NJ Sensitive Places Restrictions

[John_M52]

Just heard from a friend in NJ. Bill pending there to essentially neuter the Bruen decision - No carry in sensitive areas like private property that does not post signage allowing it. No carry in your car. No carry at public gatherings. Firearm has to be in a holster with a retention strap (no purse, briefcase, pocket, waistband). Mandatory liability insurance. Etc etc. They will all be challenged in time, at a lot of expense and over several years.

 

[Bozz10mm]

New Jersey wins the "Thumb your nose at the supreme court" contest, barely beating out New York. They took the worst from the anti 2A states and added a few of their own.

 

[stansdds]

Where are these carry requirements in the constitution? I looked and I cannot find it!

 

[mistermills357]

These are exciting times for gun owners in a lot of ways, because here in America, gun banners are on the ropes. It may not look that way, but they are, and they will continue losing their shirts.

I hope that I live to see rabid anti-gunners in NJ and NY go to prison, for breaking the natural law, of self- defense. And I mean people in the government, getting jail time.

 

[bushmaster1313]

These are exciting times for gun owners in a lot of ways, because here in America, gun banners are on the ropes. It may not look that way, but they are, and they will continue losing their shirts.

I hope that I live to see rabid anti-gunners in NJ and NY go to prison, for breaking the natural law, of self- defense. And I mean people in the government, getting jail time.

Government officials and employees can get big jail time for criminal conspiracy to deny people their Constitutional rights under color of law. But it takes two things: 1) truly egregious behavior by government officials and 2) a Department of Justice run by people who believe in the Constitution as written.

We have item 1
We need to elect item 2

 

[smoothshooter]

Just heard from a friend in NJ. Bill pending there to essentially neuter the Bruen decision - No carry in sensitive areas like private property that does not post signage allowing it. No carry in your car. No carry at public gatherings. Firearm has to be in a holster with a retention strap (no purse, briefcase, pocket, waistband). Mandatory liability insurance. Etc etc. They will all be challenged in time, at a lot of expense and over several years.

Is anybody surprised?
But most NJ residents will be okay with this anyway.

 

[smoothshooter]

These are exciting times for gun owners in a lot of ways, because here in America, gun banners are on the ropes. It may not look that way, but they are, and they will continue losing their shirts.

I hope that I live to see rabid anti-gunners in NJ and NY go to prison, for breaking the natural law, of self- defense. And I mean people in the government, getting jail time.

Neither you nor I will live long enough to see that, even if you are in your twenties.

 

[vt_shooter]

It's a shame there is no legal or financial liability for politicians that intentionally deprive others of their Constitutional rights.

 

[MattLarmore]

What is even worse is the law makers in NJ are so stupid in the rush to control guns, that they essentially banned EVERYTHING that could be "readily use for deadly force." It really is pathetic to watch.

 

[dockmurgw]

I hope that I live to see rabid anti-gunners in NJ and NY go to prison, for breaking the natural law, of self- defense. And I mean people in the government, getting jail time.

I would like the other 48 states included...including FLORIDA...but hey, it's fun to hate NY and NJ.

 

[WR Moore]

That kinda depends upon your state. For ages, Pennsylvania has had a charge of "Official Oppression". Defined as "Acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity.... if, knowing that his conduct is illegal he:

2. denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity."

 

[pharmer]

These are exciting times for gun owners in a lot of ways, because here in America, gun banners are on the ropes.

At the moment they are feverishly "arming up." Even the stupid can learn from mistakes, sometimes. NJ on the other hand cannot. Joe

 

[John Patrick]

What is even worse is the law makers in NJ are so stupid in the rush to control guns, that they essentially banned EVERYTHING that could be "readily use for deadly force." It really is pathetic to watch.

There go the kitchen knives…

Carpenters, turn in your hammers…

Plumbers, turn in your wrenches…

I think that might meet any reasonable court’s definition of “over broad.”

 

[John Patrick]

That kinda depends upon your state. For ages, Pennsylvania has had a charge of "Official Oppression". Defined as "Acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity.... if, knowing that his conduct is illegal he:

2. denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity."

There is a federal version. Can’t recall the title number, but generally referred to as deprivation of civil rights under cover of authority. Not pursued often enough, imo.

Comey, et al and their actions wrt Carter Page, for example.

There are both criminal and civil sides of the law. Civil side allows damages, maybe punitive damages.

 

[WR Moore]

Just this minute I can't recall it either. One of (IIRC) 5 USC sections passed during reconstruction to provide a hammer to force recognition of the rights of recently freed slaves. Dealt with anyone who, under color of law (had the power of the state), infringed civil rights. Not sure that passing a law qualifies.

[42 USC 1890-1895? Think '95 is the one you're thinking of.]

 

[John Patrick]

Google says that’s the Sherman anti-trust law.

I think it under USC section 18. Will employ Google-foo.

Edit: Title 18 USC, section 242:
“acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.”

Civil side:

Title 42 USCA, section 1983:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”

Conservative public interest law firms ought to start using the civil side.

 

[mauser9]

Seems to be getting worse by the minute in that state. Would hate to be stuck there. Probably got draconian laws concerning knives too!

 

[bushmaster1313]

Seems to be getting worse by the minute in that state. Would hate to be stuck there. Probably got draconian laws concerning knives too!

NJ has a law about dirks, daggers and the dreaded slingshot
This law, along with New Jersey’s Assault Weapons Ban, have eliminated from the Garden State all:

Drive by dirkings
Mick Daggerings
Mass slingshottings
Assault barrel shroudimgs
Gang related pistol grippings and
Lethal bayonet luggings

 

[WR Moore]

Google says that’s the Sherman anti-trust law.

Civil side:

Title 42 USCA, section 1983:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”

Conservative public interest law firms ought to start using the civil side.

AH HA- that's the section I was thinkin of and couldn't recall. Memory ain't what it used to be, I swapped the 8 & 9. The 5 USC code sections enacted for reconstruction were 1980-1985. Civil actions against many LEOs/LEAs are generally termed "title 83" suits.

 

[Borderboss]

Just heard from a friend in NJ. Bill pending there to essentially neuter the Bruen decision - No carry in sensitive areas like private property that does not post signage allowing it. No carry in your car. No carry at public gatherings. Firearm has to be in a holster with a retention strap (no purse, briefcase, pocket, waistband). Mandatory liability insurance. Etc etc. They will all be challenged in time, at a lot of expense and over several years.

It'll take under a year to overcome this in court. The federal district courts have got their marching orders from SCOTUS and so far they're following them no matter what state you look at.