Jump to content
DirtyDigz

Koons v. Reynolds + Siegel v. Platkin - Hearing Notes and Transcripts

Recommended Posts

"Transcription" (Really more notes) from an attendee to the TRO hearing:

 

Quote

---FPC, CNJFO, SAF, NJ2AS, Koons Lawsuit Update---
*THE JUDGE HAS NOT COME TO A DECISION YET AND NO INJUNCTIONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED*
Alright Ladies and Gentlemen Here Ya Go!!!!!!
A little rough for now but I'll tighten it up later. I tried my best to put you all inside the court room. Only was able to use a note pad and pencil. If I was able to record this would have been a much better breakdown.
Enjoy!
___________________________________________
Is Judge Renee Marie bomb Enters the courtroom at 11:04 AM right on time.  David Jensen takes his position and Angela Cai(Deputy Solicitor General) takes the stand representing the Attorney General Matthew Platkin.  Atlantic County Prosecutors were also in the building.
---STANDING---
*Jensen*
Jensen first starts off discussing the fact that the majority of the country has been able to carry a firearm and obtain permits years now. Judge Bumb from there proceeds to question how standing ties into Entertainment Venues. Jensen Then goes into the historical data on being able to Bear arms in entertainment venues and public gathering situations. Jensen states that the purpose of his lawsuit is to go after the low hanging fruit which is only a select few sensitive locations. He wants to open up enough sensitive places to allow people to at least function with a firearm during their normal daily lives. The Judge then asks whether the plaintiffs would actually get charged if they happen to bring a firearm into these said sensitive location. Jensen goes on to say that under this law you would be an instant felon of the 3rd degree if a firearm is brought into one of these locations including vehicle carry. Jensen doesn't believe that people should have to risk getting a felony in order to exercise their right or to show standing.
*Angela Cai*
 Starts off by disagreeing with Jensen And proceeds to tell the judge that she doesn't think That any relief should be granted to the plaintiffs or law abiding citizens until the Entire court process is finished. The Judge Questions this and says that you do know this could take years, right? Cai agrees months to years. The judges disagrees with that statement.  Cai mentions that she doesn't believe the courts should make a rushed decision on this matter. Judge shuts he down and let's her know that herself and the courts are able to make proper decisions and don't rush anything. Cai Goes on to say that it's the plaintiffs responsibility to show standing not the state. Throughout this discussion the judge outright says she thinks that the amount of sensitive place restrictions are so broad that it effectively eliminates the right to carry. Cai questions The eminence of injury in regards to the plaintiffs.  She speaks on how the plaintiffs don't say that they will ever revisit any of the locations that they described in the briefing with their firearm.( which is ridiculous). She then goes on to say that in order to show standing, plaintiffs needed to have painted a concrete plan on sensitive locations theyre going to visit especially in the next 30 days if a TRO is expected to be granted.
Chapter 131 was brought up
 Claims most entertainment venues already banned firearms.  Also brings up places like Costco's and the YMCA.  The judge is somewhat baffled at this point Trying to make sense out of what she's been trying to say. Judge Bumb proceeds to ask Cai..." Does the state really expect plaintiffs to map out their entire lives in advance for the next few months in order to carry a firearm?" Cai really couldn't answer this question properly in good faith because that's exactly what they want us to do. Is the word dancing really starts to take effect at this point. Fischer v. Governor of N.J was also brought up and the judge saw right through was Cai was trying to do. Cai Honestly believes that no one will call the cops on you if they find you on their private property with a firearm and not given express permission. The judge didn't ask well if that's the case is the state Willing to not enforce the sensitive places wall which is a felony? She then corrects herself and says NO!!!
DC circuit laws were dismissed from this case
*Jensen*
 Jensen's response to all of this is that the law has just been enacted.  It's almost impossible to show current data On convictions into sensitive places. He again States that You shouldn't have to be arrested or risk becoming a felon just to prove the point of standing. These aren't minor infractions like a 5 mile per hour speeding ticket that comes with a $50 fine. These are felony offenses that we're talking about. They carry years in jail had heavy fines. Jensen says that individuals lives change on an hourly to daily basis. There's no way of knowing where someone will be in the coming days weeks or months.
---SENSITIVE LOCATIONS---
Specifically subpart 15( Is bars and restaurants where alcohol is served) and 17( Privately and publicly own entertainment facilities)
*Jensen*
Jensen starts off with the framework of Bruen and that the government bears the burden to show standing of law. Judge Bumb Says that she agrees with SCOTUS and the Bruen Decision that sensitive places shouldn't be so expensive.
Section 15 of Sensitive Places
Jensen throws out the The validity of the following......
*1870 Texas Law(prohibited firearms in any “ball room, social party or other social gathering composed of ladies and gentlemen)
*1859 Connecticut Law(If any booth shed, tent, or other temporary erection, within one mile of any military parade-ground, musterfield or encampment, shall be used and occupied for the sale of spirituous or intoxicating liquor, or for the purpose of gambling,” then “the owner or occupant” of such a structure must “vacate and close the same immediately.”)
*1869 Kansas Law(prohibited deadly weapons in any “fair or race course)
Section 17 of Sensitive Places
The statue of Northampton was brought up
1870 Texas Law again
 He said that there were too many small cases that were not broad enough to be considered Historical Tradition. Jensen tells The judge that the state needs to show that there's enduring traditions and they have not been able to do that.
*Angela Cai*
