Bruen and New Jersey

29040 Views 1102 Replies 27 Participants Last post by 1911_Kid, 18 h ago

Wildbob

Discussion Starter · 8 mo ago

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.

701 - 720 of 1103 Posts

Plantar5

· #701 · 4 mo ago (Edited)

This is what We should be doing. The entire permitting process is redundant and discriminatory at its core. “LAW ABIDING” should be the only qualifier. We’re winning in NJ which is great. But, We could do better. Ending up with a potential laundry list to memorize/carry, ridiculous recurrent fees is bs. These Judges have gone into great detail on ‘historical basis’. I don’t think there’s any historical basis for all the garbage the gun hater legislature put in our carry law.

Florida bill could hand gun owners huge win, make the US a constitutional carry majority country

Paraphrasing a bit, “The right to self defense with a firearm is enshrined in the 2A/Constitution”; “lawful gun owners should not need a permit to defend themselves With a firearm”; “"This bill is a big step to help the average law-abiding citizen to keep from having to go through the hoops of getting a permit from the government to carry their weapons.”

See less See more

combat auto

· #702 · 4 mo ago

That is a Great Chart by ANJRPC...I am happy they have the vehicle restriction as well as State Park restrictions blocked by the court, the main reason I am getting my carry is to have it in my Jeep-Mojave out in the "Great-Wilds" ;-) of NJ when I go out alone...Sometimes I go with the NJ Jeep Club and there is safety in numbers to a good extent...I'll have it in both situations anyway once I get the permit which should be in a few weeks now according to my Counties Carry Facebook page where we are tracking the permit #'s.

1911_Kid

· #703 · 4 mo ago

Wildbob said:
I liked the conclusion to the video. "If you are an anti gunner in New Jersey, you're in big trouble." We already knew that but it's good to realize that our statewide efforts are catching on.

However, their commie anti-2A wheel keeps turning. One attempt fails some things (not all), they'll attempt again and again and again, trying to skirt existing laws and SCOTUS rulings.

Wildbob

Discussion Starter · #704 · 4 mo ago

I just reread the opinion and noticed Dan was there arguing on our behalf by himself while the AG had seven lawyers from their office there.

Reactions: 1

combat auto

· #705 · 4 mo ago

My county has increased their output significantly, they just passed permit # 500, I am later in the "5's" so should be getting it in weeks (not months anymore)...And as long as the TRO's hold can actually use it lol.

Reactions: 1

Plantar5

· #706 · 4 mo ago (Edited)

Who, (judge or police chief) will be signing off and issuing carry permits (officially) going forward for new applicants? To my knowledge, anything talking about judges wanting out of the process is just ‘talk’. I was giving some advice to a colleague about applying for his PTC. He’s in Morris cty with a local PD, (which has been good for issuing). In the end, it doesn’t really matter who signs off. Also, I’m just wondering if the ‘new’ 4 references and the new fees have stuck; and I can’t remember if they were ever in the TRO motions. Three other people heard us talking and chimed in that they received their PTCs, ( 3 other counties) which is great. Sig owes me a commission check for all the P365 variants bought on my advice…lol…at least 6 and counting, in addition to my own 365xl. Anyway, I was curious, not only for my own knowledge, but also wondering what kind of updated education to all the LE departments around the state. Obviously, just in case anyone is stopped on the road or seen carrying, there isn’t a problem.

See less See more

Wildbob

Discussion Starter · #707 · 4 mo ago

Whoever is giving classes on it should know, but I still would get a second opinion. Not sure I trust them to keep up with latest changes. It was my understanding that if a judge signed off, you are subject to whatever is on that paper.

Reactions: 1

Plantar5

· #708 · 4 mo ago

So, it sounds like, there’s no plan or change for PTC issuing to be done differently Unless they decide amongst themselves (If that’s possible). Afterall, LE is doing all the work/Background checks/vetting; But the courts actually do the issuing of any ‘orders’.
The entire process should be scrapped, beyond and Only whether or not you’re a law abiding citizen. Ie.,pass a NICS check.

Reactions: 1

Wildbob

Discussion Starter · #709 · 4 mo ago

That's what I think, too. Pass NICS and everything is good. The court may change things after these hearings, but it might not apply until you renew.

