Opinion
New Jersey – -(AmmoLand.com)- In only what could be described as a conspiracy against the citizens of New Jersey, there have been rumors and confirmed cases of judges in certain counties placing ridiculous and unconstitutional restrictions on some of the permits to carry that are being issued. Recently I reported about Francisco v. Cooke over at Bearing Arms, and covered one of the only permits to carry that I’m aware of being issued in Monmouth County, Francisco’s.
The permit was issued probably begrudgingly because a higher court told the lower they needed to revisit it in the light of NYSRPA v. Bruen. Francisco’s case still has live injury claims, and they intend to move forward, but the issuance of his permit only further opened Pandora’s box of infringement. Instead of issuing a normal unrestricted permit, or one relegated to the firearms Francisco provided proof of ownership of, he was issued a permit that essentially gave him fewer privileges than not having one would.
All this news, of course, comes at the heels of reporting that permits to carry are being issued in New Jersey. As reported previously here at AmmoLand News, we confirmed the issuance of two permits to carry by interviewing recipients, and vetting them. I also looked deeper at the restrictions being placed on permits to carry over at Bearing Arms. Since the decision has been handed down by the High Court, people have been scrambling to get issued their permits, and there’s been no shortage of newsworthy rumors.
What’s not a rumor, though, is that the court order that Francisco was issued with his permit to carry in Monmouth County closely resembles a court order that’s circulating online from neighboring Ocean County. I did get verbal confirmation from a trusted source that the Ocean County order is real and that equally egregious restrictions are being placed on permits to carry there. All to equally…
I talked to one source, a permit to carry recipient from Ocean County who wishes to remain anonymous, and they told me that there’s another rumor circulating. While myself and my contact have yet to verify this information, the rumor is that Ocean County is allegedly sending out letters, or going to, to permit to carry recipients that received non-restricted permits that they’re going to be issued a new permit and accompanying court order that matches the highly restricted one. Another online rumor, completely unverified, stated that these restrictions are going to become the standard in how everyone receives their permits in New Jersey.
Looking at the verified Francisco court order and the confirmed Ocean County order, we have the following places where carry is restricted:
| Monmouth County Restrictions | Ocean County Restrictions |
| Schools/Educational Institutions | Schools/Educational Institutions |
| Government buildings | Government buildings |
| Legislative assemblies | Legislative assemblies |
| Polling places | Polling places |
| Courthouses | Courthouses |
| Shopping malls (if restricted by the private entity | Shopping malls (if restricted by the private entity) |
| Private property/businesses (if restricted by the private entity | Private property/businesses (if restricted by the private entity) |
| Bars and nightclubs | Bars and nightclubs |
| Any location where alcohol is served or any facility with a license for on-premises cannabis consumption | Any location where alcohol is served or any facility with a license for on-premises cannabis consumption |
| Any place or time that a permit holder is ingesting any intoxicating substance, regardless of whether the permit holder is actually intoxicated, impaired, or under the influence | Any place or time that a permit holder is ingesting any intoxicating substance, regardless of whether the permit holder is actually intoxicated, impaired, or under the influence |
| Also, while any permit holder who is operating or riding in a motor vehicle, the handgun must be stored in the trunk and unloaded pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6(g) | Also, no permit holder who is operating or riding in or on a motor vehicle may carry a firearm (with regard to motor vehicles, any firearms must be stored in the trunk and unloaded pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C-39-6(g)) |
| Any place where carrying a firearm is prohibited by federal, state, or local law. | Any place where carrying a firearm is prohibited by federal law |
Those are the core restrictions that were placed on the Monmouth County and Ocean County orders. Looking over them, they sure do look substantially identical, don’t they? With the exception of a few dropped parentheses and a little extra English being placed on Ocean’s order concerning transport in a car, these orders are the same.
There’s clearly a conspiracy against our civil liberties transpiring; it’s just a matter of where is this coming from and who’s exactly behind it. Is this just a couple of judges who happen to hang out at the same country club trading ideas? Or is this a bigger scheme?
Regardless, the cavalier nature of the orders being nearly identical tips the hand that there is communication about how to restrict people’s rights. These identical orders are big bread crumbs that are going to target parties as co-conspirators.
The NYSRPA v. Buen order from the Supreme Court of the United States, in case someone in New Jersey needs to be reminded that the order came from THE SCOTUS, clearly outlines that such sensitive place restrictions are unconstitutional. These court orders directly go against the spirit of NYSRPA.
To be clear, even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster. For example, courts can use analogies to “longstanding” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” to determine whether modern regulations are constitutionally permissible. Id., at 626. That said, respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department. Pp. 17–22.
