ANJRPC and Koons Lawsuit Update

[hostak126]

If the casinos post no firearms signs you can still enter the casino armed, but you'll be trespassing at that point. If a business posts those no firearms signs they're within their right to do so. Just as much as it's my right to refuse to enter a casino.

[Lunatic]

1 hour 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

I actually don't see a difference when considering 2nd amendment. 
 

[Bucndoe]

3 hours ago, Lunatic said:

I actually don't see a difference when considering 2nd amendment. 
 

People see what they want to see while sometimes not seeing the forest between the trees. 

The Bruen ruling and the current lawsuits did nothing to effect the carrying of a firearm on a casino floor. It was always banned to anyone, except the NJSP and always will be no matter how the other issues are litigated. They are privately owned and don't want them there. Most people are probably thinking this is new due to the location issues being raised in the current litigation.

Some people's passion for allowing civilian carry isn't allowing them to recognize that  the casino issue isn't effecting or hindering their carrying. Off Duty Law Enforcement can't carry there either, never could. The passion seems to block the fact that booze, money, and guns is a recipe for disaster that can be easily avoided by taking one factor out of the equation. 

 

[vdep217]

12 minutes ago, Bucndoe said:

People see what they want to see while sometimes not seeing the forest between the trees. 

The Bruen ruling and the current lawsuits did nothing to effect the carrying of a firearm on a casino floor. It was always banned to anyone, except the NJSP and always will be no matter how the other issues are litigated. They are privately owned and don't want them there. Most people are probably thinking this is new due to the location issues being raised in the current litigation.

Some people's passion for allowing civilian carry isn't allowing them to recognize that  the casino issue isn't effecting or hindering their carrying. Off Duty Law Enforcement can't carry there either, never could. The passion seems to block the fact that booze, money, and guns is a recipe for disaster that can be easily avoided by taking one factor out of the equation. 

 

I see it and I don't disagree with you toatally.  But if one is not drinking it is no different than carrying at a restaurant that serves alcohol. Where I do disagree is you say it was never allowed but the fact is it was when the TRO was issued against enforcement of the sensitive places that casinos were a part of.  For roughly 2 weeks you were allowed to carry in a casino until the casinos envoked private property rights.  There were no issues during those 2 weeks with legal permit holders.

Edited March 28, 2023 by vdep217

[Lunatic]

6 minutes ago, Bucndoe said:

People see what they want to see while sometimes not seeing the forest between the trees. 

The Bruen ruling and the current lawsuits did nothing to effect the carrying of a firearm on a casino floor. It was always banned to anyone, except the NJSP and always will be no matter how the other issues are litigated. They are privately owned and don't want them there. Most people are probably thinking this is new due to the location issues being raised in the current litigation.

Some people's passion for allowing civilian carry isn't allowing them to recognize that  the casino issue isn't effecting or hindering their carrying. Off Duty Law Enforcement can't carry there either, never could. The passion seems to block the fact that booze, money, and guns is a recipe for disaster that can be easily avoided by taking one factor out of the equation. 

 

I simply stated I don't see the difference between wawa and casino when it comes to 2nd -you stated there is. You said no need for cops at casino's because the place is crawling with police. Our 2nd amendment is in place to give us ability to fight tyranny and its enforcement arm like police and military. All this other stuff you are talking about has zero to do with my statement or the trees and forest

[Bucndoe]

2 minutes ago, Lunatic said:

I simply stated I don't see the difference between wawa and casino when it comes to 2nd -you stated there is. You said no need for cops at casino's because the place is crawling with police. Our 2nd amendment is in place to give us ability to fight tyranny and its enforcement arm like police and military. All this other stuff you are talking about has zero to do with my statement or the trees and forest

Your statement was very general and I didn’t understand what you were implying. If you would have posted the first sentence that you did above, this dope would have understood what you were referring to

[Lunatic]

9 minutes ago, Bucndoe said:

Your statement was very general and I didn’t understand what you were implying. If you would have posted the first sentence that you did above, this dope would have understood what you were referring to

Its all good, don't sweat it, I was not very clear!

Edited March 28, 2023 by Lunatic

[Sako76]

Why are the State Police providing security at the casinos?  Do they provide security for banks?

[DJ0808]

So something to keep in mind with no guns allowed due to being a "sensitive" place vs no guns allowed by request of the owner of an establishment, is how someone carrying in these places would be charged.

Judge Bumb specifically asked the state how someone would potentially be charged based on the above, the state said if it's in a listed "sensitive" place it could be a felony, if it's in a non-sensitive place an owner just puts up a "no guns" sign it would be trespassing if the person refused to leave when asked.

So under the TRO if you carry in a casino it's trespassing if you refuse to leave, without the TRO blocking casinos as being a "sensitive" place it could be a felony just for carrying there.

Judge Bumb asked the state several times about this with regards to different "sensitive" locations she issued TROs on. She seemed to be more accepting to places saying "no guns" and it being trespassing if you refuse to leave, but was troubled by a wholesale listing of places as "sensitive" just so felony charges could be used. She was also not happy with a default "no carry" on private property and even mentioned that doesn't requiring people to post "guns allowed" put their neighbors that don't at higher risk for violence because criminals will more likely go to properties without the "guns allowed" signs. She followed this up with wouldn't it be a better crime deterrent if criminals didn't know what properties had guns in them? 