Section 15 of Sensitive Places
Also brings up Tennessee statue 1870(That it shall not be lawful for any person to publicly or privately carry a dirk, swordcane, Spanish stiletto, belt or pocket pistol or revolver)
Section 17 of Sensitive Places
Specifically speaks on crowded venues.
 There's so much word dancing goinalone doctor judlet's called Cai out for saying they "will give" more history and tradition. Judge Bumb isn't buying it. She asked then why aren't you presenting it to me then? She further goes on to call out legislators that said they had the data when drafting this bill. Cai Then switches to calling out the Bruen Decision not citing historical analogs to say that you can't name everywhere a sensitive location.
English v. State 1872 and Cai  Tries to use the Range Decision
Judge agrees Kansas statue is playing in simple on its face.  Judge and pretty much everybody agrees that You shouldn't carry a firearm while outright intoxicated
---PRIVATE PROPERTY---
Section 24 of Sensitive Places
*Judge Bumb*
Judge Bumb Questions whether the state has outright turn the right to carry on its head. She also goes on to To ask why does the state fill the need to communicate that property owners must give express consent in order for someone to carry a firearm on private property?  Forcing a property owner to express that their property is unprotected doesn't seem right. At what point does a firearm owner know if they have express consent?  If approaching someone's home is it at the beginning of the driveway the top of the driveway or at the front door. Either way the moment you step foot on that property you're a felon until they find out.  She then goes on to say that the state Hasn't given any presumption carry.  She goes on to say the state would be making a criminal out of people who don't know if they even have consent yet. The law says verbal concern not a definite sign posted. Judge Bumb Says the state has made the imminent fear of prosecution so great that people leave their firearms at home. She questions Cai Whether people are supposed to read someone's mind.
Section 7A De Minimis Infraction
Incidental Entry into Private Property
No one really knows what's The line in between a de minimis infraction a crime.  The judge brings up a scenario of her walking with her daughter down the street and her daughter kicks a ball into someone's yard. She questions Cai on what she's supposed to do. Leave it or risk becoming a felon? Cai still thinks no one will call the cops on you for brief entry.
*Jensen*
Speak on the following....
Hunting and Poaching Laws
1827 Trespassing Laws
Fish and Game Violations
 Jensen says Bruen Protect the right to carry on public and private property. He mentions that unless you get a particular area of land survey who knows whether is public or private property.
To really nail down the point. Jensen asked the question that if legislation drafted a bill that banned gay or people of color from private property would we really even be standing here right now? It's wouldn't even be a question how fast the bill would get thrown out. It was a complete mic drop. Judge was left speechless and preceeded to move on to the next topic.
---VEHICLE CARRY BAN---
*Angela Cai*
Brings up the Journey Travel argument(specifically a longer journey)
Judge Bumb eventually stops her and says " Do you agree that self defense is a core fundamental right of the 2nd amendment?" Cai states YES!!!!
Judge counters by saying if that's the case then how is one supposed to defend themselves if their firearm is dissembled or unloaded in their car?  She barely could answer that question but immediately brought up the road rage argument.(figures...smh). Hon. Bumb sees right through it. From there Judge plays out a scenario similar to this....... What if  I start my day going to my cousin's house. My cousin gives me express permission to carry on their property so i do.  When I leave I unholster unload my firearm lock it backup in a Box. Then I need to stop at a Walmart to pick up something. I walk up to the front door Walmart Has a sign that says no open carry so I guess that means I can conceal carry. I walked back to my car to reassemble my firearm in public potentially brandishing my weapand I entered the Walmart to get what I need to get. I leave the Walmart go back to my car and have to unholster and disarm my firearm again. The point the judge was making Was to show the ridiculousness of the back-and-forth arming and disarming throughout a normal person's day. The Judge then goes on To ask Cai does this sound like the right to self defense to you? (Cai stumbles). Judge moves on.
 Judge questions again where is the historical traditions legislators claim they had when passing this bill and why aren't they before me. Cai makes More excuses on why the data isn't present they and that she can't know what the legislators had in mind when drafting the bill.
*Judge Bumb*
Irreparable Harm Explanation
 The provisions of this law in essence deprive citizens the right to self defense because they have to leave their firearm at home why does it seem like the state is giving more power to the 1st amendment than the 2nd amendment?  She goes on to say that a first amendment violation is considered irreparable harm.
*Jensen*
 Says that if someone is in the process of being robbed in a vehicle they won't have time to get a fire on out if it unloaded, stored in a Box or in the trunk.
---PUBLIC INTEREST---
*Judge Bumb*
 Is there any evidence that wreagling armed citizens are responsible for gun crimes?
Cai quickly answers NO!!!!!
From here Judge Bumb closes out the hearing saying that she going to think on this case and make a decision expeditiously as possible then leaves the court room.
_________________________________________________
David Jensen did an outstanding job today. I think it went the best it could have. The Judge was very fair and asked meaningful questions in order to fully grasp all the details of this case. I'm pretty confident that she will grant us a TRO. There was nothing that I heard that would say other wise. Most of the hearing she was grilling the State because their claims and justification of this law was outright ridiculous and comical. The longer the case went the more the judge was visibly stressed out trying to maneuver around the egregious explaination of why New Jerseyans have been stripped of the right of carry.

