SAF sues NJ over new permit law

[adit]

Judge making moves on the Fed holiday. 1/5/23 hearing on injunction. Replies due 1/3/23. Bush2 judge.

 

[Jerzee Transplant]

Info on both NJ cases compliments of Mr. Stu on njgunforums.com:

Im so confused by all these cases all at the same time... Which is for which .. when etc.

What is koon for? So they are for a TRO, while the one giving ppwrk yesterday is skipping a TRO?

Koons is the narrow case trying to block the sensitive areas part of A4769. They initially asked for a TRO, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction. Since the exchange of briefs for the TRO, they are now asking that the temporary injunction is granted. This is being run by SAF/FPC/CNJFO/NJ2AS with Jensen as the lead attorney and is being heard by Judge Renee Marie Bumb.

Siegel is the much broader challenge to A4769 and other statutes and regulations. This case challenges almost every part of A4769. e.g. A4769 expressly declared parks as sensitive areas, which is duplicative of the Admin Code for State Parks, so if A4769 is unconstitutional in that respect, so is the pre-existing Admin Code. This is being run by ANJRPC with Schmutter as the lead attorney and is being heard by Judge Karen M. Williams.

Both these cases were initially filed on the day A4769 was signed by the Governor. Koons is on a slightly faster track, but there is currently only a couple of days difference.

NJ had to file their response to Koons last Friday, 12/30/22 and Jensen had to file his reply by yesterday, 1/3/23. The hearing in Federal District Court is tomorrow, 1/5/23 at 11am. The Koons case can be followed here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66677437/koons-v-reynolds/

NJ had to file their response to Siegel last Friday, 12/30/22 as well, but the reply from Schmutter is not due until today, 1/4/23. The hearing is scheduled for 1/9/23. The Siegel case can be tracked here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66677439/siegel-v-platkin/

Parallel to this, NJ has requested that both cases are consolidated. The decision on the consolidation is expected 1/17/23 or soon after

 

[Jerzee Transplant]

Here are pencil to paper notes and thoughts, apparently by a 2A friendly attendee of Thursday’s Koons V. Reynolds hearing in Judge Bumb’s courtroom. Credit for original post: DirtyDigs at njgunforums.com

Transcription" (Really more notes) from an attendee to the TRO hearing:

