Walkinguf61

Agreed. But I fall under me of the exemptions that wasn’t there in a workable form until now. And even now, I don’t know how the practical exemption will work , push comes to shove. But they made sure their private security can still be there for them — even if they might have mistakenly only allow open carry for them — I will have to reread the bill to be sure . As stupid as this sounds, I might get my armed security guard license and have my wife hire me to protect her and the kids to work around some of this . And make a paper trail of it. I will pay the income tax. And if my daughter gets a certain job, I will definitely be on her payroll as such.

I read some of the current bill and its changes. My interpretation of the bill is that active police are exempt from the sensitive areas as well as security guards who are actively engaged in their employment ( except the way it’s written it might only cover open carry for the security guard -lol— I don’t think it’s intentional on the legislators) Retired LEOs and out of state LEOs are covered if carrying on LEOSA except the owner or security can ban or allow them to carry. The RPO program would change so that the retiree only has requalify once every two years. That’s down from every six months or so. That’s how they got the retired state troopers association to say they support the bill. However, any retiree would have to requal once a year to get LEOSA protection anyway. And with these crazy laws, LEOSA protection is necessary because the prosecutor might interpret this law differently. Why take the chance? As to a regular CCW, I am having trouble even figuring out where someone could legally carry that is different than before without a CCW other than walking on a public street, in front of their house, as long there isn’t an event nearby. At least the holster restriction was changed ( the retention strap isn’t a requirement in the law anymore).

You know what an easy test for judges could be—- was it a sensitive place before Bruen ? If not, then it’s a no go.

Thomas told them the criteria and limitations to making sensitive areas. The NY law and this proposed law clearly violate that . The good news is Alito is the justice that covers NJ. He can issue a TRO if the 3rd circuit doesn’t . Sotomeyer covers NY so I don’t think the NY law will get one before the full case is heard .

Good for NJ. Not for New York. These lawmakers were not going to respect a New York decision anyway. New York is almost year ahead of NJ with law and initial challenges. That’s a year quicker than any NJ challenge to the law. New York also has more than one federal district covering it. Any of the district judges hearing the challenge can put a TRO on it. A judge in a different district already put a different TRO on a different part of NY’s law in reference to places of worship. More court cases are to be heard before the 2nd circuit hears it. The 2nd circuit already established case law on the 10 round magazine and only seven rounds in a 10 round magazine. When it SCOTUS, it will be smacked down unless the court makeup changes. Meanwhile a 3rd circuit ( district ) federal judge can smack it down all on his own in the meantime.

Remember that only state troopers associations were heard from. They are only a small part of the LEO community and the majority of troopers don’t handle urban type policing. And if you saw the committee hearings and how the representative for the state trooper PBA was kissing Dalinson’s butt even when they disagreed about holsters , you would know that he was trying to get an exception for his members and left the retirees in the cold ( I don’t think it was on purpose) when the 3rd revision came out . The most recent printing appears to address some of the retiree concerns( not entirely) . They made a deal with the devil for their members but that is their job. They would be remiss to not give their members that exception . It’s no different than if you hired a lawyer . Their job would be to represent their client above all else. And these lawmakers don’t give a damn what cops think beyond lip service. Just how the so called retiree exception was made in the 2nd and 3rd revision says it all. Especially when the lawmaker was stressing in her questioning that retirees have no legal obligation to act eventhough time and time again, retirees have acted ( CCW tend to act too)

The 2nd circuit just took off the TRO on the NY law depending the case and appeal. This is actually good for NJ. The NY will be going to the 2nd circuit and then SCOTUS. It’s just a matter of time . And they all know they will be slapped down.

Then they took out some Dandelion’s revisions. A careful reread is in order.

This is a copy of the revised bill ?

That was preliminary decision before this decision. — sounds crazy I know. It was decision made before the hearing was “ over” and they knew there was at least another week before the main decision on the hearing was supposed to be made

It basically means it’s a done deal.

The original CCIA did not give “no gun “ signs the force of law. It banned guns unless there was a sign allowing guns. That was struck down by the injunction

I found something in the bill too that I won’t post in a public forum.

Slam dunk when it goes to federal court

They don’t believe that. They have contempt for police officers too but see a political/practical need for some. Despite the false platitudes to the state PBA who was kneeling before the alter to get some provisions - screwing the retirees in the process. One of the lawmakers made a distinction that said it all. She harped on that a retiree had no obligation to intercede in an incident on the behalf of others as if retired cops don’t have a big track record of doing so— it’s a habit that just kicks in. It was the death of a retired cop who did such that got retired cops in NJ carry privileges ( I use the word privileges because it was pre Heller and it’s how NJ treats it). These lawmakers tend to live in rich Pollyanna areas that crime has not reached . They don’t understand the vulnerability of many people who don’t live in such environments.

I think the small 380 is a great idea. When this carry law mess gets sorted out , you are going to want as many options as you can get. That LCP max would make a great “ wedding “ gun for those times you have to dress up but want to carry. Just make sure the loaded weight of the LCP max isn’t too heavy for those dress pants pockets . If so, you might just consider getting the LCP2 or another 380.

Nope. The legislature isn’t the one who is doing the act itself or even directly ordering it done. A good example of what I am talking about is with a judge. A judge signs a search warrant that is determined to be unconstitutional, they aren’t held accountable. The cops who execute the warrant are the ones who are ( the cops get sued and not the judge). Same with the civil rights charge. But in the case where the judge ordered a bailiff to use his taser on someone in the court room, the judge would be liable to that civil rights violation.

Nope. Violation of an individual’s constitutional rights isn’t treason which is a crime against the US government itself .

It’s great to get the sponsors on the record as to their intent. When the court case comes up, it’s will be like gold.

After reading the bill and the changes to it. I found a loophole that applies to me that they didn’t anticipate in the 3rd revision of the bill. I don’t want to say what it until this legislation session is over but their rush to pump out this bill is allowing for these things , I can not participate as a plaintiff for the lawsuits but will be sending a donation soon.

Does anyone have a link of the current bill after all the updates.

The nice thing about this bill is that they went too far. It might not pass in its current form , at least this year. And a TRO should be a slam dunk if it does

Hopefully things like The qualified immunity is basically for any speech or law proposed or passed. The qualifiers are for actions taken on the house or senate floor.

It means a felony as defined when the constitution was made as in , on the floor itself, like when a congressman shot another congressman. What is said or voted on is immune to such action. It’s been court tested .

If only it would . Stop thinking logically when it comes to these people and what they get away with. It’s not a double standard but a triple one.