Jump to content

GunForHireRadio #626 Dan Schmutter Returns

Recommended Posts

GunForHireRadio #626 Judge Bumb has spoken and Dan Schmutter is on the show to educated we the people. Could this case be the NJ Gun Control Zealots Waterloo? https://gunforhire.com/blog/the-gun-for-hire-radio-broadcast-episode-626/
  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Anthony!

I listened to it all - my notes:

Still the beginning of the case.  There's still a lot to fight for until we get the final ruling.  NJ is appealing the PI to the 3rd circuit, but the case is still not complete.
Judge Bumb still needs a factual record - additional discovery and evidentiary hearing.
The court can potentially change their mind and take away places to carry (though it's not likely).  We could potentally get more places allowed to carry.  The judge has not expressed an opinion either way.  

Regarding private property - there are 2 different types of people:  invitees and licensee.  A licensee is someone who has explicit permission.  An invitee has implied permission.  For example a Burger King - nobody has to tell you that you have permission to enter.  It's implied permission and considered the default rule.  The state attempted to change the default rule that says if there is not explicit permission that you're not allowed.  The state even tried to put in an Amicus Curaie brief arguing the that the state gets to take the decision from the actual private property owner if they're not there to grant explicit consent.  Judge Bumb saw through that and struck it down as it would be a flat out ban on carry.

The court made a distinction of property held open to the public.  The 3 types are:  Commercial property open to the public, Commerical property not open to the public, and private property.
Commercial property open to the public - for example a Burger King.  They can kick you out, but you cannot be charged as a trespasser just for entering the property.
Commercial property not open to the public - EG a Warehouse, Office, etc - you need to have credentials to enter - a key card, etc.  You still need explicit permission to enter.

Residential property is not open to the public, but the court refers to the curtailage - the walkway, the driveway, the front steps, the yard... The UPS driver has to walk up to the door to deliver a package.  They have no way of getting permission without going up and knocking on the door.  So the same way a Burger King is open to the public, the curtailage of a property is open to the public.  If you have to unlock a door, swipe a card key, etc - it's not open to the public.  

We got more out of the PI than the TRO.  The court concluded that the injury claimed was not likely to arise in the short time frame.  This is why we got more in the PI vs the TRO.  Regarding Dr's offices - Schmutter disagrees with the opinion however we have plenty of time to sway the court to our position that it's a single prohibition that covers the whole thing vs getting access to only a select list of medical facilities.  If you're likely to go to one of the medical facilities listed and a member of ANJRPC (or for that matter CNJFO, FPC, SAF, etc) - email [email protected] - you can provide an affadavit and can provide assistance to the case to demonstrate standing.

We did not get wildlife refuge's covered in the PI as the case does not have anyone demonstrating standing that they are planning on going to one of these places and can't carry.

Dan will be putting out a call and listing all of the places so that we have more support to provide standing.

There is a 2 gun limit on the firearms you can carry.  If there are more guns in the car - there is a distinction on what you're carrying vs not carrying.  

The state will be requesting appealing the PI - requesting a stay pending appeal - which would stop the PI ruling until the appeal is ruled on.  If the stay is granted to the state - the law would go back into effect nullifying the PI, and all restrictions would go back into affect.  Pay attention to what happens to this.

Mag ban case - the 3 cases have been combined for discovery - The Mag ban case, ANJRPC's Assault Firearm case, and FPC's Assault Firearm case.  The 3 cases are combined for discovery - exchanging reports, evidence, etc.  The schedule has been set - Discovery wraps up and file dispositive motions by September, and will be heard by the court in October.  The motions have the potential to resolve the cases in entirety.  There is the possibility that the cases may be resolved in October.

  • 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.

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...