Quote
---FPC, CNJFO, SAF, NJ2AS, Koons Lawsuit Update---
*THE JUDGE HAS NOT COME TO A DECISION YET AND NO INJUNCTIONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED*
Alright Ladies and Gentlemen Here Ya Go!!!!!!
A little rough for now but I'll tighten it up later. I tried my best to put you all inside the court room. Only was able to use a note pad and pencil. If I was able to record this would have been a much better breakdown.
Enjoy!
___________________________________________
Is Judge Renee Marie bomb Enters the courtroom at 11:04 AM right on time. David Jensen takes his position and Angela Cai(Deputy Solicitor General) takes the stand representing the Attorney General Matthew Platkin. Atlantic County Prosecutors were also in the building.
---STANDING---
*Jensen*
Jensen first starts off discussing the fact that the majority of the country has been able to carry a firearm and obtain permits years now. Judge Bumb from there proceeds to question how standing ties into Entertainment Venues. Jensen Then goes into the historical data on being able to Bear arms in entertainment venues and public gathering situations. Jensen states that the purpose of his lawsuit is to go after the low hanging fruit which is only a select few sensitive locations. He wants to open up enough sensitive places to allow people to at least function with a firearm during their normal daily lives. The Judge then asks whether the plaintiffs would actually get charged if they happen to bring a firearm into these said sensitive location. Jensen goes on to say that under this law you would be an instant felon of the 3rd degree if a firearm is brought into one of these locations including vehicle carry. Jensen doesn't believe that people should have to risk getting a felony in order to exercise their right or to show standing.
*Angela Cai*
Starts off by disagreeing with Jensen And proceeds to tell the judge that she doesn't think That any relief should be granted to the plaintiffs or law abiding citizens until the Entire court process is finished. The Judge Questions this and says that you do know this could take years, right? Cai agrees months to years. The judges disagrees with that statement. Cai mentions that she doesn't believe the courts should make a rushed decision on this matter. Judge shuts he down and let's her know that herself and the courts are able to make proper decisions and don't rush anything. Cai Goes on to say that it's the plaintiffs responsibility to show standing not the state. Throughout this discussion the judge outright says she thinks that the amount of sensitive place restrictions are so broad that it effectively eliminates the right to carry. Cai questions The eminence of injury in regards to the plaintiffs. She speaks on how the plaintiffs don't say that they will ever revisit any of the locations that they described in the briefing with their firearm.( which is ridiculous). She then goes on to say that in order to show standing, plaintiffs needed to have painted a concrete plan on sensitive locations theyre going to visit especially in the next 30 days if a TRO is expected to be granted.
Chapter 131 was brought up
Claims most entertainment venues already banned firearms. Also brings up places like Costco's and the YMCA. The judge is somewhat baffled at this point Trying to make sense out of what she's been trying to say. Judge Bumb proceeds to ask Cai..." Does the state really expect plaintiffs to map out their entire lives in advance for the next few months in order to carry a firearm?" Cai really couldn't answer this question properly in good faith because that's exactly what they want us to do. Is the word dancing really starts to take effect at this point. Fischer v. Governor of N.J was also brought up and the judge saw right through was Cai was trying to do. Cai Honestly believes that no one will call the cops on you if they find you on their private property with a firearm and not given express permission. The judge didn't ask well if that's the case is the state Willing to not enforce the sensitive places wall which is a felony? She then corrects herself and says NO!!!
DC circuit laws were dismissed from this case
*Jensen*
Jensen's response to all of this is that the law has just been enacted. It's almost impossible to show current data On convictions into sensitive places. He again States that You shouldn't have to be arrested or risk becoming a felon just to prove the point of standing. These aren't minor infractions like a 5 mile per hour speeding ticket that comes with a $50 fine. These are felony offenses that we're talking about. They carry years in jail had heavy fines. Jensen says that individuals lives change on an hourly to daily basis. There's no way of knowing where someone will be in the coming days weeks or months.
---SENSITIVE LOCATIONS---
Specifically subpart 15( Is bars and restaurants where alcohol is served) and 17( Privately and publicly own entertainment facilities)
*Jensen*
Jensen starts off with the framework of Bruen and that the government bears the burden to show standing of law. Judge Bumb Says that she agrees with SCOTUS and the Bruen Decision that sensitive places shouldn't be so expensive.
Section 15 of Sensitive Places
Jensen throws out the The validity of the following......
*1870 Texas Law(prohibited firearms in any “ball room, social party or other social gathering composed of ladies and gentlemen)
*1859 Connecticut Law(If any booth shed, tent, or other temporary erection, within one mile of any military parade-ground, musterfield or encampment, shall be used and occupied for the sale ofspirituous or intoxicating liquor, or for the purposeof gambling,” then “the owner or occupant” of such a structure must “vacate and close the same immediately.”)
*1869 Kansas Law(prohibited deadly weapons in any “fair or race course)
Section 17 of Sensitive Places
The statue of Northampton was brought up
1870 Texas Law again
He said that there were too many small cases that were not broad enough to be considered Historical Tradition. Jensen tells The judge that the state needs to show that there's enduring traditions and they have not been able to do that.
*Angela Cai*
Section 15 of Sensitive Places