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another interpretation of yesterday's hearing:

 

Quote
Here is my hot take. I find it interesting that the Judge was so heavy handed with the state while treating the plaintiffs a little lighter. Usually they dole it out pretty evenly. And here is what I interpret that to mean (and its not what you think): I don’t think the Judge is “pro 2A” or “on our side.” I don’t think her political leanings have anything to do with this is at all. This comes down to a real simple truth. The state has a very poor legal argument and any judge just applying the law would see that.
 
Now on to Cynthia Cai. Is the problem that Cynthia Cai is a bad lawyer? Certainly not. She graduated from Harvard and Yale and I will readily admit she is far smarter than me and most people here. Is she doing a bad job? No.
 
Lawyers have an ethical responsibility to vigorously defend their clients. She just has no where to go.
 
We all joked about the fact that out of 40 page brief, the State decided to put about 12 actual pages of their argument into actual 2nd Amendment stuff and waited until page 25 to do so. But that is what they have to do. They don’t have a case arguing the merits under the 2nd Amendment. So they have to attack this problem on procedural/jurisdictional grounds. But even there, they can’t land the punch.
 
There argument largely centers around “standing” or specifically the lack of standing for the plaintiffs in this case. There is one case that they brought up at length in their briefs and during their oral arguments yesterday.
I figured it might be helpful to get a better understanding of what “standing” means, why the case they are citing doesn’t apply and where this goes.
 
So what is “standing”? You can’t storm into a courtroom and slam a lawsuit on the table challenging a law as unconstitutional without showing that you have been actually harmed by the law or will imminently be harmed by the law.
 
The short version is this: There is a broad general requirement found in Article III of the US Constitution that courts only hear live “cases and controversies.” Plaintiffs have to establish in their suits that based on direct and circumstantial evidence, their rights will nearly certainly be violated.
 
For example, banning the carrying of a firearm in a hospital may be unconstitutional but the plaintiff has to establish that they will be going to a hospital for some demonstrable reason, that they would be permitted to do so with a firearm but-for the law in question, and someone will arrest them for doing so. So if a plaintiff can’t establish a provable intent to travel to such a place or if the chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction over that place says they will not enforce the law, there is no case or controversy.
 
The NJ Solicitor General, in their briefs and at oral arguments yesterday has relied on a particular case called Fischer v Governor of NJ which was ruled on by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in 2021. That case addresses in part some of the issues surrounding the enforcement side of this standing question, i.e. what does the plaintiff have to show to prove that the potentially unconstitutional law will be enforced against them.
 
Here is what the 3rd Circuit said in Fischer: “The mere presence of a statute on the law books, standing alone, is insufficient to show a "credible threat" that the statute will be enforced against a particular plaintiff … Plaintiffs must do more to establish standing based on a threat of future enforcement.”
 
