"Ve Haf Rulz"
Bruen and New Jersey
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.
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.
881 - 900 of 1083 Posts
Yep, and based on congestion.Right turn on red when posted to allow it.
GFH #618 .
Anthony referenced a case Nappen has going And suggests tuning in.
Loading…
gunforhire.com
Anthony referenced a case Nappen has going And suggests tuning in.
Most of Nappen 126 covers this win.GFH #618 .
Loading…
gunforhire.com
Anthony referenced a case Nappen has going And suggests tuning in.
Anthony mentions every week that the state government hates us. In gun violence stats they never have a reference as to how much is committed by legally permitted citizens. Just everything lumped in to sway the public.
Murphy said a few years back that his admin was going to list what guns and their origins.
Guess what? NOTHING….what does that tell you? My guess is Murphy found out that that statistic (whatever it is) only hurts his agenda of gun hating.
Guess what? NOTHING….what does that tell you? My guess is Murphy found out that that statistic (whatever it is) only hurts his agenda of gun hating.
Murphy's a good **** talker. Problem is more than half this state believes him. And he usually has his minions run around like they're doing something so the voting base thinks he's the man. Listening to GFH and got a laugh hearing the judge dismantle their BS bill and stick it back in their ass. I only wish Murphy was in the courtroom to hear it himself.
March 28 2023. Last night, the final round of briefs were filed on ANJRPC's motion for a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit challenging New Jersey's new carry law. If the motion is granted, the Court's previous order halting portions of the law would be continued and expanded for the duration of the case.
CLICK HERE and scroll down to item 21 to see ANJRPC's filing. Scroll down to item 22 to see the State's papers. Scroll down to item 23 to see the Legislature's filing.
The next step in the case is for the Court to make a decision on the injunction motion, which could come within a matter of weeks.
CLICK HERE and scroll down to item 21 to see ANJRPC's filing. Scroll down to item 22 to see the State's papers. Scroll down to item 23 to see the Legislature's filing.
The next step in the case is for the Court to make a decision on the injunction motion, which could come within a matter of weeks.
"Dear Chief Judge Bumb". How sweet of them. That Johns Hopkins study that both opposing papers referenced was funded by Michael Blumberg, noted gun control fanatic.
At the end of the opposition argument by the legislators' attorney they say that carrying in a stadium shouldn't be allowed because there are police with guns there to protect you. The Supreme Court is already on record saying that it is not the job of the police to protect you. It is your job to protect you. The police carry a gun for their protection, not yours. Here's one of the excerpts:
Nevertheless, the Court found that the government had no affirmative duty to protect any person, even a child, from harm by another person. “Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors," stated Chief Justice Rehnquist for the majority, "even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual" without “due process of the law.”[7]
Nevertheless, the Court found that the government had no affirmative duty to protect any person, even a child, from harm by another person. “Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors," stated Chief Justice Rehnquist for the majority, "even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual" without “due process of the law.”[7]
The state kept trying to argue the Johns Hopkins study as being relevant, and Judge Bumb didn’t buy any of it. I could be wrong, but the state seems to have played out their hand; I can’t see how the Injunction isn’t granted.
As an aside, I thought we had a mandate to inform LE if we were in a traffic stop and were carrying. A friend who recently got his LTC, said a state trooper he knows told him that was not true. I’m confused.
They're out of arguements. They went so far as to cite a NY state appeal point to the court from 3/13/23 to make their point. I know they have no shame but they shouldn't embarrass the judge that way.The state kept trying to argue the Johns Hopkins study as being relevant, and Judge Bumb didn’t buy any of it. I could be wrong, but the state seems to have played out their hand; I can’t see how the Injunction isn’t granted.
We have to see after the case is over for a final list of do's and don't's. Confusion right now is on the top of the list to turn us into unknowing felons.As an aside, I thought we had a mandate to inform LE if we were in a traffic stop and were carrying. A friend who recently got his LTC, said a state trooper he knows told him that was not true. I’m confused.
As an add on to the above comment, unless they also shoot at a public range the police are the last people to ask about gun regs. My club, on the back of the entrance badge, has the transport to and from law printed so I can show to a cop. Not a bad idea to print one and keep in your vehicle. I do the same thing with right to fish law in case some PETA nut tries to interfere.
That’s the ongoing issue, there’s too many do’s and don’t s; despite the TROs/Injunction result. My only response to him was, I had no desire to be the first test subject. Needing a cheat sheet to have for on site education is bs, but nonetheless probably a wise thing.We have to see after the case is over for a final list of do's and don't's. Confusion right now is on the top of the list to turn us into unknowing felons.
So did 2A prevail, or is this waiting on the NJ judge to make final ruling?
Waiting for the judge. Couple of weeks they figure.
Last group I would rely on for expert gun law advise are cops. I don't say that out of dis-respect, rather they just can't follow it in this very changing environment...Think of it this way, we have people in this thread that follow it "religiously" and often we can't even figure it out...There has been times when Nappens and the GFH guy even interpret things differently...The best thing I have seen to date, and as far as I am cognizant nothing has changed yet, is the table Dan put together and ANJRP distributed. I keep a copy of it in my walet...Dan is closest to the truth of the moment, the knowledge of GFH, Nappen, and for sure cops if just a derivative of the truth sort of speak.As an aside, I thought we had a mandate to inform LE if we were in a traffic stop and were carrying. A friend who recently got his LTC, said a state trooper he knows told him that was not true. I’m confused.
As I go about, I haven't seen a "No Guns Allowed" sign yet anywhere. I'm not really looking for them. It just dawned on me that I haven't seen any.
881 - 900 of 1083 Posts
1911Forum
A forum community dedicated to all 1911 firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Recommended Communities