Also brings up Tennessee statue 1870(That it shall not be lawful for any person to publicly or privately carry a dirk, swordcane, Spanish stiletto, belt or pocket pistol or revolver)
Section 17 of Sensitive Places
Specifically speaks on crowded venues.
There's so much word dancing goinalone doctor judlet's called Cai out for saying they "will give" more history and tradition. Judge Bumb isn't buying it. She asked then why aren't you presenting it to me then? She further goes on to call out legislators that said they had the data when drafting this bill. Cai Then switches to calling out the Bruen Decision not citing historical analogs to say that you can't nameeverywhere a sensitive location.
English v. State 1872 and Cai Tries to use the Range Decision
Judge agrees Kansas statue is playing in simple on its face. Judge and pretty much everybody agrees that You shouldn't carry a firearm while outright intoxicated
---PRIVATE PROPERTY---
Section 24 of Sensitive Places
*Judge Bumb*
Judge Bumb Questions whether the state hasoutright turn the right to carry on its head. She also goes on to To ask why does the state fill the need to communicate that property owners must give express consent in order for someone to carry a firearm on private property? Forcing a property owner to express that their property is unprotected doesn't seem right. At what point does a firearm owner know if they have express consent? If approaching someone's home is it at the beginning of the driveway the top of the driveway or at the front door. Either way the moment you step foot onthat property you're a felon until they find out. She then goes on to say that the state Hasn't given any presumption carry. She goes on to say the state would be making a criminal out of people who don't know if they even have consent yet. The law says verbal concern not a definite sign posted. JudgeBumb Says the state has made the imminent fear of prosecution so great that people leave their firearms at home. She questions Cai Whether people are supposed to read someone's mind.
Section 7A De Minimis Infraction
Incidental Entry into Private Property
No one really knows what's The line in between a de minimis infraction a crime. The judge brings up a scenario of her walking with her daughter down the street and her daughter kicks a ball into someone's yard. She questions Cai on what she's supposed to do. Leave it or risk becoming a felon? Cai still thinks no one will call the cops on you for brief entry.
*Jensen*
Speak on the following....
Hunting and Poaching Laws
1827 Trespassing Laws
Fish and Game Violations
Jensen says Bruen Protect the right to carry on public and private property. He mentions that unless you get a particular area of land survey who knows whether is public or private property.
To really nail down the point. Jensen asked the question that if legislation drafted a bill that banned gay or people of color from private property would we really even be standing here right now? It's wouldn't even be a question how fast the bill would get thrown out. It was a complete mic drop. Judge was left speechless and preceeded to move on to the next topic.
---VEHICLE CARRY BAN---
*Angela Cai*
Brings up the Journey Travel argument(specifically a longer journey)
Judge Bumb eventually stops her and says " Do you agree that self defense is a core fundamental right of the 2nd amendment?" Cai states YES!!!!
Judge counters by saying if that's the case then how is one supposed to defend themselves if their firearm is dissembled or unloaded in their car? She barely could answer that question but immediately brought up the road rage argument.(figures...smh). Hon. Bumb sees right through it. From there Judge plays out a scenario similar to this....... What if I start my day going to my cousin's house. My cousin gives me express permission to carry on their property so i do. When I leave I unholster unload my firearm lock it backup in a Box. Then I need to stop at a Walmart to pick up something. I walk up to the front door Walmart Has a sign that says no open carry so I guess that means I can conceal carry. I walked back to my car to reassemble my firearm in public potentially brandishing my weapand I entered the Walmart to get what I need to get. I leave the Walmart go back to my car and have to unholster and disarm my firearm again. The point the judge was making Was to show the ridiculousness of the back-and-forth arming and disarming throughout a normal person's day. The Judge then goes on To ask Cai does this sound like the right to self defense to you? (Cai stumbles). Judge moves on.
Judge questions again where is the historical traditions legislators claim they had when passing this bill and why aren't they before me. Cai makes More excuses on why the data isn't present they and that she can't know what the legislators had in mind when drafting the bill.
*Judge Bumb*
Irreparable Harm Explanation
The provisions of this law in essence deprive citizens the right to self defense because they have to leave their firearm at home why does it seem like the state is giving more power to the 1st amendment than the 2nd amendment? She goes on to say that a first amendment violation isconsidered irreparable harm.
*Jensen*
Says that if someone is in the process of beingrobbed in a vehicle they won't have time to get a fire on out if it unloaded, stored in a Box or in the trunk.
---PUBLIC INTEREST---
*Judge Bumb*
Is there any evidence that wreagling armed citizens are responsible for gun crimes?
Cai quickly answers NO!!!!!
From here Judge Bumb closes out the hearing saying that she going to think on this case and make a decision expeditiously as possible then leaves the court room.
_________________________________________________
David Jensen did an outstanding job today. I think it went the best it could have. The Judge was very fair and asked meaningful questions in order to fullygrasp all the details of this case. I'm prettyconfident that she will grant us a TRO. There wasnothing that I heard that would say other wise. Most of the hearing she was grilling the State because their claims and justification of this law wasoutright ridiculous and comical. The longer the case went the more the judge was visibly stressed out trying to maneuver around the egregious explaination of why New Jerseyans have been stripped of the right of carry.