But to understand this case, we have to look at the fact pattern in Fischer. The facts in Fischer are both complicated and boring so I’ll distill it down to its simplest terms. Teachers in NJ public schools are in most cases members of the NJ Education Association which is their union. Under the terms of their union contracts, teachers can only terminate their membership by giving notice within 10 days of the anniversary of their contract. If that teacher terminates their contract in the middle of that contractual year, they still have to pay the remaining dues for the entire year. Long story short, the teachers in this case wanted to break their contracts outside of the 10 day window.
 
They lost their case on the standing question because they couldn’t demonstrate that the NJEA was going to actually enforce the 10 day rule on them, since the union didn’t threaten to actually enforce it after they gave early notice to terminate their contracts.
 
That is an extremely boring fact pattern. But the bottom line is this, the fact pattern in Fischer could not be further from this case than it is. The state has enacted criminal laws in this case. The entire police power of the state from local cops all the way up to the Attorney General are tasked with enforcing and prosecuting criminal laws and cases. Based on this new law, the mere possession of a firearm by a law abiding PTC holder in a “sensitive place” is a criminal act that carries with it the threat of long imprisonment and severe fines.
 
The state is charged with using its police powers to enforce all of the criminal code and to add to this our governor and our AG’s office has said repeatedly that fighting “gun crime” is a top priority.
 
There is no question that they the intend to enforce these laws. And the plaintiffs in our cases can’t logically be expected to wait around for the “threat of enforcement.”
 
They live in New Jersey, possess permits to carry so they would be entitled to carry firearms into these “sensitive places” and its not a high hurdle to prove that people intend to go to places like supermarkets, movie theaters, restaurants, parks, churches, etc. So its easy for these folks to meet all of the basic standing elements. And they, like you or I, would be arrested immediately if we were found to be in possession of a firearm in any one of those under this law.
 
There is plenty of case law that supports our side on these standing and enforcement questions. But while this stuff sounds complicated, its really not. We don’t need to go to law school to figure this out.
 
If Fischer applied to cases like this the way the Solicitor General is arguing it does, there would never have been a Heller, McDonald or Bruen case to begin with.
 
Now the Court in ANJRPC might get tripped up on whether the plaintiffs there actually intend to go to some of the weirder specific places in the new law (a good example is “movie sets or places where TV shows are being produced”). Only Alec Baldwin could perfectly establish standing on that one. So while it’s still unconstitutional on the merits, that element of that case could fail on standing alone.
 
But FPC’s case is clear cut. The “sensitive place” laws being challenged are places everyone goes to all the time.
 
The state has literally no place to go on this one, including these technical challenges in the suit.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


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

No idea what the author was trying to convey with that.

I think what he was saying was the DC circuit court dismissed the plaintiffs complaint about carrying in the subway because none of them had been "harmed"  because they weren't arrested for carrying,  one of them would have to become a felon first

This of course is a bullshit liberal view  but this is what they are trying with the courts.  what these courts and liberals have to start getting used to is that the 2A is no longer a second class right.  If that same subway system created a rule that forbid blacks from entering you could bet your last dollar that no one would have to be "Harmed" to have it ruled unconstitutional.   

 

the bruen decison has lit the fuse of the dismantling of all infringements.  one by one.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can only hope that the TRO is issued in Koons Vs Reynolds soon.  On the request for a TRO on the Siegel vs Platkin case it is to be heard on Monday by judge Karen Williams a Biden appointee.  The chances of seeing any relief there are IMO slim.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2023 at 9:21 PM, Mr.Stu said:

I think it is awesome that they judge knew that Walmart has a sign that says no open carry.

 

Edit: Apparently the note taker made up the bit about Walmart - he thinks the Judge may have said Lowes.

i posted a pic in some thread on here. walmart does indeed have a sign that reads something like "please refrain from openly carrying a firearm"

at least the one in somerdale does

  • Informative 1

Share this post


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

i posted a pic in some thread on here. walmart does indeed have a sign that reads something like "please refrain from openly carrying a firearm"

at least the one in somerdale does

From what I've seen they all do - certainly all the ones I've been to.

 

Not sure what Lowes policy is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2023 at 9:10 AM, DirtyDigz said:

Another interpretation of yesterday's hearing:

I think that interpretation you quoted is spot-on, but particularly so when viewed through a political lens. I won't get overtly "political/partisan" in this thread (so please, no one else do it either!). Suffice it to say that when ANY politician (of ANY party) aspires to higher office, it would be natural to establish your bona fides on contentious issues that are top of mind to the people most likely to vote for you, and I think that's playing out here...

