Jump to content
M1152

NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, kirk2022 said:

In NJ sure it carries the weight of law.  If a business posts a no gun's sign, it means they are anti-gun.  Take your business elsewhere is the best I can say.    I have been many places and the only sign I have seen pertaining to carry is at Walmart's.    They are written in yellow letters, "Walmart requests that customers do not openly carry" whoever chooses to ignore that can be the test dummy for all the laws in NJ.

Do yourself a favor and start reading other States laws also. It will show you that a lot of the laws people will say are against carrying in NJ, actually exist in States that have allowed carry for a long time.

The important question is, which law? Is a violation of no gun sign at a private business mere trespass or is it a violation of illegal possession in sensitive places? These two are vastly different in many aspects, including consequences.

Share this post


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

The important question is, which law? Is a violation of no gun sign at a private business mere trespass or is it a violation of illegal possession in sensitive places? These two are vastly different in many aspects, including consequences.

thanks. that's kinda what i was trying to get at, but didn't even come close to putting it properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way that I understand it, is if that if a business posts a no carry sign, that is their policy. If you do not comply when asked you must leave or you could be charged with trespassing. Just avoid businesses with that policy. Problem solved.

Share this post


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

The way that I understand it, is if that if a business posts a no carry sign, that is their policy. If you do not comply when asked you must leave or you could be charged with trespassing. Just avoid businesses with that policy. Problem solved.

I’m not sure that is correct in Nj, what you outlined hold true in states where the signs “do not carry the weight of law” …. However I believe that nj is the opposite in that it could be a chargeable offense by simply missing the sign and entering a posted location. Perhaps those more versed can weigh in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does NJ law clarify what constitutes the correct signage? I am guessing not. My understanding is that in other states like TX (paging @Displaced Texan) the signs have to be conspicuous and even display the statute (I believe they are either 30-06 or 30-07 or something like that). The things at the malls I've seen are not signs at all, they are not obvious nor in the line of sight when entering so it seems you could have plausible deniability (assuming that's a real legal thing, IANAL). @DAHL's response was reasonable but nothing in this state is, especially WRT 2A so the safe play seems to me to go out of your way when going somewhere new to look for small signs, BS "code of conduct" notices posted off to the side in 6-point font, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Old Glock guy said:

Worse, just about every violation of firearms laws in NJ is a felony, so this probably is as well.  Sure would hate to lose my right to own firearms in all 50 states over inadvertently carrying in a mall. 

That's not a mistake in the law,  that's a feature .

  • Agree 3

Share this post


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

Does NJ law clarify what constitutes the correct signage? I am guessing not. My understanding is that in other states like TX (paging @Displaced Texan) the signs have to be conspicuous and even display the statute (I believe they are either 30-06 or 30-07 or something like that). The things at the malls I've seen are not signs at all, they are not obvious nor in the line of sight when entering so it seems you could have plausible deniability (assuming that's a real legal thing, IANAL). @DAHL's response was reasonable but nothing in this state is, especially WRT 2A so the safe play seems to me to go out of your way when going somewhere new to look for small signs, BS "code of conduct" notices posted off to the side in 6-point font, etc.

Yes, in Texas, our signs have to meet certain criteria to be legal. 
The 30-06 and 30-07 signs must be conspicuously located and of a certain size, and font. The lettering has to be at least 1” tall. They have to have particular verbiage. 

If posted signs do not meet that criteria, they are considered invalid. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Displaced Texan said:

Yes, in Texas, our signs have to meet certain criteria to be legal. 

........

If posted signs do not meet that criteria, they are considered invalid. 

Ditto in AZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huge win in IL - Preliminary Injunction against Illinois' AWB/"High Cap" magazine ban. You gotta read the whole thing:


image.png

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-28-Order-Granting-MPI.pdf

Tons of great quotes in this decision:

bWVkaWEvRnUwejVjVVhnQUEyeTBuLmpwZz9uYW1l

https://nitter.1d4.us/pic/orig/enc/bWVkaWEvRnUwbkV1M2FnQUVxSlE1LnBuZw==

https://nitter.1d4.us/pic/orig/enc/bWVkaWEvRnUwbFZBLWFZQUFzRmR2LnBuZw==

----

 

https://nitter.1d4.us/pic/orig/enc/bWVkaWEvRnUwb1EzS2FrQUE5SDdHLnBuZw==

-----

Magazines! (You listening NJ?):

https://nitter.1d4.us/pic/orig/enc/bWVkaWEvRnUwdmdsdGFFQUFaLWlULnBuZw==

-----

https://nitter.1d4.us/pic/orig/enc/bWVkaWEvRnUwd29qeGFjQUE4ZFY3LnBuZw==

-----

https://nitter.1d4.us/pic/orig/enc/bWVkaWEvRnUwekJpdmFFQUFBbjVCLnBuZw==

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So can you legally carry a copy of your permit & have it suffice? Having to replace an original if something happened to it would be a major PITA I’d imagine. Sorry, I know this was covered but I cannot find those posts. Thank you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, charleslee said:

So can you legally carry a copy of your permit & have it suffice? Having to replace an original if something happened to it would be a major PITA I’d imagine. Sorry, I know this was covered but I cannot find those posts. Thank you. 