 

[Jerzee Transplant]

More thoughts of Koons attendees from DirtyDigs at njgunforums.com:

Only very general comments out of those who attended hearing:

Quote
Hearing is over. The judge plans to render a decision as expeditiously as possible.
I‘m no lawyer, but I feel really good about how today went. The judge seemed to see right through the State’s BS and made Kai and the legislators look extremely ridiculous at times.

Quote
Judge had great questions and the state was fumbling

Quote
Kai was representing the state, there were other attorneys representing I think Atlantic and Sussex counties, but they didn’t do anything

I think by "Kai" they mean I think they mean Angela Cai from the NJ AG's office who appeared for the state of NJ.

Quote
The judge had one good question. If I am against guns, and I post a sign that says I do not allow guns, wouldn’t that give criminals the opportunity to enter into my home, knowing that I am against guns or there’s a possibility that I do not have of gun? In other words, why would I broadcast to criminals that there’s a possibility i don’t have a gun in my personal property?

Quote
She also asked if the UPS guy drops off a package and has a gun, will he be prosecuted as a criminal? Should he leave the package on the road? Also, under de minimus, we are still considered criminals according to their new law, therefore di minimus does not exclude us by mistaking a of bringing a gun to someone’s home or personal property.

it seemed her biggest concern was the idiocy of having to “brandish” it while removing from the trunk and placing back in the trunk when returning. She went through a whole hypothetical scenario of someone having to do this repeatedly when making multiple stops in a trip, and also approaching private property to get consent to carry and going back to your vehicle to get your firearm. Cai had some bs answer to this that I don’t think the judge was buying

Quote
she also questioned having “reassemble or reload” in the event of a threat

 

[Jerzee Transplant]

Koons V. Reynolds transcript link:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506026/gov.uscourts.njd.506026.20.1.pdf

 

[Kharn]

Cai took a beating like a red headed stepchild.

 

[press1280]

NJ's arguments on standing were laughable, essentially saying plaintiffs have to map out their plans and say I plan to visit X, Y, and Z. Stupid.

 

[IronEye]

The judge came back to the fact that the 2A guaranteed the right to self defense outside the home several times. She seemed to understand the argument that the minefield of prohibited places that NJ has created has made it essentially impossible for someone with a permit to carry to be able to legally do so. There was also a discussion about the severity of the consequences should the law be violated. This supports the urgency of the request for the court to act quickly. I am hopeful that the ruling will come quickly and favor the plaintiffs.
As an aside Montgomery County has created a similar minefield.

 

[lazarus]

The private property one NJ and NY pushed to me is the one that is most ridiculous. I mean, it is a ridiculous cherry on a 17 layer cake of ridiculous.

As Judge Bumb noted on the ball getting kicked into a neighbor's yard as well as "when" are you supposed to know you are allowed to carry? At the bottom of a driveway? Half way up? At the door? "oh, no one will call the police".

Well, what if cops SEE you carrying? Not everyone carries concealed. I get NRP through my neighborhood pretty frequently because of the state park nearby. I know pretty much where my property is and my neighbor's property. But other than some survey markers, nobodies' property is posted at all. What if I am carrying while clearing brush on "my property" and it turns out I am actually standing 5 feet on to my neighbor's property and an NRP officer sees me carrying and comes over to chat with me, just make sure I am not engaged in hunting out of season or something and glances and notices, wait, when I saw him, he was standing across the survey mark. Or even "he walked over to talk to me, walking through the edge of his neighbor's property".

What if I am carrying while taking a walk and one of my kids is biking with me and falls off their bike on to the neighbor's property? I should run home and deposit my firearm or take if off and lay it on the road so I can help them? Just yell to my kid "hey sweetie, sorry you got F-ed up falling off your bike, but Daddy was carrying and you are going to have to drag yourself and your bike over on to the road before I can help you".

Or we are walking and cars are coming. I now can't step off the road on to my neighbor's property to be safe and keep from getting hit by a car. Just so much ridiculousness.

How about a gun store in a strip mall? The parking lot is private property. Are most gun stores going to need to shut down? Or is the commercial real estate company going to post entrances to the parking lot that firearms are allowed?

All legal actions and activities should be presumptively legal everywhere UNLESS otherwise specifically noted.