I think our governor was all too happy to force even surprisingly weak legislation (even a layperson could point out some the logical failures of this law, but the learned judge's questions only drive them home more). But what does that matter if the Governor can then leverage the results either way? If the law gets overturned, the campaign language is: "See, I tried to do the right thing. I fought the good fight, but these crazy activist judges went against us. Make me your President, and I promise to appoint better judges and justices... blah, blah, bullshit, blah."  If even parts of the law are ultimately upheld, the spin turns into: "See, I'm leading the charge on this issue! Make me your President and I'll continue to WIN for you and we'll expand on this success... blah, blah, bullshit, blah." 

In that sense, this new law is more a tale of pure political gamesmanship/ambition than it is about ...2A legalities... or safety... or self-defense... or gun crime... or anything else! It doesn't matter to him if the law itself is weak, riddled with holes in logic, and clearly goes against Bruen. It's simply a political means to an ends... being funded with our money (regrettably on both sides of the aisle).

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Picked this back up after a long day...

"MS. CAI: The reason that the Kansas statute and similar statutes were enacted is that the legislatures at that time correctly recognized that people who are intoxicated or could be intoxicated or go to places to be intoxicated should not have firearms on them. And so we can't, you know, we're not doing an analysis of whether the current statute, Section 15, is narrowly tailored to only apply to people who have already started drinking at the restaurant versus later. That's not what Bruen tells the Court to do. It's whether or not --

THE COURT: So I guess your argument is, is that it is presumed that anyone who goes into an establishment that sells alcohol is going to drink?

MS. CAI: No, Your Honor. And that's --

THE COURT: But that's how you'd get there.

MS. CAI: No. I don't think that's the logic we're trying to draw. The logic we're trying to draw is historically legislatures have had no problem prohibiting the mixture of alcohol and firearms, period."

------

Slappity, slap, slap!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE COURT: I do. I think to move things along, I do have some questions. The question I have for you, it seems to me in subpart 24, and this is what I want you to address, is isn't the State turning the presumption of the right to carry on its head?

------

And this, my friends, is the core of the case.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"THE COURT: Okay. That's the way it's always been; that a person can go onto property unless there's a no gun posted. So it just seems to me that this is a superfluous impediment that the State is imposing on private property owners. And that tends to be -- and whenever there's a superfluous impediment, it seems to me that that infringes.

MS. CAI: If I can --

THE COURT: Help me understand what I'm missing. MS. CAI: If I can give the Court a very practical example.

THE COURT: Yeah.

MS. CAI: So if I'm a homeowner before Chapter 131 went into effect.

THE COURT: Yeah.

MS. CAI: And maybe I have little kids. Maybe I have a lot going on in the house, there's contractors coming in and out, I may not be thinking about whether or not the people coming in and out of my house, the plumber, the roofer, are carrying firearms. On the other hand, I may have a very, very strong preference and desire for people coming into my house not to have firearms because --

THE COURT: Then post "no guns allowed."

------

Mic drop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

I hope Amazon leaves all of Ms Cai’s boxes in the middle of the road.  

It's clear to me from this transcript that Ms. Cai is in well over her head and that the State's response to this was incredibly lacking any preparation or basis whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CMJeepster said:

It's clear to me from this transcript that Ms. Cai is in well over her head and that the State's response to this was incredibly lacking any preparation or basis whatsoever.

That was clear from the “The bill says there is evidence of historical analogs….why isn’t it presented here?”, “……”,  “that’s what I thought, moving on..” exchange   

That said: Cai isn’t stupid so I don’t think she’s over her head.  The State handed her a crap hand and Sometimes you have to bluff with a pair of 2’s.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

That said: Cai isn’t stupid so I don’t think she’s over her head.  The State handed her a crap hand and Sometimes you have to bluff with a pair of 2’s.   

By page 70, IMO it's very apparent that she's out of her league.

THE COURT: So it's still a crime. As I read this, it's still a crime under the de minimis.

MS. CAI: No, Your Honor. That's not how I read it. Except as otherwise provided and except as in the case of a brief incidental entry onto property --

THE COURT: Which shall be deemed a de minimis infraction within the contemplation of 2C:2-11. That's a criminal statute.

MS. CAI: It's a criminal statute, but it doesn't criminalize your conduct. So it's not -- if you look at 2C:2-11.

THE COURT: What does that say?

