Jump to content

PDM

Members
  • Content Count

    615
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Community Reputation

87 Excellent

About PDM

  • Rank
    NJGF Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. https://www.courthousenews.com/retired-cops-sue-over-new-jersey-gun-restrictions/ It's always aggravating that retired LEO are treated as a special privileged class, but it is still a good thing that they are suing the state to void the NJ carry permit restrictions that apply to them -- they argue that they are authorized under LEOSA and don't need state permission. The more pressure on the state the better.
  2. I'm not worried about kavanaugh. it all comes down to Roberts. And we should all be very worried about him. i think the odds of one or more of the carry cases being granted cert is close to 100%. The 4 conservative justices clearly want a 2A case. In the long run, if Robert, rules the way he should we will all be much better off. The NYC case was not ideal to begin with, and if they had ruled expansively on the merits it would have forever been tainted by the mootness issue. If Rogers v Grewal is taken let's see NJ try to moot that case. I highly doubt they will. I still hold out hope that Roberts has some integrity and will rule consistent with Heller. Or perhaps RBG will finally retire and we get another conservative.
  3. We all huff and puff and preach to the choir when we hear these news reports because we are all so frustrated. But this case really is the perfect storm. First, the hollow point restriction is even more idiotic than your average NJ gun law. Any person allowed to carry in NJ -- basically just retired cops and security guards -- is much more effective and much less of a risk to bystanders if he carries hollow points. This isn't even arguable. Second, the critical duty he was carrying is explicitly not deemed hollow point by the NJSP. Third, he was following the law and being a good citizen in every single way: had a permit, coming back from work with gun stored properly, went out of his way to inform the police he was in possession of a firearm. Fourth, he is black and as others have mentioned I think there is probably a good chance that he was profiled. I suspect this case will be dropped quickly. If not, I expect, hope and pray that he successfully sues the town for millions and wins a wrongful prosecution, civil rights case and anything else that sticks.
  4. Security guard arrested for possessing Critical Duty ammo. https://www.ammoland.com/2020/03/nj-carry-licensed-security-guard-arrested-so-called-hollowpoint-ammo/#axzz6FpbuLs22
  5. I'm Jewish. and very involved in promoting self defense in the Jewish community. I don't care if the plaintiff is a neo-nazi asshole. Laws like this are far more dangerous than any neo nazi or terrorist. Now, if he actually threatened people that's a different story. If there is probable cause for a warrant and due process is followed, AND severe criminal and civil penalties for making false claims under the red flag law, then I can see some circumstances where guns could be confiscated pending a hearing to determine if any laws have been broken (just like people can be held without bail before a trial in exceptional circumstances). But this law clearly doesn't meet that standard. Don't know if it came up in the video bu the AG's office apparently published criteria that require probable cause even though the statute doesn't. That's an admission that the statute as written us unconstitutional and administrative action is not an adequate substitute.
  6. You could try smoking a pipe. Has its own risks, but much less risk than cigarettes. Smells and tastes much better too. And its much cheaper. A tin of good pipe tobacco is around $10 for 1.75 oz, bulk is much less, and if you smoke one bowl a day a few ounces will last several weeks. You can buy a corncob pipe for $10 that will smoke like a champ and a good quality briar for under $100 that will last forever if cared for properly (or you could buy a $1000 artisan briar pipe if so inclined, and anything in between). And it can be an enjoyable hobby, rather than an addiction like cigarettes.
  7. Well if that's the case it didn't work out too well for the justices who granted cert on that basis. Not one of those issues came up during oral argument.
  8. This is probably the best analysis I've read. Seems likely Court will decide moot, arguably rightly so as much as we'd hope otherwise. But doesn't mean 2A is dead at the Court. The article points out a distinction between a dismissal of the petition as improvidently granted (a DIG) bc it was moot or a written decision on mootness. We should hope for the former -- it would enable the Court to hear oral argument on Rogers or another 2A case that is in limbo in the spring. https://reason.com/2019/12/03/overview-of-oral-arguments-in-nys-rifle-and-pistol-association-v-city-of-new-york/
  9. This was and is a shit case -- too narrow and too easy to issue a very limited ruling. No idea why this is the one the justices granted cert for. A carry case like Rogers makes a lot more sense for a test case. But I wouldn't cry doomsday just yet if it is dismissed bc moot. The justices, even ones that want Heller to have teeth, must consider the legal issues involved now that the law has been repealed. Even if Roberts and Kavanaugh decide moot, doesn't mean that future 2A cases are dead in the water. I think it likely that the court will decide its moot and that we will know soon if that is the case. Breyer is really a POS -- so much for Stare Decisis. I don't think Ginsburg or Kagan will be so cavalier as to say Heller isn't binding. They will just limit it as much as possible. SotoMAYOR probably will go with Breyer. But completely ignoring Heller opens a whole can of works and bad precedent when abortion cases are heard -- if Heller can be abandoned why not Roe?
  10. Concealed carry reciprocity has nothing to do with the Supreme Court. The Court will eventually decide the carry/possession outside the home question, probably in the NYS Rifle and Pistol Association Case. And saying they need to decide "infringements" is silly. You do realize there is nothing magical about the term "shall not be infringed" just because it only appears in the 2A? The first amendment prohibits "abridging free speech". The 4th amendment says the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures "shall not be violated". Those are also the only places those particular terms are used. And yet the 1st and 4th amendments are subject to the parameters set by the Supreme Court. Same with the Second. I really wish Second Amendment absolutists would stop throwing out the idiotic "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand" argument. The 2A is an individual right and it should be subject to strict scrutiny. But as Scalia wrote its not without limits. Some gun laws will and should pass constitutional muster. And the words "shall not be infringed" don't magically negate Marbury vs Madison and the whole concept of Supreme Court review.
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...