The orders seem to be trying to make everywhere a gun owner may go a sensitive place, aside from the guidelines being unsafe on how one’s supposed to arm themselves when they’re at their destination…strapping their pistol to their hip after loading it in some supermarket parking lot, in clear view of over-caffeinated Karens itching to call the police and SWAT someone.
Since the orders come from the judges themselves, they do have the power not to follow suit with what might be suggested to them. Being judges, it’s at their discretion how to handle these matters, and how these orders were handled is malarkey.
Further, judges should not be involved in this matter at all (clearly), especially since this is an executive function. While we all know that Governor “gonna try and run for President,” Murphy has a disdain for and loathes firearms and firearm owners; it’s the duty of his Attorney General and his office to ensure these matters are taken care of. The judge needs to be removed from the process. What’s Murphy’s opinion on what kind of restrictions should be placed on permit to carry holders?
Allowing ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons into stores and malls, on mass transit, in daycare centers and hospitals, in polling places, or in bars and restaurants does not make us safer.
And it does not make our police safer as they do their jobs.
A right to carry a concealed weapon is, in actuality, a recipe for tragedy.
…
So, today, I am signing an executive order directing all state departments and agencies to review all statutes, rules, and regulations pertaining to them to determine what steps they can administratively take to prevent gun violence. This includes the ability to designate certain areas as gun-free, as well as their authority to regulate how firearms are carried, transported, or conveyed.Further, while the Supreme Court may have dispensed with common sense, it did affirm the longstanding rules that have prohibited the carrying of firearms in certain sensitive locations, such as schools and government buildings.
…
I look forward to working with my legislative partners to put legislation on my desk to expand the number of places where firearms cannot be carried, including …… Locations where there will be a high density of people, including stadiums and arenas, amusement parks, bars and restaurants where alcohol is served, and public transit, among others.
… Locations with inherently vulnerable populations, such as daycare and child care facilities, hospitals and other health-care centers, and long-term care facilities and nursing homes.
… And buildings where important governmental or First Amendment-protected activities take place, including government buildings and other locations where governmental bodies may meet, polling places, courthouses and police stations, and any places where demonstrations and protests, or licensed gatherings, may occur.
This legislation should also set a default rule that firearms cannot be carried on to private property unless the property owner expressly communicates their permission – whether it be a shopping mall, a supermarket, or simply their own neighbor’s home.
That will protect homeowners and businesses who do not want firearms to proliferate in their homes and stores, while fully respecting everyone’s private property rights.
I’m not going to say the judges read Murphy’s list of desires, but it sure does look like they did, and then some.
The matter of carrying in New Jersey, in particular Monmouth and Ocean Counties, along with other counties not issuing permits at all, is going to unfortunately continue. The next course of action? Hard telling. There are already a number of cases challenging New Jersey’s permit to carry laws, but these restrictions are new developments. These are beyond what many imagined would occur. Whoever’s behind this needs to be held accountable. Someone needs to be held accountable. These orders, Murphy’s desires, and what’s going on stinks with the stench of racketeering and conspiracy.
In my opinion, New Jersey is ripe for some RICO cases to start to fly (as they have been prime for that for decades), in addition to ones targeting these acts as civil rights violations.
“The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion)”
Cases to follow:
The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, along with the National Rifle Association and Coalition of New Jersey Firearms Owners, have challenged NJ’s statute in Mazahreh v. Platkin and is considered the forerunner in the fight to dismantle NJ’s law as well as being favored to win. There’s also a Second Amendment Foundation, and Firearms Policy Coalition supported case, Bennett v. Davis, and there’s a challenge brought on by a New Jersey Second Amendment historian, Jay Factor, who is also challenging New Jersey’s unconstitutional provisions of the law.
For those that are experiencing issues with permitting delays, extra steps to take, or other nonsense from issuing authorities and county courts, reach out to the Association of New Jersey Rifle, and Pistol Clubs Permitting StrikeForce and report your issue: strikeforce@anjrpc.org
About John Petrolino:
John Petrolino is a US Merchant Marine Officer, writer, author of Decoding Firearms: An Easy to Read Guide on General Gun Safety & Use, and NRA-certified pistol, rifle, and shotgun instructor living under and working to change New Jersey’s draconian and unconstitutional gun laws. You can find him on the web at www.johnpetrolino.com on twitter at @johnpetrolino, facebook at @thepenpatriot, and on instagram @jpetrolinoiii .
from https://ift.tt/qCOcLK0
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment