SAF Challange -Judge Grants TRO to NJ Gun Law

[pcfixer]

Second Amendment Foundation

BELLEVUE, WA – A federal judge in New Jersey has granted a temporary restraining order in a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and several co-plaintiffs in a challenge of that state’s new gun control law which criminalizes carry in a vastly expanded set of “s...

www.saf.org

https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/60-Opinion.pdf

 

[djcerna]

Hope Maryland also sees the need for a TRO to Montgomery County's new carry law.

 

[swinokur]

Hopefully the Judge in the Mo Co case reads this

 

[Inigoes]

Hopefully the Judge in the Mo Co case reads this

And Sotomayor

 

[Phoenix_1295]

Question for the lawyers in the house -
Can current precedent (e.g. Koons v Reynolds TRO) be entered in argument in the Montgomery County case or is only historical and current law admissible?

 

[Bertfish]

Guess they could reference it but it's not binding

Question for the lawyers in the house -
Can current precedent (e.g. Koons v Reynolds TRO) be entered in argument in the Montgomery County case or is only historical and current law admissible?

 

[rickyp]

Hopefully charles county sees this as well

 

[csanc123]

Some good nuggets:

"As State Defendants argue, a “hasty injunction would short-circuit the democratic process while the litigation process is underway.”3 [State’s Br. at 2.] This Court concurs, in that no injunction should ever be hastily issued, but Defendants must do more than promise they will justify the constitutional basis for its legislation later. Surely, Defendants had—or should have had—the historical materials and analyses the State relied upon when it began its legislative response to Bruen....."

"That Defendants dedicate a significant portion of their argument discussing the benefits of the firearms regulations and not evidence of historical analogues is quite telling. And although Defendants represent that the “State will offer ample evidence that Chapter 131 is constitutional,” [State’s Br. at 2], they do not adequately explain why—if such evidence was critical to the passage of the legislation that would pass constitutional muster post-Bruen and available to the Legislature as set forth in Section 1(g) of the statute—they have not introduced such evidence here." Haa haa lol

"Certainly, Defendants anticipated challenges to the legislation and should have been better prepared to defend the legislation’s constitutionality." The burn....

"Indeed, the challenged provisions became effective immediately, and there exists no way for Plaintiffs to obtain an exception under the law to avoid a criminal prosecution. This is only further evidence of imminent harm. The State’s demand that Plaintiffs demonstrate a concrete future intent to visit every single one of the statutorily prescribed “sensitive places” is too demanding, especially since some provisions contain catch-alls. (eg....making criminals out of law abiding citizens)

"at oral argument, the Court explored the threat of prosecution and queried whether Defendants would agree not to prosecute a violation under these provisions of the new legislation, but the Defendants would not agree that they would not prosecute Plaintiffs for violations of the newly enacted legislation." (of course....those bastards)

 

[pcfixer]

Some good nuggets:

"As State Defendants argue, a “hasty injunction would short-circuit the democratic process while the litigation process is underway.”3 [State’s Br. at 2.] This Court concurs, in that no injunction should ever be hastily issued, but Defendants must do more than promise they will justify the constitutional basis for its legislation later. Surely, Defendants had—or should have had—the historical materials and analyses the State relied upon when it began its legislative response to Bruen....."

"That Defendants dedicate a significant portion of their argument discussing the benefits of the firearms regulations and not evidence of historical analogues is quite telling. And although Defendants represent that the “State will offer ample evidence that Chapter 131 is constitutional,” [State’s Br. at 2], they do not adequately explain why—if such evidence was critical to the passage of the legislation that would pass constitutional muster post-Bruen and available to the Legislature as set forth in Section 1(g) of the statute—they have not introduced such evidence here." Haa haa lol

"Certainly, Defendants anticipated challenges to the legislation and should have been better prepared to defend the legislation’s constitutionality." The burn....

"Indeed, the challenged provisions became effective immediately, and there exists no way for Plaintiffs to obtain an exception under the law to avoid a criminal prosecution. This is only further evidence of imminent harm. The State’s demand that Plaintiffs demonstrate a concrete future intent to visit every single one of the statutorily prescribed “sensitive places” is too demanding, especially since some provisions contain catch-alls. (eg....making criminals out of law abiding citizens)

"at oral argument, the Court explored the threat of prosecution and queried whether Defendants would agree not to prosecute a violation under these provisions of the new legislation, but the Defendants would not agree that they would not prosecute Plaintiffs for violations of the newly enacted legislation." (of course....those bastards)

NJ is 3rd Circuit- MD is in 4th Circuit.

Quoted is 100% accurate.
(“The denial of a constitutional violation ordinarily warrants a finding of irreparable harm, even when the violation persists for ‘minimal periods’ of time.”)); Hardaway v. Nigrelli, 2022 WL 16646220, at *17 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2022) (same); Antonyuk v. Bruen, 2022 WL 3999791, at *36 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2022) (finding irreparable harm in challenge to New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act based on plaintiff’s “diminished safety in all the locations that he currently carries his concealed handgun that he will not be able to carry it”).

^^^^^^This--Legal Standing ^^^^^

 

[Afrikeber]

The house of 2A suppression of rights is crumbling.

 

[babalou]

The house of 2A suppression of rights is crumbling.

the suspense is terrible

. I hope it lasts.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Hopefully the Judge in the Mo Co case reads this

Hopefully the MGA reads this .

 

[delaware_export]

i like that quote. It’s what .gov uses against regular folk all the time.

“known or should have known”… actually “had or should have had”…

Some good nuggets:

"As State Defendants argue, a “hasty injunction would short-circuit the democratic process while the litigation process is underway.”3 [State’s Br. at 2.] This Court concurs, in that no injunction should ever be hastily issued, but Defendants must do more than promise they will justify the constitutional basis for its legislation later. Surely, Defendants had—or should have had—the historical materials and analyses the State relied upon when it began its legislative response to Bruen....."

"That Defendants dedicate a significant portion of their argument discussing the benefits of the firearms regulations and not evidence of historical analogues is quite telling. And although Defendants represent that the “State will offer ample evidence that Chapter 131 is constitutional,” [State’s Br. at 2], they do not adequately explain why—if such evidence was critical to the passage of the legislation that would pass constitutional muster post-Bruen and available to the Legislature as set forth in Section 1(g) of the statute—they have not introduced such evidence here." Haa haa lol

"Certainly, Defendants anticipated challenges to the legislation and should have been better prepared to defend the legislation’s constitutionality." The burn....

"Indeed, the challenged provisions became effective immediately, and there exists no way for Plaintiffs to obtain an exception under the law to avoid a criminal prosecution. This is only further evidence of imminent harm. The State’s demand that Plaintiffs demonstrate a concrete future intent to visit every single one of the statutorily prescribed “sensitive places” is too demanding, especially since some provisions contain catch-alls. (eg....making criminals out of law abiding citizens)

"at oral argument, the Court explored the threat of prosecution and queried whether Defendants would agree not to prosecute a violation under these provisions of the new legislation, but the Defendants would not agree that they would not prosecute Plaintiffs for violations of the newly enacted legislation." (of course....those bastards)

 

[Afrikeber]

And Sotomayor

I wonder what the justices Sotomayer and Thomas say to each other when they walk by each other in the halls of SCOTUS and other events they attend together.

 

[Bertfish]

Eh 3CA will probably just remove a stay like 2CA did and let this shit roll on

 

[teratos]

Hopefully the MGA reads this .

They won’t care. They’ll pass the same dumb shite. If it gets found unconstitutional, they’ll sleep fine knowing we were inconvenienced and the pro-2A money was spent fighting it.

 

[Inigoes]

I wonder what the justices Sotomayer and Thomas say to each other when they walk by each other in the halls of SCOTUS and other events they attend together.

Hallway sex?

 

[Bob A]

I wonder what the justices Sotomayer and Thomas say to each other when they walk by each other in the halls of SCOTUS and other events they attend together.

I'd be more interested in what they think, but do not say.

 

[owldo]

I wonder what the justices Sotomayer and Thomas say to each other when they walk by each other in the halls of SCOTUS and other events they attend together.

I envision Justice Thomas giving Sotomayor the Raspberries every time they pass !

 

[4g64loser]

I envision Justice Thomas giving Sotomayor the Raspberries every time they pass !

As amusing as the image is, all the writing I've seen and spoken interviews I have heard from Thomas would make that somewhat out of character.