The suits have started

[BobA 1,235]

If this is on another thread or should be, sorry but it's the first case I've seen and found it quite by accident.  I wish them good luck. At the very least it may get a stay on the mag. thing.

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/06/15/group-sues-nj-new-gun-control-laws-ink-dry/

[1563621 388]

Gotta fight murph the snake!

[Regular Guy 264]

Isn't murder already illegal?  Didn't the shooter at the Parkland School have mags that were all 10 round capacity?  At some point they have to realize that no matter how many laws they write, they will never be able to legislate the evil out of people. 

[BobA 1,235]

5 minutes ago, Regular Guy said:

Isn't murder already illegal?  Didn't the shooter at the Parkland School have mags that were all 10 round capacity?  At some point they have to realize that no matter how many laws they write, they will never be able to legislate the evil out of people. 

I don’t think they will until they’re forced to by courts. 

[Sniper 6,372]

3 hours ago, BobA said:

If this is on another thread or should be, sorry but it's the first case I've seen and found it quite by accident.  I wish them good luck. At the very least it may get a stay on the mag. thing.

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/06/15/group-sues-nj-new-gun-control-laws-ink-dry/

From the first paragraph of that article:

...."Anti-gun officials need to start factoring the cost of the inevitable lawsuits into their consideration of new gun laws. The idea is that before long, gun laws will stop being proposed to any significant degree due to the cost of not just implementing the law, but the inevitable legal challenge."

The problem with that line of polyanna thinking is that the States have really deep pockets and a lots of lawyers on the payroll. They could care less who sues them, and they know it's only a matter of time before they can deplete the funds of any organization trying to push these lawsuits and challenges. This is why I believe none of these laws ever get overturned. There isn't an organization that can get it to the finally inning, they run out of money and resources...

 

 

[BobA 1,235]

5 minutes ago, Sniper22 said:

From the first paragraph of that article:

...."Anti-gun officials need to start factoring the cost of the inevitable lawsuits into their consideration of new gun laws. The idea is that before long, gun laws will stop being proposed to any significant degree due to the cost of not just implementing the law, but the inevitable legal challenge."

The problem with that line of polyanna thinking is that the States have really deep pockets and a lots of lawyers on the payroll. They could care less who sues them, and they know it's only a matter of time before they can deplete the funds of any organization trying to push these lawsuits and challenges. This is why I believe none of these laws ever get overturned. There isn't an organization that can get it to the finally inning, they run out of money and resources...

 

 

Quite true. But they throw as much mud as they can. Whatever sticks....

[JackDaWack 2,895]

ANJRPC FILES MOTION TO HALT  ENFORCEMENT OF MAG BAN!

Seeks to Put Mag Ban on Hold While Court Decides  Whether to Invalidate the New Law

June 21, 2018. Just a week after filing suit in federal court to overturn New Jersey’s new ban on magazines that can hold over 10 rounds of ammunition, ANJRPC today filed a motion for an injunction to halt enforcement of the ban while the lawsuit is pending.   "This unconstitutional law makes no one safer,” said ANJRPC executive director Scott Bach. “It will be ignored by criminals, and affects only law-abiding citizens. To make matters worse, it gives the public a limited time to get rid of or permanently alter their lawfully acquired magazines. It therefore is imperative that the law be put on hold until the Court decides whether it is constitutional to force a million people who have committed no crime to forfeit or permanently alter their property.”    ANJRPC's motion shows that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their claim that New Jersey’s magazine ban is unconstitutional, and points out that a federal court in California recently put a similar magazine ban on hold while it decides whether to overturn it. A link to the legal brief just filed in the New Jersey case is available here.   This case was filed in cooperation with the National Rifle Association. "We thank the NRA for its incredible support and guidance, which made this lawsuit and this new motion possible," said Bach.   CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO THE CASE!     Any New Jersey resident interested in joining ANJRPC in the lawsuit should contact us at [email protected], especially those who have ever been burglarized, robbed, attacked, or even threatened by a gang or by multiple criminals at the same time, in a documented incident.    Please forward this email to every gun owner you know, and if you don’t already receive alerts from ANJRPC, please subscribe to our free email alerts for the latest Second Amendment breaking news and action alerts.   About ANJRPC: The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs is the official New Jersey affiliate of the NRA, and is New Jersey’s oldest, largest, and most effective Second Amendment advocacy organization.     <click here for the online version of this alert>

[njJoniGuy 2,131]

Read the request for injunction. I did.

Any judge, regardless of his party affiliation, that refuses to grant the relief requested in the filing belongs on the gallows in the public square for treason against the Constitution of the United States.

[voyager9 3,434]

They specifically mention CA. As a Layman the two laws seem very similar. Gives me hope the injunction is granted.  

[cjs71988 8]

Anyone have any updates on this? How long it could take for the injunction to be granted? What step of the process this is in currently? Thanks.

[voyager9 3,434]

59 minutes ago, cjs71988 said:

Anyone have any updates on this? How long it could take for the injunction to be granted? What step of the process this is in currently? Thanks.

