I fire my carry all the time… at the range 
That’s because you’re special … you send threads to the 1A dungeon where only a small minority of members can see them 
2 Likes
The stream is here:
Should start at 9am
1 Like
Got caught up in work but arguments are in progress.
FPC tweet thread of proceedings:
SAF tweet thread of proceedings:
Listened to the whole thing.
Angela Cai came out the gate with lies and made up interperetations.
Erin Murphy hit it out of the park.
Pete Patterson went full send and said what we wanted to say - Any location that is “sensitive” should be already protected by the government - and that truly vulnerable places that weren’t secured (such as churches/places of worship) had REQUIRED carry for those who were legally able to do so.
One judge asked why NY, Hawaii and NJ went wrong with their interpretations - Paterson answered (with polite language) that they adopted too-loose analysis (e.g. “Crowded places”)…
We all know the answer was that the panels were all anti-2A previously.
3 Likes
https://x.com/NewJerseyOAG/status/2021657668767596788#m
https://xcancel.com/NewJerseyOAG/status/2021657668767596788#m
And the NJ OAG is the arbiter of common sense?
Was just going thru the comments and saw this from Mark W Smith and its encouraging; I think they know they are going to lose hence that new stupid law of discharging a firearm anywhere….
1 Like
one prediction I have should the sensitive place law is found unconstitutional, Our interpretation of a sensitive place is a government guarded location with controlled limited access such as a courtROOM that is guarded by uniformed sheriffs deputies or something close to that. I predict that the commies will claim that a town, county or state is guarded by their sworn police department and again were back to court. we know from Bruin that they cant make everywhere sensitive but when has a SC decision in our favor ever stopped them from knowingly implementing an unconstitutional law. they will claim that their are undercover cops on public transportation therefore in their perverted minds its guarded.. they already have crafted all their rebuttal laws depending on the scope of the ruling so be ready. anyone have a timeline for a ruling, Cam and co. seems to think 3-4 months.
Audio replay of yesterday’s en banc hearing:
(The background noise/paper shuffling heard at the very beginning does settle down as the hearing progresses)
1 Like
Nothing stopping them from attempting that, however there is SCOTUS precedent that police forces have no duty to provide individual protection:
AI:
The key U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) case establishing that police have no general constitutional duty to provide protection to individuals from harm (even when aware of a specific risk) is Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005).
In Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), the Court ruled 7–2 that a woman whose estranged husband violated a restraining order (which led to him murdering their three children) could not sue the police department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce the order and protect her/family. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion, holding that:
- There is no constitutionally protected property interest (under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment) in police enforcement of a restraining order.
- Even if state law appeared to mandate enforcement, police retain discretion, and such laws do not create an individual entitlement to protection enforceable via federal due process claims.
- The Due Process Clause generally does not require government officials to protect citizens from private violence or harm.
1 Like
The process is the punishment.
The Mom’s report:
Moms Demand Action volunteers from all over New Jersey gathered this morning in Philadelphia to listen to oral arguments in front of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.
Once again, New Jersey’s “Sensitive Places” firearm ban is being challenged, and today the Third Circuit Court of Appeals heard full bench arguments (en banc) on a previous three-judge panel decision which upheld NJ’s “Sensitive Places”, reflecting the significance of the constitutional questions involved and potential for a precedent setting decision.
A core component of our work, is advocating for common-sense laws and policies to make New Jersey more safe from gun violence. If you would like to get involved with our state legislative team, please text COMMIT to 644-33 and fill out our volunteer interest form.
To stay up to date on all that we do, download the Demand Action App and enable your notifications. We hope to see you soon!
Imagine if we had an AG office rep who would pose with our side…
… I cannot do justice here to this massive study, which is 83 pages single-spaced. Suffice it to say that it is invaluable for documenting the historical fact that governments provided armed protection for spaces that today would be called “sensitive places.” Without armed protection by the state, a “gun-free” zone is not consistent with “this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” and the Second Amendment’s default rule applies that the people have a right to bear arms in such places. …
1 Like
So, it seems Trenton is doing the same thing to ICE as they are doing to CCW holders. NJ has banned ICE from all state owned property, schools and manufactured other sensitive places.
Angela Cai is withdrawing as a litigator for NJ so she can join Platkin’s new private practice: