N.J. is seeking tough restrictions for carrying guns in public.

[Defender]

But there is no penalty to them for trying.

I hear you; it will just be more tax dollars that the people of NJ will have to pay so the state can fight for their unconstitutional actions on this issue.

[esh21167]

An insurance requirement would be like a poll tax, the state cannot require you to pay to exercise a constitutional right.

But there is no penalty to them for trying.

And it will be implemented, then lawsuits will come, and maybe 10-15 years later SCOTUS might hear a case. SOP for the POS's. Kind of like if there were, let's say, hypothetically, a $200 tax to own a certain type of firearm...

[Defender]

And it will be implemented, then lawsuits will come, and maybe 10-15 years later SCOTUS might hear a case. SOP for the POS's. Kind of like if there were, let's say, hypothetically, a $200 tax to own a certain type of firearm...

But they say they love the Constitution and all the institutions of government. Isn't that true?

[PASE717]

Sooooo, per their own words, they collaborated with the NRA and Second Amendment Society in regards to this !@#@!. Sure..sure..

[wew3]

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2022...y-restrictions

Thursday, December 22, 2022 N

NRA-ILA Backed Lawsuit Challenges New Jersey’s New Unconstitutional
Carry Restrictions.

This June, in another NRA-ILA backed lawsuit, the United States Supreme
Court handed down a landmark decision establishing that ordinary people
have the right to carry a firearm for self-defense. But it didn’t take
long for states to resist that decision. New York promptly declared the
entire state to be a “sensitive place,” and NRA-ILA promptly filed a
lawsuit challenging that.

New Jersey wasted no time following New York’s lead. In October, another
NRA-ILA backed lawsuit successfully struck New Jersey’s justifiable need
requirement, which was frequently used to deny ordinary citizens their
right to carry a firearm. The state responded by passing A4769, which
declares the entire state to be a sensitive place, increases permit
fees, uses social media posts as grounds to deny permits, and requires
gun owners to acquire insurance that does not appear to exist in the
state. NRA-ILA responded by filing a lawsuit.

“New Jersey has simply changed its approach from one unconstitutional
law that allowed ‘no one’ to carry to another unconstitutional law that
allows one to carry ‘nowhere,’” the lawsuit alleges. “Notwithstanding
the clear ruling of the United States Supreme Court, New Jersey simply
does not want ordinary people to carry handguns in public—as is their
fundamental right to do.”

NRA-ILA looks forward to getting another win vindicating our members
constitutional rights in the Garden State.

The case is captioned Siegel v. Platkin. The NRA’s state affiliate, the
Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, is a Plaintiff in the
case. It was filed in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey.

[JenniferG]

A new slogan for their license plates "The Shithole State" instead of "Garden State".

[father-of-five]

2 New Jersey second amendment groups filed suit within minutes of the Governor signing the bill.

[Qtrborecrazy]

I seen an article where the black community is pitching a bitch about the new law. I*m glad to see the democrats favorite voting block attacking them.

[TSimonetti]

I seen an article where the black community is pitching a bitch about the new law. I*m glad to see the democrats favorite voting block attacking them.

They're just rattling their chains on the Democrat plantation. Their votes aren't up for grabs. They still want their free stuff and they still love their race baiting victim status.

[wew3]

Editorial form the 12/29 WSJ.

New Jersey vs. the Supreme Court on Gun Rights
Gov. Murphy signs a law that defies this year’s ruling in Bruen.

Politicians these days don’t have the respect they once did for the Bill of Rights, and some are defying courts that enforce those rights. That’s the story in New Jersey, where last week Gov. Phil Murphy signed a new law that makes getting a gun carry permit more difficult and expensive and sharply limits the public places where a firearm can be carried.

This is a direct challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court’s June ruling in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen. That decision barred New York’s restrictive regime for gun-carry permits, holding that the right to carry a firearm extends outside a person’s home and is fundamental to the Second Amendment.

Gov. Murphy concedes he’s bound by Bruen though he disagrees with it. But the new law is transparently an exercise in bad faith to complicate the right to bear arms. The law introduces new hassles to gun rights, such as raising the cost of carry permits and requiring liability insurance. But the most egregious provision bans guns in numerous “sensitive places.”

Prohibited areas include courthouses, airports, places where alcohol is served, schools, nursing homes, amusement parks, casinos, public parks, public libraries and museums, and much more. It’s similar to a recent New York law that bans guns in parks, Times Square and subways. Criminals—who don’t obey gun laws—would know they have nothing to fear from someone trying to defend himself in these gun-free zones.

The Court in Bruen acknowledged the historical reality that guns were sometimes banned in specific locations. But the Justices also said that “expanding the category of ‘sensitive places’ simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of ‘sensitive places’ far too broadly.”

Gov. Murphy knows this. He nonetheless wants to force gun owners to have to sue to vindicate their rights, which is expensive and can take years. While serving in the Clinton Administration in 2000, Andrew Cuomo called this strategy “death by a thousand cuts” as a warning to gun makers to settle a lawsuit brought by 28 cities and counties. Gov. Murphy’s legal defiance to eviscerate an enumerated constitutional right is no more attractive.