Four Boxes Dinner just said NJ got spanked

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • clandestine

    AR-15 Savant
    Oct 13, 2008
    37,031
    Elkton, MD
    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.
     

    smokey

    2A TEACHER
    Jan 31, 2008
    31,412
    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.
    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.
     

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    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.

    No, i don't think this will deter MGA. But nothing short of the 6 Bruen Majority justices showing up at committee hearings with baseball bats would have any effect because MGA already knows they won't survive SCOTUS action and are only pushing these bills as FUs to us. A pointless, quixotic attempt to keep the tide from coming in.
     
    Last edited:

    Mark75H

    MD Wear&Carry Instructor
    Industry Partner
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 25, 2011
    17,174
    Outside the Gates
    I'm hoping an Appeals Court split hurries this up to the top and definitive instruction is given.

    I can see the idea of a few sensitive places (but not everything any legislature dreams up), but the extended exclusion zone is blatantly unconstitutional. It sucks that it will take another ruling to explain Bruen meant the specific buildings, not the entire neighborhood around them.
     

    CurlyDave

    Member
    May 29, 2015
    47
    Oregon
    This is a great result. Now we have to keep the ground we gained through the appeal process and probably on to the Supremes.
     

    platoonDaddy

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 30, 2011
    4,125
    SouthOfBalto
    The US Judge in Camden doesn’t look to shabby
     

    Attachments

    • F9D0A446-5818-4DEB-9388-55C8F2754E1C.jpeg
      F9D0A446-5818-4DEB-9388-55C8F2754E1C.jpeg
      23.4 KB · Views: 59

    clandestine

    AR-15 Savant
    Oct 13, 2008
    37,031
    Elkton, MD
    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)
     
    Last edited:

    outrider58

    Eats Bacon Raw
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 29, 2014
    49,819
    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.
    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.

    Chalk it up to a won battle. The war rages on.
     

    Boats

    Beer, Bikes n Boomsticks
    Mar 13, 2012
    4,073
    Howeird County
    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)

    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.
     

    jrumann59

    DILLIGAF
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 17, 2011
    14,024
    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.
    Like Mommies going around slapping no guns signs on businesses without their knowledge.
     

    alucard0822

    For great Justice
    Oct 29, 2007
    17,643
    PA
    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.
    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.
     
    Last edited:

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,943
    Messages
    7,259,752
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom