ANJRPC and Koons Lawsuit Update

[DJ0808]

Don't forget that oral arguments for the PI are Friday Mar 17th at the federal courthouse in Camden.

I'm off that day and plan on being there for them.

As a side note Judge Bumb just issued an order telling the intervening attorneys for Scutari and Coughlin if they want to participate in Oral arguments they need to be in the courtroom on March 17th because one of them was asking if he could phone it in from Florida. I'm thinking after the state's little failed stunt of threatening to go over Judge Bumb's head and appeal the TRO if she didn't speed the case along, they have worn out any leeway she would give them in this case.

Edited March 15, 2023 by DJ0808

[hostak126]

TEXT ORDER The Court, sua sponte, modifies its March 15, 2023, Text Order on participating in oral argument virtually (ECF No. 112). Oral argument will not be broadcast virtually. Any party presenting oral argument must appear in person. The Court will broadcast oral argument by audio conferencing. Individuals seeking to listen to the oral argument may call the Court's audio conference system at 1-888-684-8852, Access Code: 2234999#.

So Ordered by Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 03/16/2023.

(Costigan, Roberta) (Entered: 03/16/2023)

If you can't make it and want to listen in we have a phone conference number to call into and passcode above

[DJ0808]

I was indeed able to be in courtroom for today's hearing. It was great that in addition to seeing the arguments live I also got to talk some with Dan Schmutter, David Jensen, and some of the plaintiffs during and after the hearing.

I think overall we had a good day, albeit some people are being a little critical of Jensen's presentation in the beginning, however talking with him some after the hearing I understand where he was going with regards to no carry in schools not being as clearcut in Bruen as we think it is.

He's arguing there has to be more than just an association with children if you want to universally ban carry 24hrs a day at school buildings because once the children aren't there in school that building doesn't necessarily fall under presumptively sensitive places (i.e. courts, legislative assemblies, and polling places) since it can be used for other non-child specific events (meetings, clubs, etc.) that wouldn't be subject to a blanket no-carry. This is why he was indicating Bruen didn't explicitly mean schools are always going to be sensitive places. It's unfortunate his argument didn't come out that way today and I think Judge Bumb took it as him saying Bruen was wrong, but after talking with him I agree it's still a very valid argument the court should consider and believe this will get fleshed out during the case at some point.

Ms. Cai definitely struggled on the transportation hub issue because she could not define what a transportation hub is, and I think Judge Bumb was of the opinion of how can you ban carry at transportation hubs if you can't define them. Also I don't think she satisfactorily addressed the issue of places where the state is acting as a private proprietor and not a government entity. It seemed judge Bumb was not liking the state's view that when acting as a private proprietor they could define what is a crime in that property, yet a private citizen can not define what is a crime on their property. An analogy to this would be the state acting in the capacity of a private proprietor of a stadium (i.e. owner of the stadium) could make it a felony crime to wear red in the stadium, but I cannot make it a felony to wear red in my private business.

Ms. Reilly trying to defend the fees and their increases was a bit absurd. The state was trying to argue the fees aren't a 2A issue because they are not required to exercise 2A rights (which everyone in the courtroom collectively went "huh???"), however Judge Bumb shot back questioning how is this not a 2A issue if can't buy or carry a gun without paying the fees. Another interesting thing Ms. Reilly said was that although the fees are currently going to the Violent Crimes Victims fund, the legislature could at a later point in time reroute them to something else of the legislature's choosing. Not sure where she was going with this, but it raised some eyebrows.

Then we got to Mr. Kologi representin Scutari and Coughlin. Let me start off that based on some comments I heard him make in the foyer before we went into the courtroom he didn't seem to really want to be there and it was an inconvenience to him, but his Dem cronies wanted him there so he was. In the courtroom he came across as arrogant and flippant especially when starting his presentation based on his tone of voice and body language. It seemed like he's used to being the head honcho in the room and I could see Judge Bumb was visibly getting irritated with him. Another thing is he kept saying a guns only purpose is to kill and injure, while judge Bumb kept adding "and defend someone." In the end I don't think he made an impact on the state's arguments other than to reinforce that the state views criminals and lawful gun owners as one in the same, and the state doesn't want anyone to have guns.

Still sifting thru my notes, but these were the highlights.

Edited March 18, 2023 by DJ0808

[Greg]

Thanks for the update.

[mazzgolf]

1 hour ago, DJ0808 said:

the state views criminals and lawful gun owners as one in the same, and the state doesn't want anyone to have guns.

And there's all you needed to say to sum up everything else.

[DJ0808]

28 minutes ago, mazzgolf said:

And there's all you needed to say to sum up everything else.

Trying to remember Judge Bumb's exact quote to Mr. Kologi, but it went along the lines of something like "I get it...the state doesn't want anyone to have guns."

It was great watching 40+ heads simultaneously nod in agreement as if to say "thank you your honor for calling it what it is."

[DJ0808]

Another interesting exchange I forgot to mention was about the casinos. Judge Bumb brought up Dan Schmutter's filing about all 9 casinos simultaneously deciding to ban guns presumably under pressure from the Dept of Gaming Enforcement (DGE).  

Ms. Cai was saying the casinos decided as private entities on their own to simultaneously ban with no influence from the DGE. Judge Bumb asked about the communications between the DGE director and the casino association right before the casinos banned, Ms. Cai doubled down that the DGE wouldn't try to influence a casino and the communications where just to say "Hey what are the casinos going to do?"

Judge literally rolled her eyes and said "Ok...", as in don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining moment.

Pretty sure the TRO regarding casino carry is going to roll into a PI. 

Also based on other exchanges in the hearing regarding security at public places such as airports, stadiums, and zoos, there's a possibility casinos may not be able to enforce a ban if they're not going to use metal detectors and armed security. 

[hostak126]

Brief's from the Plaintiffs and State both dropped today 3/27. We now await for the opinion from Judge Bumb.

Plaintiff's

Koons

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.123.0.pdf

Siegel

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.122.0.pdf

Defense

Scutari/Coughlin

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.121.0.pdf

Platkin/Callahan

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66677437/119/koons-v-reynolds/

Angela Cai - Defense

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66677437/120/koons-v-reynolds/

 

The Platkin/Callahan link is to a...dictionary

 

[Bucndoe]

On 3/18/2023 at 8:00 AM, DJ0808 said:

Another interesting exchange I forgot to mention was about the casinos. Judge Bumb brought up Dan Schmutter's filing about all 9 casinos simultaneously deciding to ban guns presumably under pressure from the Dept of Gaming Enforcement (DGE).  

Ms. Cai was saying the casinos decided as private entities on their own to simultaneously ban with no influence from the DGE. Judge Bumb asked about the communications between the DGE director and the casino association right before the casinos banned, Ms. Cai doubled down that the DGE wouldn't try to influence a casino and the communications where just to say "Hey what are the casinos going to do?"

Judge literally rolled her eyes and said "Ok...", as in don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining moment.

Pretty sure the TRO regarding casino carry is going to roll into a PI. 

Also based on other exchanges in the hearing regarding security at public places such as airports, stadiums, and zoos, there's a possibility casinos may not be able to enforce a ban if they're not going to use metal detectors and armed security. 

The New Jersey State Police is the security at the casinos. No one, even other law enforcement, except them are permitted to carry on the casino floor. It has been that way since long before the Bruen case became an issue.

[vdep217]

4 minutes ago, Bucndoe said:

The New Jersey State Police is the security at the casinos. No one, even other law enforcement, except them are permitted to carry on the casino floor. It has been that way since long before the Bruen case became an issue.

But a restraining order was inacted by Judge bum questioning the constitutionality of it.  The casinos themselves right now have implemented a no gun policy.  It also looks like they may have been in cahoots with the state doing so.  Wich if true is no different than you or I bribing an official

Edited March 28, 2023 by vdep217

[Bucndoe]

8 minutes ago, vdep217 said:

But a restraining order was inacted by Judge bum questioning the constitutionality of it.  The casinos themselves right now have implemented a no gun policy.  It also looks like they may have been in cahoots with the state doing so.  Wich if true is no different than you or I bribing an official

It has been that way for a long time and will not change. No civilian will ever carry a gun on any casino floor in NJ. The State Police are there in force and no one knows they are there

Edited March 28, 2023 by Bucndoe

[Lunatic]

Thank you very much for the update 

[vdep217]

6 minutes ago, Bucndoe said:

It has been that way for a long time and will not change. No civilian will ever carry a gun on any casino floor in NJ. The State Police are there in force and no one knows they are there

Hate to say it but it already happened. Between the tro and the announcement by casinos.   That's a fact.  Now that they invoked private property rights of no guns it nay not again.

Edited March 28, 2023 by vdep217

[Bucndoe]

6 minutes ago, vdep217 said:

Hate to say it but it already happened. Between the tro and the announcement by casinos.   That's a fact.  Now that they invoked private property rights of no guns it nay not again.

Good luck with that. Put your passion aside and try very hard to apply common sense and reason and think about it logically. A casino floor is not a Wawa

Edited March 28, 2023 by Bucndoe

[vdep217]

13 minutes ago, Bucndoe said:

Good luck with that. Put your passion aside and try very hard to apply common sense and reason and think about it logically. A casino floor is not a Wawa

You are correct it's not a wawa.  I conceded that them invoking property rights ended it and it probably will not change.  Weather one likes it or not if it is ruled unconstitutional to prohibit ccw on a casino floor the only thing to stop it would be them evoking property rights of wich they have.  

I do believe if the pi is granted the Casio aspect will not be pursued further for reasons you mention.  As for passion about it just because we don't like somthing that is constitutional shouldn't make it wrong.

  Most states you can not carry in a casino but not by state statute its by the casinos evoking private property rights 

Edited March 28, 2023 by vdep217