Upholder Posted January 7, 2023 at 02:31 AM Share Posted January 7, 2023 at 02:31 AM (edited) NJ is got shellacked in their oral arguments about their carry law yesterday: The full transcript of the oral arguments from yesterday can be found at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506026/gov.uscourts.njd.506026.20.1.pdf Edited January 7, 2023 at 02:32 AM by Upholder typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveTA84 Posted January 7, 2023 at 02:46 AM Share Posted January 7, 2023 at 02:46 AM This is gold LOFL ALSO: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted January 7, 2023 at 02:52 AM Share Posted January 7, 2023 at 02:52 AM Quote THE COURT: Although this Court's perfectly capable of reading the statue and construing it as well. Do you agree with that? That is one epic passive agressive slap upside the states head... And the Judge didn't stop there, it's a fun read... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted January 7, 2023 at 02:57 AM Share Posted January 7, 2023 at 02:57 AM On 1/6/2023 at 8:46 PM, steveTA84 said: This is gold LOFL It's gold, but I have to wonder why the Judge asked that beyond gettinng another blow in, it's a means-ends argument that should be moot even if they had evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted January 7, 2023 at 03:26 AM Author Share Posted January 7, 2023 at 03:26 AM Quote 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 More sharing options...
Upholder Posted January 7, 2023 at 03:28 AM Author Share Posted January 7, 2023 at 03:28 AM The discussion continues: Quote 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 More sharing options...
Flynn Posted January 7, 2023 at 03:48 AM Share Posted January 7, 2023 at 03:48 AM 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 More sharing options...
Upholder Posted January 9, 2023 at 05:46 PM Author Share Posted January 9, 2023 at 05:46 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted January 9, 2023 at 06:00 PM Author Share Posted January 9, 2023 at 06:00 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted January 9, 2023 at 11:17 PM Author Share Posted January 9, 2023 at 11:17 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted January 9, 2023 at 11:30 PM Author Share Posted January 9, 2023 at 11:30 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted January 9, 2023 at 11:50 PM Share Posted January 9, 2023 at 11:50 PM Quote "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 More sharing options...
Upholder Posted January 11, 2023 at 06:07 PM Author Share Posted January 11, 2023 at 06:07 PM The State of NJ supplied the court a supplemental brief in Siegel v. Platkin, another challenge to the NJ Bruen response: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506026/gov.uscourts.njd.506026.25.0.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted January 12, 2023 at 06:18 PM Author Share Posted January 12, 2023 at 06:18 PM Letter from the plaintiffs arguing against consolidating the case: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.38.0.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted January 12, 2023 at 11:51 PM Author Share Posted January 12, 2023 at 11:51 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcable2 Posted January 13, 2023 at 02:10 AM Share Posted January 13, 2023 at 02:10 AM NJ wanted it combined but really thought they could combine it and keep the Biden Judge instead and get rid of the TRO. Now they really stepped in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted January 31, 2023 at 12:59 AM Author Share Posted January 31, 2023 at 12:59 AM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted January 31, 2023 at 01:10 AM Share Posted January 31, 2023 at 01:10 AM On 1/30/2023 at 6:59 PM, Upholder said: LOL, it will be a hoot to see how they respond. I'm betting they ignore the judge and turn instantly to a means ends argument resulting in the judge telling them to go back and have a seat at the kids table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yeti Posted January 31, 2023 at 03:45 AM Share Posted January 31, 2023 at 03:45 AM The case made the MSN headlines: Federal judge blocks more of New Jersey's new gun carry law (msn.com) This will be interesting to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted February 2, 2023 at 09:13 PM Author Share Posted February 2, 2023 at 09:13 PM 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: Quote 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 More sharing options...
Upholder Posted February 13, 2023 at 08:13 PM Author Share Posted February 13, 2023 at 08:13 PM Brief of Intervenors-Defendants, New Jersey Senate President Nicholas P. Scutari and New Jersey Assembly Speaker Craig J. Coughlin in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.75.0.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted February 13, 2023 at 08:16 PM Author Share Posted February 13, 2023 at 08:16 PM Via https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1625225187590283283 Quote The politicians argue that because the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment protects guns that didn't exist in the 1700s, that means guns can be banned from "sensitive places" that didn't exist then too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted February 13, 2023 at 10:08 PM Share Posted February 13, 2023 at 10:08 PM On 2/13/2023 at 2:16 PM, Upholder said: Via https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1625225187590283283 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 More sharing options...
Upholder Posted February 14, 2023 at 04:01 PM Author Share Posted February 14, 2023 at 04:01 PM Defendants' Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motions for Preliminary Injunction: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.91.0.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted February 14, 2023 at 04:04 PM Author Share Posted February 14, 2023 at 04:04 PM 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 More sharing options...
Upholder Posted February 25, 2023 at 02:55 PM Author Share Posted February 25, 2023 at 02:55 PM Koons plaintiffs' reply brief: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.101.0.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted February 25, 2023 at 02:56 PM Author Share Posted February 25, 2023 at 02:56 PM Quote "Regardless of Rivas’s personal academic opinions, this court does not have the ability to relitigate Bruen. And to submit a declaration doing so in this manner is borderline sanctionable, not to mention completely unreliable." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted May 16, 2023 at 04:43 PM Author Share Posted May 16, 2023 at 04:43 PM Judge has issued a Preliminary Injunction: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davel501 Posted May 16, 2023 at 04:56 PM Share Posted May 16, 2023 at 04:56 PM Curious to see how quickly the 3rd circuit will stay the injunction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted May 16, 2023 at 05:01 PM Author Share Posted May 16, 2023 at 05:01 PM One of the comments in the twitter thread was "How long before the 7th circuit stays the ruling?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now