Jump to content

Koons v. Reynolds (D. NJ, Bruen response bill)


Recommended Posts


THE COURT: I asked you about the UPS carrier, the armed UPS
carrier. You tell me he has violated the law if he gets up to
the front door and the owner says you shouldn't have come on my
property, you violated the law.
Is that how this law is going to operate; that
someone who has gone to the extra measures of getting a
concealed carry permit should phone his neighbor, phone his
local hardware store, or phone his doctor's office to determine
whether or not he can even come with a gun? Is that how this
law is supposed to work?

MS. CAI: So, yes, Your Honor. I think the risk is
to a person who's carrying a gun on someone else's property
without having tried to -- without having asked for permission.


Pretty sure the judge didn't buy that argument...


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The discussion continues:



MS. CAI: Yes. I'm looking for the specific part, Your Honor, that my colleagues have just referred me to. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Oh, yes, Your Honor, so 7(a), the very first sentence: Except as otherwise provided in the section and in the case of a brief incidental entry onto property which shall be deemed a de minimis infraction, within the contemplation of N.J.S. 2C:2-11, it shall be a crime.


THE COURT: So it's still a crime. As I read this, it's still a crime under the de minimis.


MS. CAI: No, Your Honor. That's not how I read it. Except as otherwise provided and except as in the case of a brief incidental entry onto property --


THE COURT: Which shall be deemed a de minimis infraction within the contemplation of 2C:2-11. That's a criminal statute.


MS. CAI: It's a criminal statute, but it doesn't criminalize your conduct. So it's not -- if you look at 2C:2-11.


THE COURT: What does that say?


MS. CAI: I don't have that right in front of me, Your Honor. But it makes it --


THE COURT: Do you know?


MR. JENSEN: I don't know what that says, no.


THE COURT: Well, that says to me that even if it's a de minimis infraction, it's still a prosecution.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2023 at 9:28 PM, Upholder said:

The discussion continues:


LOL, that is some comical mental gymnastics there to paraphrase they argue "It's not a crime because the defendant charged with the crime has a possilbe defense that might get the charge dismissed after they are prosecuted for the crime, so it's not a crime" 🤪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A majority of New Jerseyans may, indeed, prefer there not to be an individual right under the Second Amendment to self-defense in public. But that 'preference' would be foreclosed by Bruen."


Nice to see a court finally get it that hypothetical public opinion and irrational fears is not a valid reason to deny people their 2nd rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Response letter from the defense: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.61.0.pdf


As Rob Romano commentated:


Anti-gun states defending gun laws post-Bruen with no injunction:

"Can we get 7 months, maybe even a year in order to do more research?"


Anti-gun states defending enjoined gun laws post-Bruen:

"Can we get a ruling as quickly as possible after briefing ends in 19 days?"


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 2/13/2023 at 2:16 PM, Upholder said:


Not that their argument makes any sense as one is dealing with a protected right of the people, the other is dealing with a whimsical government definition of a location.  That said what kind of sensative places (that the public is allowed) do they proclaim exist today that didn't exist in a comparable analog form back then?  I literally can't brainstorm anything.  What they clearly don't like is the fact they have to find a historical analog and tradtion to infringe and since they don't exist they are desperate to create one out of thin air.


They have really went full retard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The defense claims that SCOTUS determined that NY may keep their law in effect, when all they did was tell the 2nd Circuit that they were allowed to manage their own docket.


They also argue that they have not banned carrying in personal cars because you are still allowed to "carry" your handgun unloaded and locked in your trunk.


New Jersey also argues it can ban carry in your own car because cars didn't exist in the 1700s, two states once banned carrying long guns in cars, and because multiple states once banned concealed carry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...