Jump to content

PDM

Members
  • Content Count

    605
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Community Reputation

79 Excellent

About PDM

  • Rank
    NJGF Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Yeah, no. Do a quick google search. RBG joined the Court in 1993 and she and Scalia served together for 23 years until Scalia died in 2016. Sotamayor joined in 2009. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/13/what-made-scalia-and-ginsburgs-friendship-work/?noredirect=on Sotomayor said she wanted to hit Scalia with a bat. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/sotomayor-scalia-if-i-had-baseball-bat-i-might-have-n669961
  2. All good points. As much as we may not like the views of the 4 liberal justices, the Court is an institution that the Justices care about and from what I understand there is more collegiality and genuine respect and friendship among the justices than one might imagine. RBG was supposedly very close to Scalia. While the 4 liberals clearly don't agree with Heller, it is the law, and I think they care about the integrity of the Court and separation of powers. I wouldn't expect any of them to side with the 5 (if we indeed have 5 in light of Roberts questionable stances) on 2A issues, BUT maybe, just maybe, this outrageous threat from this POS Sheldon Whitehouse, combined with NYC's blatant manipulation of the system by suddenly revising the law to moot the case could cause a backlash and we pick up another vote or 2 on NYC Rifle and Pistol. And maybe Rodgers as well. I think that ass*&le Whitehouse, and Blumenthal and the others, seriously miscalculated.
  3. Just a hunch, but I think even the liberal justices must be PISSED that legislators are threatening the court if they don't rule the way they want. This strong arm tactic could well backfire.
  4. I totally agree. I think suppressors should definitely be legal. But we need to recognize the reality in which we live. I think we have a better chance of legislative action at the federal level than a court ruling protecting supressors. And even then they will never be legal in NJ, unfortunately.
  5. Are suppressors commonly owned for a defensive purpose? I don't think so. Under the Heller standard there is plenty of room to say they aren't arms subject to 2A protection. We all need to understand that the "what don't you understand about 'shall not be infringed'" line of argument -- ie that any and all laws that impact gun ownership by definition violate the 2A -- is not and probably never will be the law of the land. The Supreme Court focuses on the big picture, and even the most 2A friendly court imaginable is not going to jump in and strike down every law that impedes our 2A wish-list. I would not expect the Court to take a case on suppressors. Or on bump stocks. I think magazine bans are probably different as they are an integral part of the firearm and extreme bans on types of magazines can effectively amount to a ban on the firearm itself. That isn't the case with suppressors.
  6. Don't see it on the order list at all. Guess that means its relisted.
  7. I have a big smile on my face. Even if cert isn't granted, I really feel like these guys did a great job. In particular, I like the response to NJ's assertion that there is no evidence regarding the percentage of permits granted: it doesn't matter. The law is unconstitutional on its face because it de facto differentiates between people with a special, "justifable need" and "ordinary citizens". The footnote is a nice touch, pointing out that the percentages are likely irrelevant because most people are discouraged from ever applying and going through and onerous and expensive process because they know they will be denied. I've been disappointed so many times, but I will venture to say that I am optimistic about this. It seems that with Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch cert should be granted since you need 4 justices to grant-- I will actually be shocked if it isn't. Roberts has unfortunately become rather scary, and I worry that if cert is granted he could flip, but hard to believe that a Justice who signed onto Heller and Mcdonald would let this flagrantly unconstitutional law to stand. I could see him insisting on as narrow a holding as possible. We will see.
  8. I have no idea what is going on with the NRA, but from a governance perspective it doesn't appear to be good. I've been a member for years but never received a ballot. When I called to inquire so that I could vote for Colandro I was transferred to a sales rep trying to sell me a life membership. He seemed completely confused and disinterested when I explained I was just trying to get a ballot. He then gave me another number at the organization and I couldn't get through after repeated attempts. The NRA has made some valuable contributions through its litigation, but I can't help but give some credence to Youtube personalities like the Yankee Marshall who are adamantly anti-NRA and claim the whole organization is nothing more than a scheme to support Wayne Lapierre's 7 figure salary. Claims that the board has zero actual power areprobably true. Between their incessant marketing, dramatic scare tactics, and unsavory leadership, I'm a very reluctant member.
  9. I kind of agree with the sentiment expressed above re ARs in NJ, unfortunately. If I were new to this, I would just get a good lever action rifle in a pistol caliber. Even the state of NJ will be hard pressed to ban those.
  10. No one can explain that because it makes no sense. One word might help -- politics. Even if there was no 2A in the Constitution, the "right to privacy" the Court found to exist in Roe v Wade would itself include the right to keep and bear arms. In Griswold v Connecticut, (overturning a Connecticut ban on contraception) the Court first found a "right to privacy" to exist based on the "penumbra" of rights created by all the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Essentially, read together, the Bill of Rights implies and demands a right to be left alone by the government, subject to various limitations. in Poe v Ullman, an earlier Supreme Court case in which the Court allowed a Connecticut ban on contraception to stand, Justice Harlan wrote a dissent in which the right to privacy was first addressed. Guess what he included in his laundry list of things the government should butt out off (to put it simplistically)? The right to keep and bear arms. If there is a right to abortion or contraception or gay marriage -- all falling under the "right to privacy" read into the Consitution by the Court -- then there has to also be a right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of defending one's life. In other words, as long as I'm not harming or threatening to harm anyone, its none of the government's business how I choose to defend myself or what tools I keep to do so. But of course, we do have an explicit 2A in addition and it is quite amazing that the same people who happily go along with a seek to protect a made-up "right to privacy" claim the explicit and quite plain language of the 2A is meaningless. Like I said, there is no logical explanation other than that law is often means oriented, driven by political agendas.
  11. Basically, in lawyers terms, the State is saying, this is an important constitutional issue and we don't have our shit together so please give us 30 more days. It is very unusual and bad form for the other side not to agree to a one month extension for briefing and judges don't look kindly on it. The ANJRPC has to agree to the extension essentially. It doesn't change a thing. Not sure what exactly happens if we win and court strikes down justifable need. I don't think there would need to be a remand here -- the statute would essentially be modified to delete the justifiable need requirement and everything else would remain.
  12. I am somewhat surprised that the request for a response hasn't been reported anywhere. I guess it may be too subtle a point. But I think it makes it much more likely that cert will be granted. They can't grant cert without a response, but could have easily denied cert. I have been quite pessimistic about our chances for help at the Supreme Court, but I have a good feeling about this one.
  13. Wow there is a lot of wasted energy and time spent on this new 10 round limit. We have precedent -- the 15 round limit that was imposed over 25 years ago. Why does anyone think this will work any different? Did the state conduct house to house searches for 20 round mags? No. Were there many prosecutions based on "high cap" magazines? I'm not sure, but my sense is no. Seems that most people that got charged with hi cap magazines were already involved in criminal activity with a very few random cases of completely innocent people that got ensnared by this. Do you really think the state wants to prosecute a bunch of john q publics -- have doctors, lawyers, business owners, carpenters, etc with spotless records plastered in the papers facing 7 years in prison for owning a 14 round magazine that they owned for 20 years? People should really calm down, stop talking about this, and do whatever one thinks appropriate. It is highly, highly unlikely that this law becomes a problem for most people unless you do something stupid.
  14. This is partly a legal issue, partly a gear question. A 2015 law, "Santiago's law" requires all SORA armed guards to use a Level III retention holster. Does not matter whether uniformed or plain clothes. This is of course absurd, idiotic, etc., but this being NJ not surprising. Questions, if anyone knows: 1) of course Level III is not defined in NJ law. Standard definition is that a Level III holster needs to pass three retention tests after each of three successive retention devices is deactivated, so for example a snap/hood, a button release lever, and finally the passive retention provided by the holster itself. Is that corrrect? 2) Based on my research, Safariland makes some of if not the best duty/retention holsters out there. All are of course bulkier than anyone would want for concealed/plainclothes carry. They make a few models with both the "ALS" and "SLS" retention devices that are classified I think as Level III and are also described as concealment holsters. One being model 7367 7TS ALS/SLS, one of their newer models. Bulky but seems like it would work under a jacket. Does anyone have any familiarity with this holster and its Level III compliance or have any other recommendations for a less bulky Level III holster that is theoretically somewhat concealable? Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...