Jump to content

voyager9

Members
  • Content Count

    4,786
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20
  • Feedback

    0%

voyager9 last won the day on March 25

voyager9 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,417 Excellent

1 Follower

About voyager9

  • Rank
    NJGF Cornerstone

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Burlington County
  • Home Range
    Range 14

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It’s not the only new account with the <word><number> format with semi-on topic but completely pointless comments. My guess is they’re dumping the subject into an AI tool and posting the result.
  2. More info and video of the strike Calling it a “hit” is an understatement. Bridge is gone.
  3. I don’t know. Maybe state charges were also filed but this case was only challenging the federal ones. Maybe the state was holding off and will continue to do so given the federal court ruling. Since none of it directly applies to us in NJ it’s all academic anyway. As you said, let’s wait and see. More waiting on the court. As is tradition here.
  4. They don’t need them to come true. They just need to make it sound like they could and let the media and sheep slurp it up.
  5. The state admitted in court that they had no data showing CCW holders commit more crimes.
  6. Technically it’s not precedent now that I think about it. The ruling is “as applied” so only applies to the subject of the case. It doesn’t invalidate the federal statute though can be referenced in other cases with similar challenges.
  7. Probably because the case didn’t challenge purchase/FOID, just the possession statute he was charged with.
  8. That is how it is now and this case doesn’t change that. The case was about possession not purchase. Illegal immigrants would be denied a purchase via FFL because they couldn’t pass the BGC. My point/question is the possession case verdict gives precedent to challenge that.
  9. To your point, though: now that precedent has been set, could an illegal immigrant challenge IL’s FOID and Background check? Could make a case that their rights are also being denied since they can’t purchase. Cries in Red Flag laws..
  10. The case declares the specific statute prohibiting possession. It had nothing to do with purchase.
  11. I didn’t say I was against it. I think the Bill of Rights applies to all. They are natural rights. That isn’t necessarily true for the Constitution at large. There are powers that are afforded to citizens.. voting for example. Note that this case is for possession. It would be very interesting to apply this precedent to purchase. Someone in the country illegally cannot pass a background check. Are they being denied a right?
  12. https://thereload.com/gun-ban-for-non-violent-illegal-immigrant-found-unconstitutional/
×
×
  • Create New...