1911Forum banner

Bruen and New Jersey

29040 Views 1102 Replies 27 Participants Last post by  1911_Kid
Went to the latest Nappen seminar tonight. Official title of it was, "Supreme Court, NYSRPA v. Bruen: How It Impacts Your State's Gun Laws". I'll give you the bad news first. NJ is bent on taking liberties with the most extreme gun laws in the nation. Some state goes off the deep end, Murphy thinks it's his job to top it. So tomorrow, Thursday, October 13 he will hold a news conference at noon to expand carry restrictions. Details are not fully available yet. ANJRPC will have them on their site later in the day. Here's what I have:

More "sensitive" places.
No carry on property you don't own without the property owner's expressed permission. Private or commercial.
Changes to application process.
Hefty, and I mean really hefty, fee increase.
Insurance and proof of insurance.
No carry in a vehicle.
Training requirements increased.

That's all I know right now about that. There will be immediate legal challenges as soon as these are inacted. Justice Thomas in his majority opinion called 2A restrictions civil rights violations. That's a federal crime. Government individuals can be held responsible for civil rights violations. Even judges. That's all about that until the news conference. They are trying to create obstacles to nullify Bruen. There are other things that came up. I'll post them later. Let this soak in.
1 - 20 of 1103 Posts
Thanks Wildbob for posting.
The fact that existing licensed to carry people would also be negatively impacted should help with an already outrageous and ignorant intentions of Murphy.
One can only hope that if this dangerous nonsense gets somehow legislated into law here, that the filing for an injunction is already written And waiting to be filed immediately As they did in NY.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Side note: anecdotally, 2 other colleagues of mine approached me in the last week asking about ‘how to’ apply for their FID cards for them to obtain home defense handguns. I don’t think either have ever fired a handgun.
With all the violent crime going on all over, people don’t seem to be backing down from wanting to be able to protect themselves and their families.
If these ongoing actions by our state officials meet the criteria as civil rights violations as per Justice Thomas’ opinion and decision in Bruen; Then, start filing whatever the appropriate suits would be against whoever it applies to, Murphy, judges et al.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
There's a training requirement in place for new FID applicants. State police website should by now have it up. Another obsticle.
I’ve told more than a few people over the last few years to go take a safety/handling/shooting class. Then go shoot!
Governmental over reach is never the answer.
Regardless of the county or judge, there needs to be some parity in how the applications are being considered. Otherwise, there will be judges declaring certain counties, gun free zones,
which is subjective and ludicrous.
Where is our Attorney General on all this?
I had the local news on earlier looking for the conference. It wasn’t televised from what I could tell. This governor hasn’t had an original thought with anything. It would seem he’s just trying to go Hochal in NY one better in his attempt to ignore and trample our rights.
It would seem to me, the one’s that need more training in the BOR/Constitution is the governor and the respective judges.
FWIW, I got a copy of the county resolution from yesterday in Warren county, which went on record regarding the issuing of carry licenses. The below was in all capital letters.


Where did Murphy speak and who did he speak to? Whatever he did, got no air time. Seems a bit sneaky and/or he’s getting some pushback (hopefully).
Thanks Wildbob. As expected, they think and claim to be writing “common sense “ gun laws when it couldn’t be farther from the truth. Their list of ‘no carry’ places makes ALL people less safe. Who the heck are “red T shirt” moms, and what do they know about safe possession and carrying of firearms? Do these ‘red t shirt moms’ support full term abortion too As does Murphy? Where’s their concern for children on that? Where’s the data to support any of their NY copy cat unconstitutional proposals. There’s NO DATA in NJ to suggest their suggestions are either reasonable or necessary.

Why weren’t the gun owners invited? (Rhetorical of course).

I never heard of the legislators, but Danielson’s claim that “he enjoys his guns”, and there’s “no conflict” obviously hasn’t a clue. And he was in the Army?? As what? New Jersey citizens don’t need another insurance premium to pay either. It’s redundant, unnecessary and abusively discriminatory toward gun owners. If someone causes an injury/harm to another person, there’s more than enough methods to litigate for damages. Every single proposal mentioned further demonstrates how none of them either read or comprehend The Bruen decision. Perhaps, they need to go back and read it.
See less See more
I was thinking he is just a FUDD. Scutari seems to have a phobia with insurance. When I looked at his record, the bills he’s supported were predominantly tied to insurance. ( I smell kickbacks). Btw, last time i checked criminals and illegals don’t buy insurance. The whole mom’s demand action website tries to sound and claims to be data driven. But, unfortunately for them, they too are constitutionally ignorant. Their own data map which lists the different shootings nationally; DOES NOT LIST ONE INCIDENT IN NJ. These are the people we are supposed to trust our 2A rights too??? I don’t think so.
Less than 24hrs after he makes this statement (Not that I believed it)….It’s just laughable how deranged and reckless these legislators and Murphy ( of course) are with citizens lives. EvRey one of their limitations either endangers people or isn’t realistic, necessary or feasible.

