Jump to content

raz-0

Members
  • Content Count

    4,779
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5
  • Feedback

    100%

Everything posted by raz-0

  1. Well if we get a republican president, He can sic the national guard on them. Without that, but it'd actually have to go to court, SCOTUS could in theory hold members of our government in contempt and have the US marshals bring them before the court. Then in theory, since it is contempt, have them jailed.
  2. It did. Nj doesn't care since they are trying to make it all private land, all access restricted government property, and any place that a protest might occur, which is the remainder of public land.
  3. I mean it's two laws, so it'll likely be at least twice.
  4. Another idea. Thomas stated clearly arms are not just guns. So I wonder if we could wipe out the list of just straight up prohibited weapons.
  5. Oh I'm very keen on the AWB and mag limits going away.
  6. Truthful best guess answer? Their intent is to issue permits slowly, and to try to make them effectively useless. They will do many things which will get shot down one at a time. While doing this they will be appealing to the party to do something at the federal level to protect their scheme and make this problem go away. I don't think there will be any requirement for liability insurance soon. To rewrite the permitting statute would put them at peril of an injunction that would leave them with no permitting requirement. The way the case was decided that COULD have been done yesterday, but the court was kind enough to hand down the decision in a way that gives them the ability to comply without revoking the current law. (this would have been a definite for NY, not so sure about NJ). It is likely in their bag of tricks for delaying along the way. Because phildo is not that bright about such things, he may have tipped their hand about it when he really shouldn't have.
  7. I mean a vehicle is an extension of your home in a lot of legal situations. It is not particularly sensitive and would be hard to prove it is so.
  8. They didn't have it miced, so it's unclear what he claim it said. But form teh post signing discussion it sounded like he ordered all executive branch bureaucracies to determine their sensitive places.
  9. For what? Anything that isn't chargeable is free speech. Revoking a right because someone exercised a right won't pass muster. Plus any changes to the objective criteria would need to be by statute, and that opens them up to an injunction. They are going to go after prohibited locations and risk that. Worst case is an injunction is granted and they have the law they have now. Which is better than replacing the permit side of it and having an injunction against the only permitting statute.
  10. They already made insurance illegal once, and driving is not a constitutional right. I suspect they will be surprised what is no longer constitutional in the long run.
  11. Looks like they aren't getting it if default is prohibited on private property including places of public accommodation. SO everything will be private property or a sensitive location. They do want to fuck around and find out. The dems COULD seriously hobble the GOP for a generation by simply laying off gun control and blaming scouts. Without the gun vote, the GOP woold pretty much be crippled at the national level. But they are too stupid to see this... or thing the things they want to do will get them shot in the face. One or the other.
  12. FRom the press conference. In court: Oh we aren't suppressing demand, nobody actually wants one. now: We expect demand to be about 200,000 applications.
  13. Links to this? Or did it just go off the rails because Roe dropped?
  14. "Delay" means something different in the presence of a ruling. The goalposts have been moved (or finally established if you like that view better), about what is burdensome from a civil liberties standpoint. So if they suggest something sufficiently stupid, we don't have to wade through the state stuff, we can go straight to the federal level seeking injunction. If you have been paying attention, getting to SCOTUS for an injunction is something that can be done in months. If they are really stupid about it, NJ could wind up with no CCW law creating a carry holiday like CA would up with a magazine holiday. I don't think they will be that stupid, but I also don't think they will be smart enough to just say the existing process is it, but self defense should meet the good cause justification requirement.
  15. I'm not asking where the lawsuits at. I know that more or less. I'm asking for people to throw some ideas out there no matter how wild. Some fun speculation that might spark some ideas but probably won't. And maybe shoot some holes in said wild speculation because it might be educational.
  16. If you read the decision he literally says that if they go the route of burdensome fees, delays, or restrictions to sidestep this ruling that the court will take these cases. I suspect we will get a flurry of remands on the pending 2a cases at some point.
  17. It’s a logical extension of Thomas saying that bearing arms is a right of the average citizen. The police are not only empowered to bear arms defensively, but offensively. They are given the power of arrest, qualified immunity, etc. Setting the standards to exercise a fundamental right tobe higher than that required to exercise those extraordinary privileges would go very much as against his warnings in this case. I do not think it has really hit home just how much this ruling said fuck around and find out.
  18. Three is wrong. The 14th had nothing to do with life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. The due process clause says that a citizen shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. The 14th amendment is the amendment via which any particular bill of rights item from the first eight amendments is incorporated to the states. It was applied to the 2nd in McDonald. It was reiterated by Thomas in Bruen. Additionaly, it may have been a shot across the bow of the judiciary regarding the privileges and immunities clause. That clause has been effectively mooted by the court for pretty racist reasons. The court has put out some pretty tortured logic to avoid changing that. The pretense was stare decisis but the reality was that it was a wrong ruling long enough ago that there would likely be some massive re-litigation that could potentially cripple the courts just due to case load. It is however the most direct path to the court insisting in reciprocity of ccws. So you have a black man who just redefined the strictest form of scrutiny. Who agreed with the majority on the leaked roe decision that is basically saying state decisis is not sacrosanct. Who may very well be threatening to burn down nearly 100 years of case history sitting on top of some incredibly racist case law if they fuck around and find out regarding his decision.
  19. It can’t be harder than leo qualification, and that isn’t that hard.
  20. The Bruen decision has me thinking of what would be good to mess up NJ's web of crap laws. My #1 would be suing not over the purchase permits themselves, but over all the fees associated with it as an infringement on civil rights. The suit would attach damages, which would include all legal fees, and for NJ to return all associated fees to those who had been affected by them or their estate. If it needs doing for public safety, let the public pay for it via tax money, not individual fees.
  21. You will need 10,000 letters of reference. They are going to try a lot of stupid things. The problem is that the right applies to the typical citizen, so if it is broadly exclusionary of most people, it's a problem. Something like excluding anyone with a moving violation on their record would be a problem. Burdensome fees would be a problem.
  22. They do not use 4473. That is for people. The police department is not a person it is a government entity. Just like an non C&R ffl is not a person, but a business entity. Government entities use a form 10.
  23. They have not. And were the decision to grant one left in the hands of a sheriff, there would 100% not be a path to avoiding them. Avoiding conviction perhaps, but not avoiding them. But you go to court for them. And that court has been issued precedent. NJ being NJ, they probably won't obey it, but they might and it's a button worth pushing.
  24. Uhh fine. but in the end the permit is issued by Judges. They make the decision on the cause being justified. They ignore SCOTUS at their peril. What is likely is that they will punt until there's a new statute. The AG doesn't get to say jack about this. They aren't a legislator or a judge. They could offer guidelines about ignoring that part of the statute in view of the ruling, but they won't. I'm just not sure it matters.
×
×
  • Create New...