DirtyDigz 1,811 Posted February 13, 2023 Scutari / Coughlin's "Emergency Intervention" Brief is out! : https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.75.0.pdf ------ ----- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DirtyDigz 1,811 Posted February 13, 2023 ----- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,777 Posted February 13, 2023 Grasping at straws and deflection. JFC... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Displaced Texan 11,731 Posted February 13, 2023 I’m jet lagged and tired, but am I reading that correctly?? So, the state says one is not allowed to defend themselves just because there are a lot of people around??? Holy hell…what a bunch of idiots. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GlockityGlockGlock 21 Posted February 13, 2023 So 47 pages of bullshit Not even worth printing to use as toilet paper lol 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
siderman 1,137 Posted February 13, 2023 But didn't the legislature rely on those (non existent) stats to prop up their bill?? Lol ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DirtyDigz 1,811 Posted February 13, 2023 ANJRPC recommends boycotting Atlantic City Casinos: https://www.anjrpc.org/page/CasinosBanCarryANJRPCBansCASINOS Quote February 13, 2023. ANJRPC is calling upon the Garden State's one million gun owners to boycott all Atlantic City casinos, in the wake of an orchestrated joint effort to ban right to carry on casino premises as "private property." Given the many millions in taxpayer-funded bailouts of those casinos over many years, it is debatable whether their property can even qualify as "private" anymore. But either way, gun owners are encouraged to vote with their feet and shun all establishments attempting to ban Second Amendment rights. Last week, the Casino Association of New Jersey issued a statement on behalf of all Atlantic City casinos banning right to carry on all casino property, in order to ensure "the well-being and safety of our guests and employees." See the statement by CLICKING HERE. See news coverage of the announcement by CLICKING HERE and HERE. Casinos have received millions in taxpayer-funded bailouts for many years, including recently under the Murphy Administration, which may have leaned on the owners to ban carry if they are to receive further state funding. Ironically, that state funding may jeopardize the casino ban itself, since government-funded entities may be prohibited from banning the exercise of constitutional rights. Please do not patronize Atlantic Cuty [sic] casinos, and stay tuned for further updates. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
exfed2002 4 Posted February 13, 2023 There have been bans on carry in casinos for years, even for on duty LE. Section 13:69D-1.13 - Firearms; possession within casino or casino simulcasting facility (a) No person, including the security department members, shall possess or be permitted to possess any pistol or firearm within a casino or casino simulcasting facility without the express written approval of the Division provided that employees and agents of the Division may possess such pistols or firearms at the discretion of the director of the Division. At the request of the casino licensee's security department and upon its notification to the State Police, a law enforcement officer may, in an emergency situation, enter a casino or casino simulcasting facility with a 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RichP 115 Posted February 13, 2023 Am I reading this right? You shouldn't be able to carry a handgun because you have a higher chance of being shot by a police officer? Is there a secret hand signal that we should know about? And in the same document, CCW holders are a risk to injuring or killing innocent people due to density? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DAHL 58 Posted February 14, 2023 The states arguments are based upon gross mistrust of vetted, trained and tested NJ Gun Owners. What they are saying is that good citizens that have led exemplary lives, somehow become bad people when they possess a firearm. They can't explain how this process occurs as it doesn't. Perhaps people become bad people when they become Democrats. Their actions prove this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ESB 244 Posted February 14, 2023 Bruen explicitly knocks down Point III. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,777 Posted February 14, 2023 10 hours ago, ESB said: Bruen explicitly knocks down Point III. The state doesn't care. Guns in the hands of regular people are bad. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Displaced Texan 11,731 Posted February 14, 2023 This is why the state will go down in flames on this law. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DirtyDigz 1,811 Posted February 14, 2023 NJ’s brief in opposition to a preliminary injunction is filed. Don’t have time to dig out any highlights right now, but I bet there’s some howlers in there: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.91.0.pdf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EngineerJet 191 Posted February 14, 2023 2 hours ago, CMJeepster said: The state doesn't care. Guns in the hands of regular people are bad. I read, for the record, cops need better training to not shoot innocent civilians 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,777 Posted February 14, 2023 3 minutes ago, EngineerJet said: I read, for the record, cops need better training to not shoot innocent civilians I'd tell my own story about this, but don't want to get off topic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EngineerJet 191 Posted February 14, 2023 1 minute ago, CMJeepster said: I'd tell my own story about this, but don't want to get off topic. keeping on topic, they are actually trying to argue that easing up on permits there is a correlation of cops shooting civilians. I don't think its going to help their case like they think it will. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DAHL 58 Posted February 21, 2023 My rebuttal to New Jerseys argument is that the historical record clearly shows that concealed carry holders have never been a problem in the 47 states where it has been allowed. Even liberal Massachusetts has about 500,000 CCW holders and they have never posed any problems. I would also point to the fact that NJ now has several thousand PTC holders, maybe even 100K and we have all been honest and law abiding. Only the rule of tyranny would not accept these stats but notice that governor Murphy is guarded by troopers with guns. Murphy believes strongly in the second amendment for him, but not for you. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,777 Posted February 21, 2023 "They" don't want you to have guns. Period. Full stop. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
njJoniGuy 2,131 Posted February 21, 2023 I don't want to derail this particular thread, but I just watched this video (after subbing to a couple of the gun lawyer youtube channels) and the readers of this thread are keeping up with the rapid (from a long-term perspective) advancements in our 2A rights. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n34YLYZ_jAI This 9th circus situation would have ENORMOUS implications on everyone, but especially us, caught behind enemy lines. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,777 Posted February 21, 2023 Cliff's notes? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
njJoniGuy 2,131 Posted February 21, 2023 51 minutes ago, CMJeepster said: Cliff's notes? The fall of most current Federal gun statutes for lack of being able to satisfy Bruin requirements. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GRIZ 3,369 Posted February 21, 2023 4 hours ago, njJoniGuy said: I don't want to derail this particular thread, but I just watched this video (after subbing to a couple of the gun lawyer youtube channels) and the readers of this thread are keeping up with the rapid (from a long-term perspective) advancements in our 2A rights. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n34YLYZ_jAI This 9th circus situation would have ENORMOUS implications on everyone, but especially us, caught behind enemy lines. CA's argument would mean TV, radio, podcasts, etc are not protected by the 1A. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,262 Posted February 22, 2023 7 hours ago, njJoniGuy said: I don't want to derail this particular thread, but I just watched this video (after subbing to a couple of the gun lawyer youtube channels) and the readers of this thread are keeping up with the rapid (from a long-term perspective) advancements in our 2A rights. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n34YLYZ_jAI This 9th circus situation would have ENORMOUS implications on everyone, but especially us, caught behind enemy lines. check out armed attorneys. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
njJoniGuy 2,131 Posted February 22, 2023 It was Four Boxes Diner and Armed Scholar. I'll check out Armed Attorneys. Thanks John. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
njJoniGuy 2,131 Posted February 25, 2023 Reading the latest doc filed in theJudge Bumb case(s), interesting point made by Dan Schmutter on page 61 referring to "carry" as used in Bruen, about 'pocket (or non-holster) carry' : (my bold and underline) C. Section 7(b) – The ban on carrying in vehicles violates the Second Amendment. In Bruen, the state of New York allowed Mr. “Koch to ‘carry to and from work’” only, and the Supreme Court held that was not enough to satisfy the Second Amendment. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2125. New Jersey’s law not only prohibits carriage both on private and public property (thus reinventing the offending act from Bruen as the sum of its parts, instead of the whole), it places even more severe restrictions on carriage in a vehicle than were present in that case. Defendants are as wrong on this front as it is on all others. 1. To begin, Defendants conflate the concepts of “carry,” “transport” and “storage.” State Br. at 62–63. In so doing, Defendants argue that they are just regulating the manner of carry, i.e., how one carries a firearm in a vehicle. Not so. The Second Amendment preserved the right to “public carry for self-defense,” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2156, to “wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584 (cleaned up). It is a core aspect of Heller that a law requiring a citizen to “render [her firearm] inoperable” does not satisfy the Second Amendment’s protections. Heller, 554 U.S. at 628. Since section 7(b), as Defendants admit, requires citizens to carry their firearms in their vehicles “unloaded” and in a “securely fastened case” or “in the trunk,” see Op. 62, it plainly violates Heller and Bruen. Defendants’ attempt to defend this law as a “manner restriction” falls woefully short. A manner restriction refers to how the person may or may not carry the firearm, Case 1:22-cv-07464-RMB-AMD Document 97 Filed 02/24/23 Page 61 of 85 PageID: 3257 50 i.e., “in a manner likely to terrorize others,” or whether the arm is carried openly or concealed, Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2150 (“States could lawfully eliminate one kind of public carry—concealed carry—so long as they left open the option to carry openly.”). That is not what Defendants are doing here—rather, it is imposing an “inoperab[ility]” requirement foreclosed by Heller. I'm an 'aging' (as many of us are!) non-attorney, but I don't remember seeing the holster requirement of the carry-kill law being challenged in any of the case already brought. "Bueller?? Bueller??" