raz-0

Just look at Heller, it was narrow and cautious. Then Look at McDonald. It was really fairly broad but reserved. Bruen looks radical by comparison. They poke that bear at their own risk. If they were really smart, they'd use NY, NJ, or CA to float a minor case and try to lose it. Then drop gun control from their platform and say not our fault, blame SCOTUS, we are just following the law. The number of gun grabbers who are single issue is small. The number of gun owners who aren't thrilled with the rest of the GOP platform is not. But they won't. So if they were almost as smart, they would abandon everything that was clearly problematic and work with what they have. On the FU to gun owners side of that would be trying to build registries. As much as we hate them, they are hard to argue against constitutionally in a world where the line is drawn in a place that allows permitting schemes. In the realm of a law that might actually be effective at reducing crime a bit, would be universal background checks. Not the bullshit of trying to ban person to person sales, but revising NICS in a manner that it can be used for person to person sales. Make it so you can effectively run a background check on the rando who wants to buy your gun without said rando having to hand over enough information to subject themselves to identity theft.

Does it negate it? Absolutely not, as it was not the question before the court, nor was it fundamentally similar to the question before the court. Does it provide a foundation for challenging it? Yes, definitely. Although your quoted portion is just the kneecapping of means balancing. The elimination of that means that the state can't argue that the state having in interest mitigates any infringement. they ahve to be able to argue by text, history, and tradition that a permitting process or similar analogue was something that existed at the initial signing off on the second amendment, or at the time of reformation after the civil war. That way the people signing off on it could have conceived of said law as a legitimate limitation on the right as they understood it at that time. He specifically calls out intentional delays to attempt to stifle the right as unconstitutional in his ruling. Because of that, there is grounds to argue that even the 30 day limit is invalid since instant background checks are available. The random delays up to and past a year are not only clearly a delaying tactic, but results in unequal treatment under the law. Significantly so. AND we documented the shit out of it. AND there's a shit ton of state testimony to hang them with about how and why.

NJ wants me to write a sizable check every two years for the rest of time. I can keep donating. It'll probably be cheaper long term.

Not necessarily, circuit courts disagree sometimes, and that's what SCOTUS is for. However, sometimes you can draw conclusions about other circuits potential disposition towards a case based on where the respective circuits fall on a given topic. MD is in the 4th, and they are arguably less awful than the 2nd, 3rd, and 9th. Both the 3rd (us) and the 9th historically like to rubber stamp the state by using means balancing less strict than even intermediate scrutiny which which was required by Heller. If you read the reasoning, it's basically rational basis minus the need to prove their is any merit to the belief that what the government has demanded has any influence on the outcome they say it does.

SCOTUS officially told the lower court they were wrong. What was done was the judicial equivalent of "Well everything you said was stupid and misguided, but I understand why you were confused. Since we added more clarity, go come up with a new decision." Which means reach a different conclusion, or try to reach the same conclusion by a different path.

IT can still be appealed to SCOTUS, and they can lay the smack down again.

I’m pretty sure it includes things that are just cause by another name. I.e. subjective disqualification by the issuing authority.

They’ll do what they do now. Avoid doing it at all.

What about the history of permitting in nj makes you think that will happen rather than just shrugging and making it take as long as possible.

If you go into the history of NJ and NJ law, you will see that isn't the case. NJ treats its citizens like chattel. We are the state that tried hardest to never leave the monarchy, and from top to bottom, it shows. Read a marriage license at some point. It's not a contract between you and your spouse, it's a contract between each of you and the state. Look at family law and how the state handles in loco parentis issues and you will see that children are the product of that contract and considered property of the state first and foremost. This concept is the source of hostility towards self defense. When someone damages the property of the crown it is an offense to the crown and the crown must even the score. To declare you have as much authority as the crown in your well being is simply unthinkable. Your act of self defense may harm property of the crown just as much as the criminal's offensive assault does, and both are affronts to the crown.

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.

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.

I mean it's two laws, so it'll likely be at least twice.

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.

I'm sure they will need it explained to them.

Oh I'm very keen on the AWB and mag limits going away.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Links to this? Or did it just go off the rails because Roe dropped?

"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.