“I’m a gun owner. I enjoy my guns often, but I enjoyed the right to have those guns and to use them responsibly,” Democratic Assembly member and bill sponsor Joe Danielsen said. “This bill provides zero conflict.”
Just sent this to all 115 legislators. Feel free to plagiarize,add, modify.

Dear Sirs/Madams:

Disregarding and circumventing Bruen and our Supreme Court will put more innocent lives at risk in New Jersey.

Our Second Amendment is NOT A Second Class right, to be subjected to random and meaningless unreasonable separate set of rules. Criminals and people with psychological challenges do not follow any laws regarding any type of violence, gun related or not.

This new proposed law blocks law abiding, tax paying gun owners from protecting themselves and their families. Statistics show law abiding gun owners prevent crimes and potential worse shootings and injuries to innocent people. This proposed new law will also prevent and discriminate against those who may not have the financial means to comply with a meaningless list of unnecessary requirements.
New Jersey has had NO mass shootings, according to ‘Moms demand Action” website.
New Jersey has gun related incidents committed by people who disregard ALL laws. The authors of this new law are making innocent, law abiding people sitting ducks for criminals. This new proposed law goes directly against and is inconsistent with the Bill Of Rights and The Bruen decision. Making false claims that this new proposed law will make New Jersey safer is flat out untrue and demonstrates a lack of concern for your respective constituents.

Kindly VOTE NO, to A4769
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 1
I just skimmed over the state constitution. I don't have any other state to compare it to but this is an amateur effort. It reads more like by-laws than a constitution. Like something kids would make up in a back yard tree house. Can trace all these shortcomings to when this was approved.
I looked it over also.

Actually, Article 1 under Rights and Privileges states,

“ 1. All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.”

Works for me. It may not be a specific 2A as some other states may include, but it would appear to include it.
Here’s Murphy’s executive order #299. After reviewing this;

It states on Page 3 , #6, “6. Nothing in this Order shall be construed to supersede any federal or State law.”

I’m no expert or attorney, but isn’t virtually Everything in that executive order and legislative list SUPERCEDE FEDERAL LAW ?
Yeah, it does. Nappen just dropped podcast 103 on it.
Do you have a link? I can’t locate it.
Sent this to all of them.

Dear Sirs/Madams:

Please VOTE NO ON A4769

It would appear that A4769 on every level is in direct violation of our state constitution.

It would also appear that Governor Murphy’s executive order #299 and the legislative proposed text for carrying a firearm DOES INDEED attempt to supersede and IGNORE FEDERAL LAW and OUR SUPREME COURT DECISION IN BRUEN VS. NY.

These are copy cat proposals that will put innocent NJ residents at risk at a further tremendous cost to tax paying residents of New Jersey. If the Bruen decision failed, would you expect law abiding gun owners to respect and observe the decision? I would think so.

Kindly, VOTE NO on A4769.


Article 1 of the New Jersey Constitution states, Rights and Privileges:
“ Article 1 under Rights and Privileges states,
“ 1. All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.”

Governor Murphy’s executive order #299 states:

Page 3 , #6, “6. Nothing in this Order shall be construed to supersede any federal or State law.”

See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 1
I thought We could listen to the legislature discussing 4769 this morning at 10am.
Its located on the agenda, but not for the public to listen live.
After reading the 33 pages, it’s obvious they‘re trying to say it’s a public safety issue, which it is not. The article citing the false/incorrect numbers on civilian involved shootings refutes that Completely.

A 4769 does seem to violate NJ constitution in addition to completely trying to make SCOTUS irrelevant. Interestingly enough, somewhere on page 17, it maintains that a licensed to carry a firearm person can legally carry anything they own. (Guess they missed that one).
I’ve received back a good amount of responses opposed to 4769.
I listened and liked Nappens 103, but honestly Id rather hear what, if any plan there is to expose and fight this total fraud the left is dumping on all of us; including those that chose not to own or carry a firearm. As far as Danielson goes, if he’s so concerned about who has a gun,,,,,STAY HOME.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
I’ve bought 2 holsters, neither have thumb breaks!!
Somebody should explain retention to Danielson. He might enjoy that, too.
I don’t care if he was in the Army. After suffering through Danielson’s audio earlier; to be kind
he couldn’t answer one question and obviously has no concern whatsoever about the BORs and 2A. IMHO, he’s a real ‘poser’ And just. On a mission for Murphy And himself.
1 - 20 of 1103 Posts