Walkinguf61

That is a different argument in a way than concealed carry. Something that should have been rectified before Bruen and under McDonald. You can own a car without a driver’s license ( I know— it’s not a constitutional right) and it recognizes home gun possession without a carry permit. Even in NJ, until recently, some people did not require training or a background to own a gun and have it in their home . I am referring to people who owned guns before moving to NJ. That might be the next Bruen based case.

While you might be right , the bill of rights did not apply to the states until 1960 ( Mapp v Ohio). The 2nd didn’t apply to the states until McDonald , that’s even after Heller. Scary, huh?

No. In court.

I understand your feelings on this but our time is coming.

I cited two laws in an above post. And that was just a quick internet search . If you want cites for the other thing, “legislative immunity Primary tabs A legal doctrine that protects legislators from being sued for all actions taken in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity“ https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/legislative_immunity https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/separation-of-powers-legislative-immunity.aspx

Show you NJ? The 2nd Amendment under Bruen isn’t limited to the text and tradition of NJ to use it against an NJ law. Remember that the Bill of Rights only applied against the federal government until it was incorporated under the 14th Amendment. It’s the history, text and tradition of all the founders that is to be considered.

You cite one law and think that’s the end of it. There are many laws to be considered. like this one: The "Act to Regulate the Militia of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania" passed 17 March 1777, and the the subsequent Militia Act passed March 20, 1780, together with their amendments, required all white men between the ages of 18 and 53 capable of bearing arms to serve two months of militia duty on a rotating basis. Refusal to turn out for military exercises would result in a fine, the proceeds from which were used to hire substitutes.” https://www.phmc.pa.gov/Archives/Research-Online/Pages/Revolutionary-War-Militia-Overview.aspx Or this: “In Massachusetts Bay, a British colony, all able bodied men, aged between 16 and 60 years had to serve in the local militia. By 1645, some men from this colony were selected from the ranks of the local militia, given extra training and had to be ready for action at short notice. This rapid deployment ability earned them the name Minutemen.” https://totallyhistory.com/minutemen/ note the words : “ given extra training “ You have no idea what you are talking about if you don’t think these men trained together. And you can blow smoke up people’s @@@@ but it doesn’t mean what you think matters . It’s what the court is going to go with. And some matters have to have a practical sense to it. Why did SCOTUS uphold a parade permit process to assemble to protest? Do you know? If you want the necessary 5 votes on the SCOTUS bench, the permit requirement is going to pass the constitutional test with them. Stop killing the messenger because you disagree.

Just to show progress. New York’s red flag law was just declared unconstitutional. New York’s ban on guns in church declared again unconstitutional.

It was also to train as a group. Remember how muskets were used on a battlefield.

Go look at the NY case. The judge threw out the original case for lack of standing because the plaintiffs didn’t say they were going to violate the law. They refilled with plaintiffs who stated they would. The law puts them in harm of being arrested for exercising their rights

I was referring more to the permit. The parade permit to assemble in public . But it could be interpreted that “ well regulated” could include training. Even a call -up of the militia was often done for training — historical context is there. As someone said, I don’t think they can require more training than a police officer.

Yep. It would be another point of contention but we know where SCOTUS will go with on that issue. And frankly, a little bit of training protects us all. I could teach a revolver ( double action only) in less than an hour in my opinion.

Agreed, the retired cops in NJ qualify at the same standard as active in the RPO program. And it was twice a year at one point. It gets expensive. Once a year of carrying just on LEOSA ( federal law) It’s a pain to get sometimes to get that requal in. The places don’t always have a slot when it is convenient and it’s a ticking clock each year to get it done. I could see NJ or NY screwing with the requal to keep people from carrying.

Actually, it could be. That’s the well regulated militia part. The American citizens are the militia and the well regulated was the training — at least the call up for training or action. Remember the minutemen . It’s in the historical context of Bruen .

Sure, they can get a historian to fit something but it’s going to SCOTUS anyway. We just need some small victories like the private property assumption, social media search, gun insurance and take off some things off the sensitive places list. They will set the “bottom “

It’s not about the interpretation of Bruen yet. It’s about the stay on appeal . The district judge made the ruling and the appeals court hasn’t heard it yet. After they hear the case they can come up with something but remember, they know it will be appealed to SCOTUS. They will want influence on how that decision will be shaped instead of being rejected out of hand even if the majority of their anti-gun position is deemed null and void .

Yes, but the court did shift that fundamental test. Now, it’s just enforcement of their ruling rather than true interpretation. It won’t be that long especially if the argument now is over a stay put in place until the actual case is played out the court system .

January 5 is the preliminary hearing date for NJ ‘s law. The judge gave them (NJ) until Dec 30 to submit their brief.

Yeah, and they did that out of fear. Their job is to protect their membership, period. No different than your lawyer is supposed to protect you. And they did get changes that help everyone. Unless you want the requirement that your holster has to have a retention strap— and that was a fight — go look at the hearings if you don’t believe me.

Yep, but Judge Benitez is going to make the same ruling. It’s the game we are in. I already gave the example of Brown vs the board of education. How long did that take … but it happened.

The NJ magazine limits challenges I don’t know about other than the 15 to 10 round law would be still making its way through the courts . No temporary injunctive relief would be granted on that one until the case was heard. That is less fundamental and one could still defend one’s self with a 10 round magazine, just not as well. It’s an argument of how much rather than IF you have a right at all. The 2nd circuit took NY ‘s seven round limit and set the bottom at ten rounds. However that was pre-Bruen.

Oh, come on. Now the Bruen decision hasn’t done anything now according to you. NY and NJ had carry permits for the general public due to Bruen. Now the anti-gun legislatures have hit back. In NY, they lost at the district level already . The appeals court put a hold on the judge’s decision until they hear it. I believe the first hearing for the temp injunction is in January for the NY case in the 2nd circuit. The NJ law even hasn’t been heard in court at the district level yet. The NJ law is less than two weeks old. I already showed how Chicago attempted to do the same thing after the McDonald decision and got slapped for it. This is just the start of the fight. It is a slow process. Go look up Brown v Board of Education and see how long it took to be implemented. It was 1954. The following year, a similar case had to go before the court to explain as in how to enforce the first case. And in 1959, a court order was placed against a school board who decided to close the schools rather than comply . These things take tIme.

It doesn’t even fall under equal protection provisions. If it did, things like veterans credit on civil service exams would not be allowed either. Nor would government workers get pensions etc. Equal protection is also equal opportunity. Did you have an opportunity to do the 20 years to get that ? As far as common law, law enforcement and military officers have had a tradition of keeping their sidearm. Even in Europe where they had strict weapons limitations on the common people . Then there was basic “ professional courtesy “. How many times has a cop or retired cop been arrested for mere gun possession? Not many . When 2004 ‘a LEOSA act passed, why were retired officers including? Why have had been an LE in the past was given an almost automatic gun permit upon retirement? Even before the 1968 gun control act ? Why have anti-gunners , even the non political ones, until recently, have always seen retired cops as being being okay to have a concealed firearm, both in reality and literature? The answer is common law. Or you could use the Bruen decision guidelines.

Actually before 1920. It was common law since before the revolution.

Example in NJ, huh? I don’t know if this falls under your definition of unconstitutional but: Okay. How about the LEOSA victory in NJ. Retired NJ officers in the past could not carry hollowpoints but I , as an out of state retired officer could . That was overturned.