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bomber 1,091 Posted February 25, 2023 On 2/21/2023 at 11:17 AM, DAHL said: My rebuttal to New Jerseys argument is that the historical record clearly shows that concealed carry holders have never been a problem in the 47 states where it has been allowed. The state knows full well their arguments are full of shit and aren't supported by facts. Its the very idea of armed honest citizens that sticks in their craw.. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spartiati 63 Posted February 25, 2023 1 hour ago, njJoniGuy said: Reading the latest doc filed in theJudge Bumb case(s), interesting point made by Dan Schmutter on page 61 referring to "carry" as used in Bruen, about 'pocket (or non-holster) carry' : (my bold and underline) C. Section 7(b) – The ban on carrying in vehicles violates the Second Amendment. In Bruen, the state of New York allowed Mr. “Koch to ‘carry to and from work’” only, and the Supreme Court held that was not enough to satisfy the Second Amendment. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2125. New Jersey’s law not only prohibits carriage both on private and public property (thus reinventing the offending act from Bruen as the sum of its parts, instead of the whole), it places even more severe restrictions on carriage in a vehicle than were present in that case. Defendants are as wrong on this front as it is on all others. 1. To begin, Defendants conflate the concepts of “carry,” “transport” and “storage.” State Br. at 62–63. In so doing, Defendants argue that they are just regulating the manner of carry, i.e., how one carries a firearm in a vehicle. Not so. The Second Amendment preserved the right to “public carry for self-defense,” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2156, to “wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584 (cleaned up). It is a core aspect of Heller that a law requiring a citizen to “render [her firearm] inoperable” does not satisfy the Second Amendment’s protections. Heller, 554 U.S. at 628. Since section 7(b), as Defendants admit, requires citizens to carry their firearms in their vehicles “unloaded” and in a “securely fastened case” or “in the trunk,” see Op. 62, it plainly violates Heller and Bruen. Defendants’ attempt to defend this law as a “manner restriction” falls woefully short. A manner restriction refers to how the person may or may not carry the firearm, Case 1:22-cv-07464-RMB-AMD Document 97 Filed 02/24/23 Page 61 of 85 PageID: 3257 50 i.e., “in a manner likely to terrorize others,” or whether the arm is carried openly or concealed, Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2150 (“States could lawfully eliminate one kind of public carry—concealed carry—so long as they left open the option to carry openly.”). That is not what Defendants are doing here—rather, it is imposing an “inoperab[ility]” requirement foreclosed by Heller. I'm an 'aging' (as many of us are!) non-attorney, but I don't remember seeing the holster requirement of the carry-kill law being challenged in any of the case already brought. "Bueller?? Bueller??" The holster requirement was removed from the bill. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr.Stu 1,916 Posted February 25, 2023 24 minutes ago, Spartiati said: The holster requirement was removed from the bill. No it wasn't. The retaining strap requirement was removed, but the holster remains. 2C:58-4 Permits to carry handguns. 2C:58-4. a. Scope and duration of authority. Any person who holds a valid permit to carry a handgun issued pursuant to this section shall be authorized to carry a handgun in a holster concealed on their person in all parts of this State, except as prohibited by subsection e. of N.J.S.2C:39-5 and section 7 of P.L.2022, c.131 (C.2C:58-4.6). One permit shall be sufficient for all handguns owned by the holder thereof, but the permit shall apply only to a handgun carried by the actual and legal holder of the permit and, except as otherwise provided in subsection b. of section 6 of P.L.2022, c.131 (C.2C:58-4.5), shall not be construed to authorize a holder to carry a handgun openly, provided that a brief, incidental exposure of a handgun while transferring it to or from a holster or due to the shifting of the person's body position or clothing shall be deemed a de minimis infraction within the contemplation of N.J.S.2C:2-11. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,777 Posted February 26, 2023 18 hours ago, njJoniGuy said: I'm an 'aging' (as many of us are!) non-attorney, but I don't remember seeing the holster requirement of the carry-kill law being challenged in any of the case already brought. "Bueller?? Bueller??" Not yet... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites