; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants, as well as their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys (and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with them) are PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED from enforcing the following provisions of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act, 2022 N.Y. Sess. Laws ch. 371 (“CCIA”):
(1) the following provisions contained in Section 1 of the CCIA:
(a) the provision requiring “good moral character”;
(b) the provision requiring the “names and contact information for the applicant’s current spouse, or domestic partner, any other adults residing in the applicant's home, including any adult children of the applicant, and whether or not there are minors residing, full time or part time, in the applicant’s home”;
(c) the provision requiring “a list of former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three years”; and
(d) the provision contained in Section 1 of the CCIA requiring “such other information required by review of the licensing application that is reasonably necessary and related to the review of the licensing application”;
(2) the following “sensitive locations” provision contained in Section 4 of the CCIA:
(a) “any location providing . . . behavioral health, or chemical dependance care or services” (except to places to which the public or a substantial group of persons have not been granted access) as contained in Paragraph “2(b)”;
(b) “any place of worship or religious observation” as contained in Paragraph “2(c)”;
(c) “public parks, and zoos” as contained in Paragraph “2(d)”;
(d) “airports” to the extent the license holder is complying with federal regulations, and “buses” as contained in Paragraph “2(n)”;
(e) “any establishment issued a license for on-premise consumption pursuant to article four, four-A, five, or six of the alcoholic beverage control law where alcohol is consumed” as contained in Paragraph “2(o)”;
(f) “theaters,” “conference centers,” and “banquet halls” as contained in Paragraph “2(p)”; and
(g) “any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble” as contained in Paragraph “2(s)”; and
(3) the “restricted locations” provision contained in Section 5 of the CCIA; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs are EXCUSED from giving security; and it is further ORDERED that the State Defendants’ request for a limitation in the scope of this Preliminary Injunction and for a stay of it pending appeal (Dkt. No. 48, at 115-16) is DENIED.

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


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

Does it say anything about the private property clause or anything about adding force of law no gun signs?

The original CCIA did not give “no gun “ signs the force of law. It banned guns unless there was a sign allowing guns.

That was struck down by the injunction 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We much not rest on these recent victories. We ALL must press on with the fight, and never let up. 
 

There are many more unconstitutional gun laws that need to be overturned. 
 

Stay in the fight. 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

A judge has ordered that large portions of the CCIA cannot be enforced pending resolution of the court case, and has denied staying that order.

Big parts of the CCIA cannot be enforced for the forseeable future, until the case is decided.

 

 

It basically means it’s a done deal.

Share this post


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

I thought the Federal District Court already tried to enjoin parts of the CCIA a few weeks ago, but the 2nd Circuit Appeals Court reversed their decision?

That was preliminary decision before this decision. — sounds crazy I know. It was decision made before the hearing was “ over” and they knew there was at least another week before the main decision on the hearing was supposed to be made

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2022 at 9:43 PM, Displaced Texan said:

Funny how that works, isn’t it? 
 

And no accountability from the NJ senate or Murphy. 
 

Sounds like another screwing of the good citizens of NJ. 

If this law passes, there is always the possibility of getting a partial or permanent injunction on the more egregious parts of the law. It has yet to be passed and I cannot believe that ALL Democrats will support the total carry ban in its current version. In counties where the Democrats win by small margins and the firearms ID card holders are are many, they make think twice about supporting the current version of this proposed law. I also know of one Democratic legislator where someone in his family put in for a carry permit. Is this the only example?

Share this post


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

Not even 24 hours after the midterms...how surprising! 

They have no choice but to look at it again.

Based on the recent decision in NY the NJ bill/law would have been DOA as it stood...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2022 at 11:04 AM, 124gr9mm said:

They have no choice but to look at it again.

Based on the recent decision in NY the NJ bill/law would have been DOA as it stood...

Please explain how a ruling in the northern district of NY has any bearing on what the NJ legislature does.

Share this post


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

Please explain how a ruling in the northern district of NY has any bearing on what the NJ legislature does.

It is not binding to the third circuit but it is a good indicator of what will happen in the courts here. 

  • 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...