1911Forum banner

Bruen and New Jersey

14212 659
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.
601 - 620 of 660 Posts

· Premium Member
Joined
·
8,971 Posts
I still don't see anything about the insurance requirement. I know it doesn't kick in until July, but I don't see it brought up in any of this. If the whole law gets struck down so does the requirement. Schmutter reinterated to Judge Williams at the end of the hearing what was enjoined but never mentioned insurance.
Here’s GFH #608 podcast. Schmutter himself explains what happened and where we’re going.


Side note: Insurance mandate must be specifically prohibited At some point as do the fee increases. NJ is notorious for ridiculously high insurance mandates and rates. We don’t need anymore!!
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
675 Posts
Discussion Starter · #602 ·
Here’s GFH #608 podcast. Schmutter himself explains what happened and where we’re going.


Side note: Insurance mandate must be specifically prohibited At some point as do the fee increases. NJ is notorious for ridiculously high insurance mandates and rates. We don’t need anymore!!
That's the thing. The state controls the Insurance Commission. They mandate insurance that they intentionally don't make available. We win all the 2A issues and lose our right from an insurance requirement. That has to be agressivly attacked. Remember, the law says that if any part is struck down the rest stays in place. Our organizations have to focus on that aspect while all this other is going on so they can stay ahead of it. Not react to it later when it becomes a prohibitave issue.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
675 Posts
Discussion Starter · #606 ·
That's where I got it. It's on the left of 114&115. It wasn't in a square. I just clicked on the words and it came up. Under "Trending Episodes".
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
8,971 Posts
So, it sounds to me (listening to Schmutter) as if there’s no insurance mandate or fee increase objections in the TRO/PI papers. That in and of itself could be a problem Going forward (unless its lumped into a blanket ruling against 4769).
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
675 Posts
Discussion Starter · #608 ·
So, it sounds to me (listening to Schmutter) as if there’s no insurance mandate or fee increase objections in the TRO/PI papers. That in and of itself could be a problem Going forward (unless its lumped into a blanket ruling against 4769).
It was mentioned in the original paperwork but never in court. It may be a separate issue because insurance is not unconstitutional, but in NJ they will use any excuse. I don't want to bother Dan with this right now but somebody should be looking at ways to strike that requirement. We win everything and this becomes the obstacle.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
8,971 Posts
It was mentioned in the original paperwork but never in court. It may be a separate issue because insurance is not unconstitutional, but in NJ they will use any excuse. I don't want to bother Dan with this right now but somebody should be looking at ways to strike that requirement. We win everything and this becomes the obstacle.
Yes, exactly What I’ve been saying also. Insurance mandate and even to a lesser degree is that the state is going directly against the statute that states that one can carry any gun you legally own. The 4th reference is dumb. The fee increases are abusive. I know all the other sensitive place issues are more important but these other specifics should not be forgotten.
These cases are clearly about ALL theUnconstitutional minucia that has been included in 4769. Recalling that parts of 4769 can be left in, Nothing should be left out.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
9,777 Posts
2500 BS unconstitutional items, 1 sticks, that's a win for the anti-gun folks, it's no win for Pro 2A.

2500:1 ratio, is a viable anti-gun tactic.

It also means Pro 2A lawyers needs to spend more time and money fighting the BS, only to lose 1 or 2 items.

Ink the BS, courts, 1 sticks, rinse & repeat. See the pattern?

In the long game, if you keep fighting but lose one item everytime on the field, you lost.

All the BS from this NJ law needs to go.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
8,971 Posts
As an aside, Schmutter mentioned the mag limit case which is already 5 years old. When the heck is that going to be heard? With all the other states facing the 10 round limit plus AW bans, I would like nothing more than to see the state get horse whipped more than once. They deserve it.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
675 Posts
Discussion Starter · #612 ·
As an aside, Schmutter mentioned the mag limit case which is already 5 years old. When the heck is that going to be heard? With all the other states facing the 10 round limit plus AW bans, I would like nothing more than to see the state get horse whipped more than once. They deserve it.
I know. At the first Nappen talk I went to back in September he said the mag cap was in its death bed. Nothing since.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
9,777 Posts
“Death bed”? As in it’s about to be overturned? Or, everyone forgot about it?

Where did that case originate from?
I took it to mean that case should have been done and the mag cap BS shot 20x and buried, but as of now no rulings have come.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
8,971 Posts
This is what I found on ANJRPC. I guess the carry case sucked most of the air out of the room.

“The U.S. District Court held evidentiary hearings over three days during the week of August 13th on ANJRPC’s application for a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit to strike down New Jersey’s new magazine ban (which prohibits the possession of magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds). The injunction application seeks to put the new law on hold while the case is decided.

The Court heard testimony from three of the State’s witnesses and then finished up the week hearing testimony from our expert witness, Florida State University Criminologist Professor Gary Kleck.

The State’s witnesses offered various opinions on the nature and use of magazines with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds. Cross-examination of the State’s witnesses was thorough and crisp, and the Judge was engaged and attentive.

Professor Kleck testified that depriving law abiding gun owners of standard capacity magazines holding over 10 rounds will not only not reduce mass shootings, but will also make lawful self-defense more difficult. He also addressed the opinions of the State’s witnesses, identifying flaws in their data and reasoning.

The parties are scheduled to submit closing briefs on the injunction motion on September 4, followed by telephonic oral argument on September 6”.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
9,777 Posts
This is what I found on ANJRPC. I guess the carry case sucked most of the air out of the room.

“The U.S. District Court held evidentiary hearings over three days during the week of August 13th on ANJRPC’s application for a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit to strike down New Jersey’s new magazine ban (which prohibits the possession of magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds). The injunction application seeks to put the new law on hold while the case is decided.

The Court heard testimony from three of the State’s witnesses and then finished up the week hearing testimony from our expert witness, Florida State University Criminologist Professor Gary Kleck.

The State’s witnesses offered various opinions on the nature and use of magazines with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds. Cross-examination of the State’s witnesses was thorough and crisp, and the Judge was engaged and attentive.

Professor Kleck testified that depriving law abiding gun owners of standard capacity magazines holding over 10 rounds will not only not reduce mass shootings, but will also make lawful self-defense more difficult. He also addressed the opinions of the State’s witnesses, identifying flaws in their data and reasoning.

The parties are scheduled to submit closing briefs on the injunction motion on September 4, followed by telephonic oral argument on September 6”.
These cases have a theme. Anti-gunners are ignorant public opinion, Pro2A brings science and facts. Yet Pro2A having a hard time prevailing quickly.
 
601 - 620 of 660 Posts
Top