Injunction goes in front of judge in a week or two. I forget the date. There is a thread on it. 

[BobA 1,235]

On 7/14. 

[revenger 473]

they NRA/ARPCNJ should not limit the lawsuits to these recently enacted laws,  since Heller and MacDonald most of NJ laws are invalidated especially the militia thing.

We should attack them on many different fronts.

Some of my suggestions to add are:

1.  possession any where is illegal except for THEIR exceptions.

2. Many of the questions on STS-033 to include the entire process.

   a. "do you suffer from any defects.........."         ADA violation

   b. " are you member of any organization..........  "   basically the democrat party in NJ  how many of the scumbag politicians in                NJ lied on this question and not denied.

   c. Have you ever been treated or observed by.............., again ADA violation,    if you were prohibited because of this you will not          pass NICS and will show up on STS-066   this is the big one because so many people unnecessarily admit this when they                didnt have to. 

3 .  The requirement to answer on the forms which may inadvertently cause a denial,   5th amendment violation ,   how about you           provide your name and DL # and THEY do the investigation.  if something comes back you merely have to explain it.

 

       A lot more can be added.

[revenger 473]

another one is the oath of office,  their voting record on anti-gun bills is all the evidence needed to charge them.

 

41:3-1. False swearing, affirmation of declaration; perjury
If any person shall willfully and corruptly swear, affirm or declare falsely, in or by any oath, affirmation, declaration or affidavit, required to be made or taken by any statute of this state, or necessary or proper to be made, taken or used in any court of this state, or for any lawful purpose whatever, such person shall be deemed guilty of perjury and punished accordingly.
 

41:1-2. Persons required to take oath of allegiance
The governor for the time being of this state, and every person who shall be appointed or elected to any office, legislative, executive or judicial, under the authority of this state, or to any office in the militia thereof, and every counselor, solicitor and attorney at law, shall, before he enters upon the execution of his trust, office or duty, take and subscribe the oath of allegiance prescribed by section 41:1-1 of this title.
 

41:1-1. Oath of allegiance; form
Every person who is or shall be required by law to give assurance of fidelity and attachment to the Government of this State shall take the following oath of allegiance:

"I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey, and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and to the Governments established in the United States and in this State, under the authority of the people So help me God."

 

If its a law than ENFORCE IT.      NRA / ARPCNJ how about it.   get voting record on these recently enacted bills and file complaints in Trenton. 
 

 

[GRIZ 3,369]

11 hours ago, revenger said:

another one is the oath of office,  their voting record on anti-gun bills is all the evidence needed to charge them.

 

41:3-1. False swearing, affirmation of declaration; perjury
If any person shall willfully and corruptly swear, affirm or declare falsely, in or by any oath, affirmation, declaration or affidavit, required to be made or taken by any statute of this state, or necessary or proper to be made, taken or used in any court of this state, or for any lawful purpose whatever, such person shall be deemed guilty of perjury and punished accordingly.
 

41:1-2. Persons required to take oath of allegiance
The governor for the time being of this state, and every person who shall be appointed or elected to any office, legislative, executive or judicial, under the authority of this state, or to any office in the militia thereof, and every counselor, solicitor and attorney at law, shall, before he enters upon the execution of his trust, office or duty, take and subscribe the oath of allegiance prescribed by section 41:1-1 of this title.
 

41:1-1. Oath of allegiance; form
Every person who is or shall be required by law to give assurance of fidelity and attachment to the Government of this State shall take the following oath of allegiance:

"I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey, and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and to the Governments established in the United States and in this State, under the authority of the people So help me God."

 

If its a law than ENFORCE IT.      NRA / ARPCNJ how about it.   get voting record on these recently enacted bills and file complaints in Trenton. 
 

 

You might be able to charge them but I don't know about getting them convicted.

I had this discussion in another thread.  Now some laws may blatantly be unconstitutional.  Like "you can't own any guns".  Higher courts have ruled "reasonable restrictions" by states are permitted.  Hmm...so what's a "reasonable restriction"?  What's an unreasonable restriction?  Courts determine that and courts play no part in the lawmaking process.  So the bill has to be passed and signed by the chief executive to become a law before it can go to a court to decide if it's unconstitutional or an "unreasonabe restriction".  It has to be a law before it can be declared  (as someone else said)  "officially unconstitutional".

You can't prosecute someone for voting for a law that winds up to be unconstitutional.

[voyager9 3,434]

5 hours ago, GRIZ said:

You might be able to charge them but I don't know about getting them convicted.

I had this discussion in another thread.  Now some laws may blatantly be unconstitutional.  Like "you can't own any guns".  Higher courts have ruled "reasonable restrictions" by states are permitted.  Hmm...so what's a "reasonable restriction"?  What's an unreasonable restriction?  Courts determine that and courts play no part in the lawmaking process.  So the bill has to be passed and signed by the chief executive to become a law before it can go to a court to decide if it's unconstitutional or an "unreasonabe restriction".  It has to be a law before it can be declared  (as someone else said)  "officially unconstitutional".

You can't prosecute someone for voting for a law that winds up to be inconstitutional.