MS. CAI: I don't have that right in front of me, Your Honor. But it makes it --

THE COURT: Do you know?

MR. JENSEN: I don't know what that says, no.

THE COURT: Well, that says to me that even if it's a de minimis infraction, it's still a prosecution. Because that was my next question, which is if I'm walking, if I have a concealed carry and I'm walking with my child and her ball, and her ball, she kicks it inadvertently onto my neighbor's property who I know doesn't want any firearms, does she leave the ball there?

MS. CAI: Well, Your Honor, I think that's not even a question about Section 7(a) -- A724. If your neighbor has already made it known to you that they don't want your firearms there --

THE COURT: Yeah. I leave the ball there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MR. JENSEN: Well, I think saying that there is no presumption you have a right to carry a firearm in the first place is getting everything exactly wrong. There is a presumption that you have a right to carry a firearm. And the issue is whether or not we have established a sufficiently engrained historical tradition to overcome that. Just -- this is going to sound like a ridiculous example, but that's kind of because it's ridiculous -- a private property owner, like my house, I can choose to exclude all sorts of people. I could choose to exclude people who are gay. I could choose to exclude people who are members of races I don't like. Just to be clear, I'm certainly not doing this. That's not my view. But I would be free to do this. Now, if the legislature enacts a law that says the default rule is that gay people are not allowed in other people's private residences unless they have affirmatively consented in advance, would we even be standing here having this argument? Would this not, on its face, be a law that serves the purposes of suppressing the conduct? Your Honor, unless you have anything further, I'll sit down just because I know we've been here for a long time.

THE COURT: Okay. Yeah. Thank you. I want to move to the issue of the transportation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE COURT: Do you agree that self-defense is at the core of the Second Amendment?

MS. CAI: Of course.

THE COURT: So how does someone who has an approved concealed carry defend himself if it's in the trunk, if the firearm is in the trunk?

MS. CAI: So, first, Your Honor, the statute does not require that the firearm be in the trunk. It just requires that it be unloaded and fastened in some case. It could be on the -- in the glove box, it could be on the passenger side seat. It could be, you know, in any number of locations where they --

THE COURT: Okay. Fair enough. How does he protect himself with a disassembled or unloaded firearm?

MS. CAI: Of course the person would have to then, if it faces a self-defense situation, take it out and load it. But that's the exact prohibitions that states have put forth in history, and those were not challenged as unconstitutional, or at least the plaintiffs have not given us any evidence. And that's because the government, you know, the right to self-defense, as Bruen and McDonald and Heller have noted, is not unlimited in every manner and to every person and to every place. And so --

THE COURT: Do you agree with the plaintiffs that this provision treats every permit holder the same?

MS. CAI: I -- yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MS. CAI: I wasn't sure if there was a -- every permit holder has the same, yes, has the same -- has to follow the same rules. But I think if we look to the rationales that the courts interpreting the historical statutes have justified them, plaintiffs have no responses. So we explain on page 34 of the brief that the journeys regulation was to prevent people from, quote, going about the streets armed in a manner which, if in a sudden fit of passion, might endanger the lives of others. This is the road rage analogue from the 1800s, I suppose. And that's precisely one of the reasons why Section (b)(1) was enacted. The legislature wanted people to be able to transport their firearms between places where they're allowed to carry them, right. So it didn't prohibit having firearms in your vehicle. It just prohibited people from having such easy access to the firearm that if they were in a sudden fit of passion or if there was a car accident or something like that, that it would create danger to others. And so that's the prohibition that exists now and has always animated the restrictions historically.

------

Me:  So, the state sees me as a potential rapist because I am male and have a penis?  :facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE COURT: And while he's traveling. But he's told he cannot, right?

MS. CAI: Well, while he's traveling, when he's driving the car, he has the firearm, he can have the firearm within reach, and it's just about whether or not he can have it loaded and unsecured somewhere in the car while he's doing that. And so I think there's perhaps some infringement on the immediate ability to have that firearm loaded and on you. That restriction -- and I do admit that is a restriction -- has been historically upheld.

THE COURT: And I appreciate your candor.

MS. CAI: Yeah.

THE COURT: Yes.

------

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: 

Admission that "they're" infringing on a Constitutional right.  JFC these people are morons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this sums up most CCW defenses!!!!

 

THE COURT: Does the State have any evidence that concealed carry holders are responsible for an increase in gun crimes?

MS. CAI: Not specifically, Your Honor, no.

THE COURT: Okay.

  • Like 2

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...