Hence things like no loitering signs. "shirt and shoes required" (why is it they never also say pants?). "no soliciting". And even "no trespassing". I disagree with criminalizing carrying on private property period, but it would have been at least somewhat more sensical if the law had simply criminalized carry on private property where it is POSTED that guns are not allowed.

 

[press1280]

I'd love for a judge to ask one of these anti states why they didn't care where the privileged few carried pre-Bruen but now that may-issue is dead why everywhere is now a sensitive place?

 

[IronEye]

Just one gem from Judge Bumb's decision granting the requested TRO:

In the final analysis, at some point on the line, when a constitutional right becomes so burdensome or unwieldy to exercise, it is, in effect, no longer a constitutional right. Plaintiffs have made a convincing case that this legislation has reached that point.

 

[Jerzee Transplant]

Old news, but the Koons case and the Siegel case were combined and to be heard by Repub appointee Judge Bumb. https://newjerseymonitor.com/2023/01/13/challenges-to-n-j-gun-law-consolidated-under-bush-appointee/

 

[Jerzee Transplant]

And notes from today’s Siegel hearing in front of Judge Bumb. Compliments of DirtyDigz on NJ Gunforums:

Quote
Siegel update from today (note: I've got 3 more pages on notes to go through but need to pick up my kids, I'll edit this this evening with the rest)
1/26 – Room 3D
Judge Bumb enters 9:50
Attorneys enter appearances
Bumb: Will hear parties on their arguments
States that arguments related to Koons – Basically don’t go there because there’s nothing to sway the courts opinion on her earlier decision
Dan states he’s available to answer any of the courts questions. He wants to point out the differences between Koons and Siegel re: Multi use properties
The state is prohibiting properties that are otherwise not prohibited/sensitive. i.e. Section 7 states all grounds and parking lots. Mentions one plaintiff is a church member that also has a school and based on his reading the entire 14 acre property is now prohibited.
At this point Dan was going a million miles an hour and the judge playfully yelled at him to slow down for the court reporter.
Next example was a strip mall with a daycare center there – everything on the property is prohibited including for example a pizza place that maybe wants to allow guns.
The judge asks if the court construes the language to mean that the parking lot of a school or school building can be prohibited only if its solely used with the sensitive place would that be helpful. Dan says yes
Bumb states that she feels the intent of the lab was that it would only apply to the sensitive places and not all parking lots or they would have declared all parking lots sensitive.
She then asked if Dans concerns were over if the above was stipulated, and if so, what remains?
Dan brings up Multi use buildings – for example a building with doctors, lawyers and accountants in it. A doctors office makes the entire building prohibited in addition to the shared parking lot.
Finally – Plaintiff Kwozo (sp?) attends a church which has 1 multi purpose building – to the left is a sanctuary for prayer and the right holds bible classes, educational things ,etc. Is Sunday school considered an actual school based on the law?
Bumb: She states she doesn’t think religious school is school.
Dan brings up – what about Karate school? The school of rock? Tae Kwon Do, etc.
Bumb: Does the court have to define school or should they say it’s vague? If the definition is provided by the legislators is it still vague
Dan: Depends on the definition
Dan: People generally think of school as K-12, colleges and universities. It needs to be easy to tell what is what. You can’t go based on the name having “School” in it.
Bumb: Said his point was fair and well taken. Asks if school is defined anywhere?
Dan: If so, they’re not references anywhere in the legislation. There are definitions in other statues that aren’t consistent.
Bumb: If the court construes the parking lots and multi use properties as discussed – what is left? Isn’t most of this solved? States it seems odd that the court should be writing legislation
Dan: This was bill was not well thought out, was written in a fit of rage in direct defiance of Bruen
It is the job of the court to determine if its unconstitutional or now
Bumb: The court is obligated to construe terms narrowly in light of Bruen .
Dan: Wraps up the differences between this and Koons – mentions parking lot argument for shared buildings, and asks that sensitive places for parking lot only be applied when used solely for the sensitive place.
Bumb: Asks the state – how can you justify multi use in light of Bruen which dictates sensitive places must be narrowly defined.
Cai: The question isn’t related to Bruen but rather legislative. She had no issue with plaintiffs arguments. States that they’re ignoring 7c/d however.
Discussed C4 – Concealed carrying between prohibited parking and a not prohibited place – they’re allowed to leave the parking lot.
7d: States that they wouldn’t be in violation on a public right of way when passing through
Bumb: You’re ignoring multi use buildings
Cai: Buildings like a church and school on the same property – like a daycare on the first floor and a pizza place on the third floor. Can states you’d not be in violation:
(e.g. having to go up a set of stairs to get to a non sensitive place passing through a sensitive place)
Cai states she hasn’t seen any specific building to say 1 way or the other, but would stipulate on Dan’s arguments – She states that Dan’s arguments were made quickly in haste.
Bumb: It’s not haste for the plaintiffs. Bumb then states that you’re not prohibited from going from a parking lot to a non sensitive place when passing through, then states to Dan “you’ve got a stipulation from the state” – this is now stipulated and you have no need to worry.
Dan: If the order reflects that our concerns are resolved.
Cai: Schools are defined in section 2c:35-9 – school means what is in NJ code, they’re under direction of department of education. Dan teaching a law class: not a school, someone teaching bagpipes: not a school. Sunday school: Not a school
Bumb: Asks if this is resolved for now?
Dan: For the PI stage will the state offer a definition of schools?
Bumb: I’m ok with ruling on this
Cai: Plaintiff brings up vagueness, but she wants examples
Bumb: States plaintiffs are exposed to criminal liability – asks if this is eleviated by the earler arguments
Cai states they don’t have standing
Bumb asks to hear Dan on any remaining issues
Dan states he’ll answer any questions on standing
Bumb: In Koons – the sensitive places are part and parcel to their everyday life. Some of these like movie sets aren’t parsed out and park of everyday life.
Dan: Facts here are more specific and granular re: Racetracks and Parks/Libraries
BUmb: She’ll deal with that – focus on the others
Dan: Brings up that the legislators groups things together because that’s the only way for them to provide multiple historical analogues. There is no historical tradition for these. 1-3 examples doesn’t cut it and Bruen was very clear on this.
Bumb: In Koons she restained the whole thing. Should she not parse out individual places? i.e. If we’re talking about parks and beaches and rec centers should she not parse them out individually for standing purposes?
Dan: Plaintiffs shouldn’t need to show standing for 25 places – it can’t be based on name alone
Bumb: Antonyuk case they parsed out every place on its own
Dan: Siegel in part 22 – does he need to go to all 25 places to have standing? The legislature groups things together on purpose – with the Bruen challenge if you say similar then we’re challenging on similar grounds.
Dan: Judge had previously asked about things not in daily lives like movie sets. Dan mentions that he had previously walked through a Sopranos set one time – you don’t know where these are going to be. Same goes for news reporters.
Bumb mentions this would be more persuasive in the PI stage
Dan: Understands the standing analysis is different for this. In this in insufficient now – its never going to be.
Bumb: This will be resolved in PI
Dan: Will the state argue standing?
Bumb: Asks about public gatherings
Cai: Plaintiff says time to time and has the burden to prove.
Bumb: Does the state have permits for public gatherings? Do they not have standing?
Cai: In the TRO stage no
Bumb: Will there be public gatherings between now and PI?
Cai: I don’t know
Bumb: By PI – the state can’t challenge standing, there will be standing
Cai: OK Sure
Bumb states theres a concession on public gatherings.
Move to film locations/movie sets:
Cai: No allegations from plaintiff
Dan: Will withdraw TRO if state concedes standing.
Cai: state can’t stipulate – plaintiff can cure by submitting specificis
Bumb: They would say im going to a movie set
Cai: State won’t concede theres immenence
Dan: Then no plaintiff will ever have standing
Bumb: what concerns me is the state says no standing. What happens if someone goes to a movie set – do we need an entire new lawsuit? Why wouldn’t the state want to resolve all of these issues and invite more efficiency?
Cai: cannot waive standing – it’s black letter law. Parties can’t waive jurisdiction
Bumb: Seems to me its prudent for the state to stipulate to standing so the constitutionality issues are resolved in 1 fell swoop to resolve everything.
Bumb to Cai – focus on….theres no reason to deviate from Koons decision. She previously criticized the private property provisions…
Cai: In Koons public libraries and museums the government is the proprietors. This applies to airports and government builings – does the 2A ever cover buildings like this?
Bumb mentions all of the case related to this is pre Bruen
Cai mentions that the government as a proprietor – its similar to NJ transit is a state owned bus company – its no different then if a private bus company states no firearms.
Bumb states that Bruen changed all of this – there must be a historical tradition. What about state owned highways – does that count?
Cai: The government is in competition with private companies
Bumb: Then square that with Bruen. Private vs. Public – there is N DISTINCTION in Bruen. Every case mentioned is pre Bruen .
Cai: Bruen doesn’t explain enough or answer when the government is competing in an open marketplace.
Bumb: It’s difficult to understand how if the government owns something it eviscerates Bruen,
Cai: What she can do – if the government acts as a private owner….
Bump interrupts: That’s grounds for mischief on the part of the government – If Bruen says no analogue they can say we’re just acting as a private business.
Bumb: Cases for the government as market participants is for the PI stage – she wants to see.
Cai: Does person have a 2A right in someone elses property – that’s not protected by 2A
She makes the argument that Bruen/Heller/McDonald extend a right to carry in public not a residence/business – that’s not what the court meant by public.
Bumb: Public means outside in the community. Nothing supports right to exclude trespassing, This could be limited by other laws i.e. right to exclude as property owner – not changed by Bruen
The plaintiff is not saying that if a property owner puts up a no gun sign that’s not ok. The state says since they are excluded theres no right to carry and you need to show historical analogues.
When Jefferson rode on his horse – did he stop and ask if he could carry on someones property? No.
Cai: The government can change the law of trespassing. Instead of putting up a sign – they can post on the internet – that’s not a 2A argument
Bumb: But you’re not doing this for trespassing – you’re only doing it for firearms! Why is the state interfering with trespassing only for firearms when it’s been fine forever.
I don’t understand the argument – Private properties is a clever way for the state to say it’s protecting property owners. What you’re doing is unconstitutional – persuade me!
Cai: Mentions exhibit 21 which is a study about ow people believe you shouldn’t be able to carry in peoples homes without permission
Bumb: then why not educate the public instead of going after gun owners
Cai: Discusses a public campaign saying YOU SHOULD PUT UP SIGNS TO NOT ALLOW GUNS
Bumb: NOT THAT YOU SHOULD – THAT YOU MAY!
Cai: They can provide historical analgues for PI
Bumb> That’s about poaching – you’re ignoring the title!
Cai: Poaching is just one part
Bumb: State says you have it and you haven’t given it to me. What are you hiding? Give it to me!
It’s unfortunate – I keep asking for where it is and you keep ignoring it!
Bumb mentions shes hoping to avoid the colonial vs reconstructionist argument

• 
  
• Quote

 

[Jerzee Transplant]

Interestingly, the Dem NJ Senate president and speaker of the Assembly (House of Del equivalent) execute a “motion to intervene” in these combined cases. Unusual for legislature to do when their party also holds the governor and AG offices:

 

[Jerzee Transplant]

And another 2A supporter’s notes:

NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

www.njgunforums.com

 

[md_rick_o]

And notes from today’s Siegel hearing in front of Judge Bumb. Compliments of DirtyDigz on NJ Gunforums:

• 
  
• 
  
• Quote

HOLY CRAP, When someone said CAI got hammered they weren't kidding.

 

[press1280]

Interestingly, the Dem NJ Senate president and speaker of the Assembly (House of Del equivalent) execute a “motion to intervene” in these combined cases. Unusual for legislature to do when their party also holds the governor and AG offices:

It is odd, but this is NJ, so I expect the legislature to just try to repeat everything the AG said but do it in a different way, thinking if 2 parties make the argument it's better than one.

 

[lazarus]

Maybe my favorite line from that.

Cai: Discusses a public campaign saying YOU SHOULD PUT UP SIGNS TO NOT ALLOW GUNS
Bumb: NOT THAT YOU SHOULD – THAT YOU MAY!

Ouch, that is one mad judge.

 

[Jerzee Transplant]

Maybe my favorite line from that.

Cai: Discusses a public campaign saying YOU SHOULD PUT UP SIGNS TO NOT ALLOW GUNS
Bumb: NOT THAT YOU SHOULD – THAT YOU MAY!

Ouch, that is one mad judge.

Yes. That is definitely my favorite: “may” not “should”. These leftists can’t help but give themselves away. I’d like to play poker with them.

 

[adit]