Sayreville strip club out, Gun shops next ?

[Silent Service 7]

I heard this topic discussed on the radio today, and the thought of gun shops being the next target was one that immediately crossed my mind.

 

Part of what baffles me is the statement "there are similar businesses in nearby Staten Island, N.Y". Huh......? So now our similiar business's have to move out of state? Well if that's the case then there are court rooms there too!

 

This topic is an easy one to diverge from, (guns, strippers, law precedence, did I say strippers?) I have never seen a stripper in NJ, EVER, bikini dancers yes, strippers no. Maybe if the club owners just call it "Moe's Bikini Modeling Club", they'll get an exemption. Will the dude that drives his stripper wife/girlfriend to Long Island/Pennsy have to have a TSID (Transporting Stripper ID) card? Will she have to keep her stripper (bikini) outfit in the trunk? Gotta keep the ammo seperate from the weapon right?

 

Again, there are fun tangents to this topic, and that's cool, but I'm fish'n for your thought's on the, ONLY IN NJ, precedent this is setting.

 

Here is the AP press release I found on NJ.com

 

NJ court OKs town's reason to keep out strip clubs

 

Jan. 19, 2012, 5:51 p.m. EST

AP

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — New Jersey's state Supreme Court says the town of Sayreville was within its rights to impose restrictions on a strip club because there are similar businesses in nearby Staten Island, N.Y.

Thursday's ruling could be the final word in Sayreville's long legal battle with Club 35.

The town said that such businesses could not be within 1,000 feet of homes, parks or houses of worship.

The state's high court has previously said that such restrictions are allowable — but only if there are other places where that type of expression is available.

Owners of Club 35 said there were no other businesses similar businesses in the area.

But Sayreville said there are strip clubs on Staten Island. In a 5-1 ruling, the court said that reasoning was sound.

 

o_pagetype="story"; o_indexpage="The_Associated_Press"; o_title="NJ court OKs town's reason to keep out strip clubs"; o_category=""; o_uid="f166f3ae1dd84b7c87f05f165bea9f3a"; o_date="Jan. 19, 2012, 5:51 p.m. EST"; o_pnum="1"; o_npgs="1";

[M4BGRINGO 139]

We slowly lose our freedoms daily........................

[raz-0 1,259]

This is the stupidest ruling. They say stripping is protected by the first amendment which is incorporated. They ruled that they can ignore it of there are alternatives inthe area, and cited SI. Went to appellate court where that said sorry, the alternative must be in nj and sent it back down where this idiot said his ruling stands.

 

Seriously?

 

I'm not one for strip clubs, but even so (and living in Sayreville) I'd contribute to scouts run. Nj judges need to get a smack down or too. Usually for something like this to stand that alternative has to actually be in town.

[Kaiser7 33]

It's funny, we don't want to drive business, and jobs out of the state, yet we'll basically say, "If they want to go to a strip club, they can go to NY." It's stupid.

[Qel Hoth 33]

All they have to do is fight it federally, not in state court. If a federal judge agrees that it is protected speech, which they will, club wins. Federal courts have already said that rights cannot be restricted based on geography, multiple times, the most recent being in the firing range case in Chicago.

[Smokin .50 1,907]

I'm old enough to remember when Art Stock owned it and it was called the Playpen Lounge. This place has been one seedy establishment after another. Coke, smoke, and all of the "action" you could handle & pay for! I'm not into Strip Clubs, but you can almost throw a rock from their parking lot across the swamp into Delilah's Den new digs by the bridge, across from the closed movies. Delilah's is a NUDE juice bar, so there's plenty of First Amendment rights being displayed just across the way & down the road a little. NO need to go to Staten Island if you need to see your 1st Amendment rights in your lap.

 

What really ought to happen is someone buy the place, expand it, bring in a good chef and loose the seediness. The big plans for the area across from them at the site of the old National Lead plant include a Bass Pro Shops as an anchor store in a project known as "The Point". If you google "The Point Sayreville NJ" you can watch a 4-5 minute professional commercial made by the real estate developer handling the property. Said developer wants to make a "Pier Village" style multi-use center with shopping & condos above with several restaurants, parking garage, etc. A really ambitious attempt at turning that industrial area into a showplace with ratables. AND jobs!

 

This chess game all boils down to money. Sayreville probably promised to get rid of the eyesore as part of the "master plan" for the developer. What needs to happen is for the owner of the liquor license to be given the opportunity to buy-in to one of the restaurants at a good price. Once some REAL money gets offered, or a deal is struck, this "problem" will just go away. Till then all this really is is a disguised pissing contest over 1st Amendment rights. Meanwhile, you can walk to Delilah's Den from the Club 35 parking lot........

[Vlad G 345]

I think you are missing the point, it isn't about the strip joint. I don't care how seedy it is, what I care about is that the state decided that it is perfectly ok to restrict consitutional rights as long as some other nearby state doesn't. That line of thinking of "good for the town, jobs, money, etc" is exactly the grease they line the slippery sloap with. Next you'll see "well that gun shop scares people away from the shopping mall so its ok if we run it out of town as long as you can buy a gun in a different state".

[Smokin .50 1,907]

Vlad,

 

I AGREE with all of you about the ruling, the Judge, etc. IT SUCKS that they can even try to do this! But it doesn't surprise me one bit.

 

Just got distracted and posted prior to writing so. So I'm on your side of the issue with Govt. going out of control!

 

Just wanted to give background on the real estate issue. Maybe the Judge has a cousin, OR?.......Need I say more, this IS NJ we're talking about!

[Wolfy 51]

Using the logic another state or town offers the same business means they can now ban anyone using this logic. Stupid.

[Silent Service 7]

All they have to do is fight it federally, not in state court. If a federal judge agrees that it is protected speech, which they will, club wins. Federal courts have already said that rights cannot be restricted based on geography, multiple times, the most recent being in the firing range case in Chicago.

 

Will they? And key words "IF a federal judge" I don't mean to be snarky, but keep in mind what's going on with the supreme court. I imagine, hope, alot of this forums readers are aware of this but here it is.

 

The following was copied from: http://www.gunreports.com/news/handguns/Obama-Supreme-Court-Second-Amendment_928-1.html

 

"On June 26, in the case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held in a split 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment secures a right to keep and bear arms for private citizens, and struck down the D.C. law that banned all handguns and readily-usable firearms, even in your own home. That decision turned on a single vote. The four liberal justices on the Supreme Court voted against the Second Amendment and to uphold the gun ban. They wrote that the Second Amendment confers no right whatsoever on private citizens, that Americans have no personal right to own guns of any sort, and the government can confiscate or ban them at will.

"The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms survived by the slimmest of margins. If a single justice had voted the other way, the Second Amendment would have been erased from the Constitution forever.…

"[Obama] has said who he would appoint to the Supreme Court, and the justices he would appoint will take away our Second Amendment rights. He has singled out one justice on the Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as his model for Supreme Court appointments. Justice Ginsburg was one of the four who voted that private citizens have no Second Amendment rights at all, and voted to uphold D.C.’s handgun ban.

 

Majority Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito Dissent Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer Dissent

Breyer, joined by Stevens, Souter,

Ginsburg

 

AND: McDonald v. Chicago (2010). Look this up yourself. Majority Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito Dissent Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer Dissent Breyer, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg

 

I think you are missing the point, it isn't about the strip joint. I don't care how seedy it is, what I care about is that the state decided that it is perfectly ok to restrict consitutional rights as long as some other nearby state doesn't. That line of thinking of "good for the town, jobs, money, etc" is exactly the grease they line the slippery sloap with. Next you'll see "well that gun shop scares people away from the shopping mall so its ok if we run it out of town as long as you can buy a gun in a different state".

 

Exactly Vlad. I wonder if a Hooters is part of the mall master plan? I think this is just a case of turning up the heat to boil the frogs faster. One more erosion of our unalienable rights.

Inalienable VS. Unalienable rights explained: http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm. I'm going to make this a forum topic, it is actually a pretty decent read.

[Qel Hoth 33]

Porn, compared to firearms, is pretty much settled law in the federal courts. Hell, it goes all the way back to 1973 at least where the US Supreme Court ruled that porn is protected speech so long as it isn't "obscene." Based on what SCOTUS has ruled as recently as 2010 is not obscene, there is no way they would declare a strip club to be obscene, so it would be protected speech.

 

Also, you have to consider that guns are "different" when it comes to politics. Liberals hate giving you rights when it comes to guns, but they love giving you rights when it comes to speech. I would be more worried about a conservative court saying that porn isn't protected than a liberal court.

[BigAl 10]

I'm still not sure how one state court makes a ruling on the bases that another state has a similar establishment. So why don't they rule, since PA's gun laws are friendlier than use those gun laws here.