Crap For Brains Quote O’ the Day
Sen. Nia Gill (D- Essex) pushed back on some of Durr’s claims about the bill violating the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s June ruling……
“This is an exercise in legislation that we must do in order for the court to determine the legislative constitutionality of it,” Gill said.

Fast-tracked bill to limit concealed carry stumbles as constitutional concerns mount

A fast-tracked bill to limit concealed carry in New Jersey hit a snag Thursday when Assembly leaders yanked it from a scheduled vote, conceding its broad restrictions could fold under constitutional scrutiny.

The canceled vote came the same day a Senate panel approved the bill along party lines — and with about 15 amendments that appear to be aimed at appeasing critics who have vowed to fight any new law in court. The bill, introduced two weeks ago, has already been approved along party lines by three Assembly committees.

Assemblyman Louis Greenwald (D-Camden), one of the bill’s sponsors and the majority leader in the Assembly, said legislators plan to revise language in the bill to ensure “it’s directly in line with our legislative intent.”

“That may help constitutional arguments at the end of the day,” Greenwald said. “There’s a focus on making sure that it’s not too broad, not too vague, and that it withstands a challenge.”

Greenwald said lawmakers still aim to pass the bill by the end of November.

“Obviously, the day that the governor signs it, there’s going to be legal challenges — those against it have already made that clear,” said Assemblyman John McKeon (D-Essex), another bill sponsor. “So we’re just doing everything we need to do to cross our t’s and dot our i’s. There’s no lack of resolve. If anything, we’re even more determined to get something to the governor’s desk.”

Legislators say they drafted the bill to counter the uptick in gun usage they anticipate after about 300,000 gun owners applied for concealed carry permits in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that affirmed a constitutional right to carry. In that ruling, the nation’s highest court struck down a New York law requiring gun owners to prove a reason why they need to carry a concealed gun, prompting New Jersey to remove its similar “justifiable need” requirement.

New Jersey’s bill would create new hurdles for gun owners seeking carry permits and carve out 25 categories of sensitive places where guns are prohibited, which range from beaches to bars to parks.

But gun rights advocates have singled out various provisions of the bill they find problematic — and grounds for a court challenge. A federal judge in New York last week temporarily halted a similar ban there on guns in sensitive places, citing constitutional concerns.

Some of the amendments made to New Jersey’s bill since its introduction have addressed critics’ concerns. After gun supporters complained about one provision that would allow the state’s 565 municipalities to define their own sensitive places where guns would be banned, lawmakers amended the bill to remove it.

Scott Bach, president of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, on Wednesday sounded the alarm about other language in the bill referring to “weapons.” Such vague wording could refer to any everyday tool, including mops, kitchen cutlery, and knitting needles, the association warned in an alert to members.

Greenwald on Thursday conceded the weapons verbiage was one tweak legislators would make before rescheduling the bill for a full Assembly vote.

Earlier in the day, during the Senate’s Law and Public Safety Committee, Sen. Linda Greenstein (D-Middlesex), the committee’s chair, agreed some unclear language in the bill needs further consideration.

The committee made 15 amendments to the bill. Two amendments would remove requirements that someone with a carry permit stopped by police produce the gun for inspection and show proof of liability insurance. Two more would allow active and retired law enforcement officers to carry a handgun in sensitive places where the public can’t take them.

Still, supporters and critics spent nearly three hours debating the bill Thursday, with some especially testy exchanges between the panel’s Democratic members and Sen. Ed Durr (R-Gloucester), whose political campaign centered on Second Amendment rights.

“If I were to sit here and list all the problems with this bill, we’d be here until sometime next week,” Durr told the panel.

Durr especially objected to the increased fees proposed in the legislation, complaining they would “make it impossible for a person of modest means to protect him- or herself.”

He questioned the state’s ongoing effort to reduce its prison population while tightening gun control at the same time.

“You were making room (in prison) for all the responsible but unlucky gun owners who are going to unintentionally violate this bill,” he said.

Sen. Nia Gill (D- Essex) pushed back on some of Durr’s claims about the bill violating the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s June ruling.

“I’m a lawyer,” Gill told Durr.

He responded, “I’ve seen many lawyers get things wrong.”

Gill retorted: “I’ve seen legislators get them wrong too.”

After almost three hours of testimony, the panel advanced the bill.

“This is an exercise in legislation that we must do in order for the court to determine the legislative constitutionality of it,” Gill said.