raz-0
-
Content Count
4,963 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6 -
Feedback
100%
Posts posted by raz-0
-
-
2 minutes ago, fslater said:This is a copy and paste of I thread I started but seemed to have gotten buried in the list without being much seen. Its in regard to 30 day must issue or deny statute that is routinely (to say the least) ignored.
The whole premise of NJ being able to ignore the time table they themselves made law, is grounded in some camden judge ruling in the interest of public safety a permit or initial ID card does not have to meet this time table until their investigation is complete (give issuing authority carte blanche as when they decide to get around to looking at or doing anything what so ever with your application)
In today's NY CCW ruling Supreme court justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion: ""In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest.
Does this SUPREME COURT RULING/opinion not negate the precedent set by this camden judge and replace it with the above as precedent? i.e. Statute says must issue or deny within 30 days, issuing authority must issue or deny within 30 days
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.
-
23 hours ago, 10X said:I care about Murph's feelings only to the extent that I kinda enjoy it when they get hurt.
But the problem with infinite lawsuits is that they require infinite money. Gun owners and the associations that represent us have to chose their battles carefully given their limited funds. The state is counting on this.
The state, on the other hand, has almost infinite money for this nonsense, since they take it from all of us...
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.
-
1 hour ago, oldguysrule649 said:I think one of the cases remanded back was an AWB case(Maryland?). Not sure if a favorable ruling there immediately and directly helps us. They are in a different Circuit Court. However, note the below FPC case. I assume this NJ case would benefit from a favorable ruling above.
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.
-
22 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:what does this mean? they're gonna argue it then make a decision? or they did, and we can go to standard capacity?
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.
-
59 minutes ago, quikz said:Now that jersey's 'mag ban' was just remanded back to the 3rd Circuit court yesterday along with the 9th, 4th, etc. To be redone using TEXT. HISTORY. TRADITION. No "interest balancing," no "2nd tier", no more intermediate scrutiny.
What if the 3rd and especially the 9th, refuse to comply with the SCOTUS, yet again??
IT can still be appealed to SCOTUS, and they can lay the smack down again.
-
2 hours ago, KurtC said:The Bruen decision does not change the permitting process in any state. It simply eliminates the need to show just cause. Everything else remains the same and would need to be challenged separately. Sorry.
I’m pretty sure it includes things that are just cause by another name. I.e. subjective disqualification by the issuing authority.
-
31 minutes ago, KurtC said:PD's are already short staffed. They won't have the Detectives available to do this many background investigations. They won't want the paperwork piling up in their offices. Some PD's are easily going to get applications numbering in the hundreds.
They’ll do what they do now. Avoid doing it at all.
-
5
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, KurtC said:Once PD's and judges get overwhelmed with applications, they will demand that the process gets streamlined.
If you are going to apply now, I recommend following the established procedures. You don't want your paperwork put in a "pending." If you are willing to wait a month or two, things may get a lot simpler.
I once had mine sitting at the County for 3 months because they were waiting on Morpho results. Apparently the detective assigned to my investigation went out on extended leave without telling me I needed to get fingerprinted again.
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.
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, BigKahuna said:The thing is Bucky treats law abiding citizens like criminals.
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.
-
6 minutes ago, CJack said:Whats the penalty for violating SCOTUS ruling ? Whats the penalty for purposely circumventing SCOTUS ruling repeatedly ? Who enforces SCOTUS rulings ?
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.
-
Just now, MartyZ said:Didn't Thomas' decision also include something to the order of not allowing states to take advantage of "sensitive area" restrictions?
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.
-
25 minutes ago, Displaced Texan said:Maybe more than once!!
I mean it's two laws, so it'll likely be at least twice.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Displaced Texan said:The way I read the text of the Bruen decision, I think the ‘weapons in common use’ would invalidate an AWB. And since standard capacity magazines are also in ‘common use’, I believe it would also apply to them.
I do not think that NJ will lay down very easily on that…
I'm sure they will need it explained to them.
-
3 minutes ago, oldguysrule649 said:I totally agree. It sounded, today at least, they they will be trying to hit a grandslam with respect to defining sensitive places. Such an overreach could be in clear conflict with Scotus's wording with respect to sensitive places. I imagine that when an actual bill is written and goes thru the committee process, it could be watered down to conform with the new reality.
Obviously we all need to remain vigilant and keep fighting. While most of the posts over the last day have focused on NJ's now defunct justifiable need requirement and the concealed carry application process; SCOTUS's revised guidance on the standards (i.e. text, history, and tradition only) that courts must use going forward to judge 2A laws is a huge gamechanger for the entire country and for us. Laws restricting magazine sizes, "assault" weapons, and so on will now be subject to being overturned based on the new guidance. Stay tuned in the coming week to see what SCOTUS does with t he cases they have had on hold pending yesterday's decision. Our elected officials better have Advil on hand as I believe more headaches are coming their way.
Oh I'm very keen on the AWB and mag limits going away.
-
1
-
1
-
-
43 minutes ago, samiam said:2 & 4 appear to be contradictory. How can they keep the current process and application intact (except for elimating justifiable need) and require liability insurance, when the current process does not require that, and the current application does not request policy information. Also, as I mentoned earlier, I suspect requiring any outrageously expensive liability coverage would fail Thomas' tests.
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.
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, marlintag said:Don't give them ideas!
I suspect that even though States can enact "sensitive places", if they prevent us from keeping it in the car would that not violate Thomas ruling? We are allowed to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense after all....
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.
-
2 minutes ago, 10X said:I thought I heard that Murphy was going to expand the list of sensitive places by executive order, bypassing yet again any legislative oversight. Not that legislative oversight means much in this state.
Re: the online system, they said they were in discussions with the vendor to add CCW application to the system. So it'll be awhile, even if they'd like it to happen faster, which they may not. They've gotta get funding approved and contracts signed, and then that whole software development cycle starts.
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.
-
28 minutes ago, Downtownv said:I am starting to think they may start looking at you social media pages upon application. They certainly do it for PD Applicants. So be careful.
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.
-
34 minutes ago, oldguysrule649 said:To summarize my main takeaways from the news conference.
1) They have clearly capitulated with respect to justifiable need. It is dead and buried! Stated the SCOTUS ruling is immediate and time is of the essence to align with it.
2) I anticipate that by end of day the AG will issue a directive to all of NJ law enforcement that justifiable need is no longer required. The rest of the existing concealed carry application and approval process remains in full force.
3) The are going to push very hard to legislate an expansive list of sensitive places.
4) They also indicated they intend to make liability insurance be required, "Like you have when driving an automobile". (I am not referring to plans like US Law Shield but rather liability insurance.)
5) They anticipate 200,000 concealed carry applications. Mentioned improving the existing online system(presumably a reference to FARS) to also handle these types of applications in the future. The head of the NJSP made mention of communication with all NJ law enforcement entities with regards to the ruling and the staffing challenges with respect to processing these applications.
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.
-
1
-
3
-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, oldguysrule649 said:Further to Ant’s earlier post. You can also watch this on youtube as shown below. Channel name is “New Jersey Office of the Governor”.
P.s. I like many, have waited eight long years since the disappointment of the Drake case to experience the elation of yesterday’s opinion. God bless this man.
Btw, I was also gratified by Thomas making specific mention of the Drake case in his opinion.
Links to this? Or did it just go off the rails because Roe dropped?
-
8 minutes ago, CAL. .30 M1 said:Yes, they will take the cases...how long does it take for a case to get to the court, so they can smack it down?
States that do not want to allow this can delay delay delay....they may ultimately lose...BUT, it can take years.
How many years has it taken to get to this point?
"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.
-
1
-
Murphy wants concealed carry banned in restaurants and more
in Current New Jersey Gun Laws Discussion
Posted
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.