Looks like Judge told NJ they couldn't ignore the constitution.
At least the playgrounds, movie sets, and zoos thing was because of standing and not based on merits. So just need plaintifs with standing to nuke those too I guess. It would have been cool if those infringements were stopped too though.I don't consider this a win.
The judge still allowed many of the "sensitive places" to be acceptable.
Everything that NJ did was in violation of NYSRPA.
This wasn't a final ruling, or even a PI. It was just for the TRO, which is issued on an emergency basis against defendant's actions causingthe plaintiff is suffering irreparable, immediate harm and where the plaintiff is likely to prevail on merits later during arguments. There will still be opportunities for our side to argue effectively to get the rest of the restrictions lifted before the District Court's final ruling is issued. I bet that final ruling is significantly more comprehensive than the TRO.I don't consider this a win.
The judge still allowed many of the "sensitive places" to be acceptable.
Everything that NJ did was in violation of NYSRPA.
Kevin Arnold's mom approvesThe US Judge in Camden doesn’t look to shabby
Too often we "all or nothing" people get in too big a hurry to throw the baby out with the bath water. That's not how we ended up where we are today. Our rights were incrementally eroded away.I don't consider this a win.
The judge still allowed many of the "sensitive places" to be acceptable.
Everything that NJ did was in violation of NYSRPA.
Only places that should pass constitutional muster should be:
1) Places that have Security Screening, Armed Security, Lockers for Gun Carriers and have a historical prohibition such as:
-Polling Places
-Legislative Sessions
-Courthouses
-Businesses that are open to the public (to respect property owners rights)
or
2) Private Property Owners (Properly Posted)
Like Mommies going around slapping no guns signs on businesses without their knowledge.Disagree on the businesses and private property. Legal until the property owner says otherwise. Signs shouldn't carry the force of law. Once an owner, occupant or agent acting on their behalf says no, then the carrier must leave. But shouldn't be illegal until that point. Too many exploitable loopholes there.
The signs are not at eye level or a conspicuous place.Like Mommies going around slapping no guns signs on businesses without their knowledge.
Yup, and I lawfully carry at my polling place, which is a municipal building. I have a right to protect myself and my family at all times, and shouldn't have to surrender that to exercise my right to vote. I do get the "property rights" argument with businesses. I agree with the majority of states where they can ask you to leave, but the signs carry no force of law, and they cannot search or prohibit a firearm in your car on their lot. Figure the millions of other affronts to property rights from tax status to handicap access is a bigger deal for businesses than expecting police and the law to enforce their "no weapons" sign for them. As far as private property aka someone's residence, then yes, armed, not armed, doesn't matter, I don't have to let anyone inside, or can ask them to leave at any time for any reason.Disagree on the businesses and private property. Legal until the property owner says otherwise. Signs shouldn't carry the force of law. Once an owner, occupant or agent acting on their behalf says no, then the carrier must leave. But shouldn't be illegal until that point. Too many exploitable loopholes there.
Lo siento !.. no leo ingles !The signs are not at eye level or a conspicuous place.
Bonus that 2 of the judges are Biden appointees.So, to sum it up...2A 3 - NJ 0 ... and counting.