When I went to staples to have mine laminated,  I asked the clerk to make me a copy and then laminate 2.  He did,  and now I have 2.  You cant tell them apart so now I have 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assemblyman Joe Danielsen, sir, would you care to respond to this?:

 

Quote

Nor has the State presented one example where a New Jersey Carry Permit holder committed a violent crime. In fact, there was about a six-month gap between Bruen and Chapter 131’s enactment where more individuals obtained Carry Permits. Yet the State has not shown an increase in violent crimes during such period despite the increase of individuals obtaining Carry Permits.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skimmed through it, and my mind is blown that she believes the permit application requirements are constitutional.  Glad to see a PI for the insurance requirement, but damn, our application requirements (references, etc) are insane.   I guess we're stuck with them.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, TuscanRaider said:

I'm sure this is well written and thorough, I just need to know what I have to do differently today as opposed to yesterday! :D

 

I concur :D.  If I read it correctly (very big if) we can still carry in our vehicles and now I’m just trying to ascertain if the private property rule is still in effect. Namely I don’t have to have prior permission to carry outside my house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Tariq said:

I concur :D.  If I read it correctly (very big if) we can still carry in our vehicles and now I’m just trying to ascertain if the private property rule is still in effect. Namely I don’t have to have prior permission to carry outside my house.

that part's a bit worrisome, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
ANJRPC:

COURT CONTINUES BLOCKING MOST OF CARRY KILLER LAW!
 
May 16, 2023. Today, the judge in ANJRPC's lawsuit to overturn the carry-killer law imposed a preliminary injunction continuing and expanding its prior restraining order blocking key aspects of New Jersey's defiant "carry-killer" law. The decision also for the first time now blocks the liability insurance mandate which was supposed to take effect starting in July. The move represents another huge win for New Jersey gun owners, and means that much of the carry-killer law will continue to be suspended for the duration of the case. Gun owners did not prevail on every one of the many issues in the case, but it is clear that gun owners have succeeded in blocking the most significant aspects of the law for the duration of the case.
 
CLICK HERE https://www.anjrpc.org/page/CarryLawsuitFilings and scroll to item 24 to see this extremely significant court decision, which is 230 pages long!
 
ANJRPC will be providing detailed analysis of the decision and its implications in an upcoming alert once a full analysis of the decision is complete.

 

I don't know for sure yet, but my read is looking like private property restrictions got WORSE under the PI.  Can't carry without prior permission on private property that is not "normally open to the public".

 

12 minutes ago, Tariq said:

I concur :D.  If I read it correctly (very big if) we can still carry in our vehicles and now I’m just trying to ascertain if the private property rule is still in effect. Namely I don’t have to have prior permission to carry outside my house.

I don't know for sure yet, but my read is looking like private property restrictions got WORSE under the PI.  Can't carry without prior permission on private property that is not "normally open to the public".

Share this post


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

 

I don't know for sure yet, but my read is looking like private property restrictions got WORSE under the PI.  Can't carry without prior permission on private property that is not "normally open to the public".

 

I don't know for sure yet, but my read is looking like private property restrictions got WORSE under the PI.  Can't carry without prior permission on private property that is not "normally open to the public".

But most things are "normally open to the pubic"  Restaurants, food stores, home depot, the beach, the movies, etc.    The only things not normally open to the public are private residences.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TuscanRaider said:

But most things are "normally open to the pubic"  Restaurants, food stores, home depot, the beach, the movies, etc.    The only things not normally open to the public are private residences. 

Quote

Ultimately, the Court concludes that the Default Rule impermissibly burdens Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment right to carry for self-defense in public as applied to private property that is held open to the public and for which an implied invitation to enter is extended, but not on private property not held open to the public. Although it is not clear to the Court that Plaintiffs advocate a Second Amendment right to carry on private property that is not held open to the public, this Court’s Opinion clarifies this distinction anyways. As to such private property that is not held open to the public, an “anti-carry presumption” does not come within the scope of the right to carry for self-defense in public, and there the Default Rule does not violate the Second Amendment, nor does it violate the compelled speech doctrine or infringe the First Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I could gather:

 

NEW PLACES ALLOWED:
Zoos
Health care facilities - only as to facilities set forth in Plaintiffs’ declarations ( I believe this excludes mental health facilities)
Public filmmaking locations
 
STRUCK DOWN:
Insurance mandate
in-person interview requirement of carry permit applicant’s character endorsers
 
CLARIFIED:
Airport carry still prohibited, checking unloaded firearm in is not prohibited, as is carry while pickup/dropoff also not prohibited.
Private property only applies to publicly accessible places. 
 
STILL PROHIBITED:
Schools
playgrounds
childcare facilities
youth sporting events
 
NOT GONE:
Higher fees
Exception for judges, prosecutors, AGs
Anti-Brandishing
Fish and game restrictions
References
"Such other information" to review a concealed carry applicant’s application

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...