The situation above is where the government has a significant advantage... to the point where the whole system is borderline unconstitutional.  The State can pass any bill they want and any legal challenge first needs standing and then takes a significant amount of money and years of time before it gets anywhere. Meanwhile the law stands.  

The amount of time and money required to keep the state in check regarding unconstitutional laws completely breaks the representative system. 

[Sniper 6,372]

2 hours ago, voyager9 said:

The amount of time and money required to keep the state in check regarding unconstitutional laws completely breaks the representative system. 

This is true, that's why you see congress on the bottom of the list:

 

The sad part, asshole Americans keep voting these idiots back into office.

 

[Zeke 5,504]

26 minutes ago, Sniper22 said:

This is true, that's why you see congress on the bottom of the list:

 

The sad part, asshole Americans keep voting these idiots back into office.

 

I won’t vote Democrat until I’m dead...

[Sniper 6,372]

1 hour ago, Zeke said:

I won’t vote Democrat until I’m dead...

and then you'll vote multiple times..

 

[GRIZ 3,369]

3 hours ago, voyager9 said:

The situation above is where the government has a significant advantage... to the point where the whole system is borderline unconstitutional.  The State can pass any bill they want and any legal challenge first needs standing and then takes a significant amount of money and years of time before it gets anywhere. Meanwhile the law stands.  

The amount of time and money required to keep the state in check regarding unconstitutional laws completely breaks the representative system. 

The system I described is what's outlined in the COTUS.  All branches of government enjoy certain immunities.  It has to be this way because who would take any job in any branch of government if they were held personally liable for any decision they made?

Should we have charged everyone involved in the internment of Japanese Americans during WW2 from the top down to the soldiers that guarded them?  There was zero incidents of sabotage or espionage among them.  That was one of the most blatant unconstitutional actions ever done by the government. The only compensation the Nisei got for that was an apology and $20,000 over 45 years later.  They also got credit for retirement if they were a Federal employee for "time served".

SCOTUS changes their mind too.  In Plessy vs Ferguson SCOTUS ruled equal but separate was okay.  That stood as law of the land for almost 60 years until SCOTUS reversed that decision with Brown vs Board of Education.

The system is imperfect but it is what it is.  Can anyone think of a better one?

[Sniper 6,372]

1 hour ago, GRIZ said:

The system is imperfect but it is what it is.  Can anyone think of a better one?

Wait.... hmmmmm... I'm thinking.... hold on a second.....  just a bit longer..... let's see, there has to be a better way.....

 

Maybe this?  Would this work?? It did once before!

[Zeke 5,504]

1 hour ago, Sniper22 said:

Wait.... hmmmmm... I'm thinking.... hold on a second.....  just a bit longer..... let's see, there has to be a better way.....

 

Maybe this?  Would this work?? It did once before!

Careful what you whish for.

[silverado427 10,715]

[voyager9 3,434]

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, @GRIZ.  My point is that the cost of pushing an issue through the Judicial system gives a significant advantage to the government (Stste or Federal). They can push through any law they want and know it will take years and potentially millions to get it stricken. 

[Zeke 5,504]

1 minute ago, voyager9 said:

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, @GRIZ.  My point is that the cost of pushing an issue through the Judicial system gives a significant advantage to the government (Stste or Federal). They can push through any law they want and know it will take years and potentially millions to get it stricken. 

And after a positive verdict the litigant sues for damages. Still comes out of our pocket though ( all taxpayers)

[BobA 1,235]

I heard on the radio this morning that he started a tast Force for transsexual equality (who’s paying their salaries I don’t know) but combined this with the face of his cabinet and the whole sanctuary state thing and he’s creating an army of minority voters. Combine the LBGQs with the gun haters and other minorities and then throw in the Dems and he’s got quite a voter group going for him. It’s getting more and more obvious his decisions are based on that. 

[Sniper 6,372]

28 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Careful what you whish for.

Well, I didn't whish for what we currently have..

 

[10X 3,296]

4 minutes ago, BobA said:

I heard on the radio this morning that he started a tast Force for transsexual equality (who’s paying their salaries I don’t know) 

I know.

We are. 

[cjs71988 8]

13 minutes ago, BobA said:

I heard on the radio this morning that he started a tast Force for transsexual equality (who’s paying their salaries I don’t know) but combined this with the face of his cabinet and the whole sanctuary state thing and he’s creating an army of minority voters. Combine the LBGQs with the gun haters and other minorities and then throw in the Dems and he’s got quite a voter group going for him. It’s getting more and more obvious his decisions are based on that. 

That’s how every Dem candidate runs now. They work up every little minority group and snowflake they can think of and make them feel important. But if you take every minority group in nj and put them together you end up with a majority. And that’s why we are where we are.

[Zeke 5,504]

19 minutes ago, cjs71988 said:

That’s how every Dem candidate runs now. They work up every little minority group and snowflake they can think of and make them feel important. But if you take every minority group in nj and put them together you end up with a majority. And that’s why we are where we are.

Na, N.J. is why it is because of njea 

and that has been gutted.