Reactions: 1

Wildbob

Discussion Starter · #710 · 4 mo ago (Edited)

Nappen 119 is up. The carry update reviews Murphy's plan "to become a national destroyer of firearm rights for the country not just for New Jerseyans, and to eliminate the right for all Americans throughout the country." Dan was on GFH and did an excellent job explaining what is on the TRO and what the next stages of the case are.

Reactions: 1

Plantar5

· #711 · 4 mo ago (Edited)

Here’s GFH podcast #611 with Schmutter explaining where things are. Nappen apparently is handling the ‘brace’ case issue/AW and mag cases are ongoing.
The preliminary injunction portion of the carry case isn’t getting scheduled until after 2/21/23.

https://gunforhire.com/blog/the-gun-for-hire-radio-broadcast-episode-611/

Reactions: 1

Wildbob

Discussion Starter · #712 · 4 mo ago

I liked the part where they had a fundraiser for Dan so he could stay in a motel on trial day and not have to drive to Camden at 4AM.

Reactions: 1

cavelamb

· #713 · 4 mo ago

Marijuana users have a constitutional right to own firearms
Fox News...

A federal judge in Oklahoma ruled Friday that a law barring marijuana users from owning firearms is unconstitutional.

The ruling is the latest challenge to firearms regulations after the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority set new standards for reviewing the nation's gun laws.

U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick in Oklahoma City dismissed an indictment against Jared Michael Harrison, who was charged in August with violating a federal law that makes it illegal for "unlawful users or addicts of controlled substances" to possess firearms.

Harrison’s lawyers had argued the portion of federal firearms law focused on drug users or addicts was not consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation, echoing what the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year in a case known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That case set new standards for interpreting the Second Amendment.

Federal prosecutors, on the other hand, had argued that the portion of the law focused on drug users is "consistent with a longstanding historical tradition in America of disarming presumptively risky persons, namely, felons, the mentally ill, and the intoxicated."

Wyrick agreed with Harrison's lawyers, ruling on Friday that federal prosecutors' arguments that Harrison's status as a marijuana user "justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm ... is not a constitutionally permissible means of disarming Harrison."

"But the mere use of marijuana carries none of the characteristics that the Nation's history and tradition of firearms regulation supports," Wyrick said.

The decision comes after the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday that a federal law barring people with domestic violence restraining orders have a constitutional right to own firearms.

Plantar5

· #714 · 4 mo ago

cavelamb said:
Marijuana users have a constitutional right to own firearms
Fox News...

Interesting that a judge quickly decided about something that’s against federal law and the carry case in NJ while it is progressing well, it can easily drag out another year.

Wildbob

Discussion Starter · #715 · 4 mo ago

That kills my argument on why police shouldn't use.

1911_Kid

· #716 · 4 mo ago

cavelamb said:
Marijuana users have a constitutional right to own firearms
Fox News...

That ruling just makes things worse.

Fed law says pot is illegal. No State can make it "legal", at least not until Fed takes pot off the illegal list.
Now a Fed judge rules against existing Fed law. I suspect that judge decision gets successful appeal in about two days flat.

Wildbob

Discussion Starter · #717 · 4 mo ago

Who's going to appeal that? The gun lawyers or the pot lawyers?

1911_Kid

· #718 · 4 mo ago

Wildbob said:
Who's going to appeal that? The gun lawyers or the pot lawyers?

Probably Fed folks, because if they don't then 4473 needs to be re-written.

Wildbob

Discussion Starter · #719 · 4 mo ago

All 9 AC casinos have banned carry in their establishments. Their property. Their choice. Of course the state casino control commission can pull their ticket but I'm sure that didn't factor in. Where you spend your money is also your choice.

Reactions: 1

1911_Kid

· #720 · 4 mo ago

Wildbob said:
All 9 AC casinos have banned carry in their establishments. Their property. Their choice. Of course the state casino control commission can pull their ticket but I'm sure that didn't factor in. Where you spend your money is also your choice.

I think we can fix that issue though.

It's not really a private place because it's OPEN to the public, no ticket or registration or membership needed to enter. Just like Walmart and Home Depot, people can just walk right in, OPEN to the public. So in reality, it's more of a public place than not. On flip side, Costco you need a membership to enter, sports events you need a ticket, not wide OPEN to the public.

I think once we get some lawsuits on this and prevail as I stated it (or just get State legislature to do it), then the place has two options, 1) to allow carry because it's a public place, or 2) they provide adequate armed guards and thus can ban public carry into that space.

I working with some AZ folks to get it done in AZ.

701 - 720 of 1103 Posts