The state tried to play it off that properties allowing guns didn't need to necessarily post a sign, they could also email people or post it on a website. Judge Bumb just kinda scoffed at that and asked are they supposed to email every person they know and say feel free to bring your guns. 

[Bucndoe]

5 hours ago, Sako76 said:

Why are the State Police providing security at the casinos?  Do they provide security for banks?

Casino Gaming Bureau Unit is responsible for everything that occurs in the NJ casinos. They have a presence in every one of them

Edited March 29, 2023 by Bucndoe

[hostak126]

We are still waiting on an opinion from Judge Bumb. No idea when she will release her opinion on the matter as it's been almost a month since the injunction briefs were filed on 3/27.

The AWB and Magazine cases are still being held up as well. Their probably waiting for the PI judgements from Koons before moving forward with the AWD and Mag cases.

[hostak126]

Preliminary Injunction GRANTED on a number of key issues!!!! PI also wasn't granted on some of the case. Full opinion below, begin at page 24. This is 230 pages!

 

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.anjrpc.org/resource/resmgr/legal_motions___briefs/carry_suit_docs/doc_124_-_051623_-_opinion.pdf

 

gov.uscourts.njd.506033.125.0_1.pdf

Edited May 16, 2023 by hostak126

[hostak126]

And this is the States Appeal to the third circuit

119119889564.pdf

Edited May 16, 2023 by hostak126

[mazzgolf]

I just scanned it, but this isn't a slam dunk victory for gun rights supporters. Get ready for the state to impose new, larger fees, not only for carry, but for  FID and purchase-permits as this ruling opened the door for this -- I'm talking, into the hundreds and possibly into the thousands of dollars.

And the permitting scheme seems largely untouched (other than requiring your references to have to be interviewed in-person, requiring "other" additional info the state decides it wants to ask for, and the insurance mandate). But this ruling allows for requiring 4 references (not of blood relation) to submit written referrals as well as all the other stuff like fingerprinting, background checks, etc. etc.

I'm actually disappointed in this ruling. It sucks.

Someone can feel free to correct me.

Quote

 

In Bruen, the Court observed that licensing schemes that require “exorbitant fees” that “deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry” may be subject to constitutional attack. 142 S. Ct. at 2138 n.9. While Bruen provided no guidance on when a fee would be “exorbitant,” this Court doubts Chapter 131’s new fees are unconstitutionally impermissible. Before Bruen, the Second Circuit found New York’s $340 fee to obtain a handgun license did not violate the Second Amendment. Kwong, 723 F.3d at 169. In the First Amendment context, several courts have upheld permit fees higher than Chapter 131’s fees. See, e.g., 729, Inc. v. Kenton Cnty. Fiscal Ct., 402 F. App’x 131, 133 (6th Cir. 2011) (rejecting “argument that the $3,000 licensing fee for businesses unconstitutionally deters the exercise of First Amendment rights”); Coal. for the Abolition of Marijuana Prohibition v. City of Atlanta, 219 F.3d 1301, 1323–24 (11th Cir. 2000) (holding festival permit fees ranging from $95 to $6,500 depending on the size of the festival to be constitutionally permissible).

The Siegel Plaintiffs’ attempt to show that Chapter 131’s fees are impermissible given other jurisdictions’ fees is unavailing. [Siegel Post-Argument Br. at 3–5 (Docket No. 122).] That other jurisdictions charge significantly less fees than New Jersey for firearm licenses does not make Chapter 131’s new fees unconstitutional. Kwong, 723 F.3d at 166 (rejecting argument that other jurisdictions charge less for firearm permits because that “is simply not the test for assessing the validity of a license fee”); see also 729, 402 F. App’x at 133. Case 1:22-cv-07464-RMB-AMD Document 124 Filed 05/16/23 Page 74 of 235 PageID: 3950 70

While this Court questions the merits of the Siegel Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment challenge to Chapter 131’s new fees, this Court will reserve on that challenge pending an evidentiary hearing. This Court will deny the Siegel Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on Chapter 131’s new fees.

 

 

[vdep217]

18 minutes ago, mazzgolf said:

I just scanned it, but this isn't a slam dunk victory for gun rights supporters. Get ready for the state to impose new, larger fees, not only for carry, but for  FID and purchase-permits as this ruling opened the door for this -- I'm talking, into the hundreds and possibly into the thousands of dollars.

And the permitting scheme seems largely untouched (other than requiring your references to have to be interviewed in-person, requiring "other" additional info the state decides it wants to ask for, and the insurance mandate). But this ruling allows for requiring 4 references (not of blood relation) to submit written referrals as well as all the other stuff like fingerprinting, background checks, etc. etc.

I'm actually disappointed in this ruling. It sucks.

Someone can feel free to correct me.

 

She didnt rule because plantifs couldn't show immediate harm as they already have permit.  I have faith the fees will fall as according to bruen can't exceed what the average person can afford

Reserving judgment might be an attempt to ensure the ruling stands the 3rd circuit and ultimately scotus.  I remember 4boxes talking of that to make sure of a more steadfast sound ruling

Edited May 16, 2023 by vdep217