Posted on

State Senator Holly Schepisi Says Members Who Voted for the States Unconstitutional Gun Bill Should Pay Litigation Coasts

Person dumping money into a toilet bowl
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
River Vale Nj, state Senator Holly Schepisi says ,”The members of the New Jersey State Legislature who voted for this bill should be personally financially responsible for the costs and expenses of passing and litigating a law they knew to be unconstitutional.”

In a Facebook post Schepisi says ,”The members of the New Jersey State Legislature who voted for this bill should be personally financially responsible for the costs and expenses of passing and litigating a law they knew to be unconstitutional. The federal court in New Jersey issued a temporary restraining order against the new law regarding concealed carry permits. Under that new law, even those who had a prior permit (which was almost impossible to get) would be precluded from carrying their lawful weapon almost anywhere in the State.
Here are some excerpts of the decision:
In sum, no matter how the State tries to dress up Section 7(a)(24), the legislation presents considerable constitutional problems. No party disputes here that private property owners in New Jersey—and across the country for that matter—have long had the right to exclude firearms from their properties. As discussed above, New Jersey’s attempt to craft how private property owners communicate the word “no” works, in effect, to deter a law-abiding citizen who has a permit to conceal carry from exercising his constitutional right under pain of criminal prosecution. That is not how the Second Amendment works.
As Plaintiffs lament, the challenged provisions force a person permitted to carry a firearm in New Jersey to “navigate a ‘veritable minefield.’” [Pls’. Br. at 12.] Their view is a legitimate one. The Court knows of no constitutional right that requires this much guesswork by individuals wanting to exercise such right. With such sweeping legislation that includes catch-alls, Plaintiffs cannot decipher what constitutes a “sensitive place,” and so they have abandoned their constitutional right to bear arms out of fear of criminal penalty. Relatedly, Plaintiffs argue that these provisions sweep so broadly that the legislation “effectively shuts off most public areas from carrying for self-defense.” [Pls.’ Br. at 30.] In the final analysis, at some point on the line, when a constitutional right becomes so burdensome or unwieldy to exercise, it is, in effect, no longer a constitutional right. Plaintiffs have made a convincing case that this legislation has reached that point.
While the State presses that it has legitimate societal reasons for its legislation, it bears repeating that this is an arena into which this Court cannot venture. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2129 (“the Second Amendment does not permit . . . ‘judges to assess the cost and benefits of firearms restrictions’”) (citation omitted). It is not the role of this Court to either defer to the Legislature or to pass judgment on the wisdom of the firearms restrictions.
Accordingly, for this reason as well, Plaintiffs have met their burden in showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional challenges to the foregoing provisions.”

5 thoughts on “State Senator Holly Schepisi Says Members Who Voted for the States Unconstitutional Gun Bill Should Pay Litigation Coasts

  1. I agree 100%, us taxpayers should not be required to pay to defend unconstitutional legislation passed by politicians with the hopes of large donations from Everytown and Mom’s Demand Action

    1. the moms who demand action should stop having 5 children from 5 absentee fathers and discipline them
      blaming law abiding citizens for social problems which cause inner city violence is part of the democrat playbook

      6
      2
  2. There’s a lot of things U.S. taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for. Where do I begin?

  3. Agreed. They swear an oath for a reason. If they do not uphold the oath remove them from office peacefully and legally and have them personally bear the costs. If a lien needs to be placed on their personal or property so be it.

  4. If you sponsor or vote for an unconstitutional law, you should be removed from office. Aren’t these people supposed to held to supporting the constitution? Enough already.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *