Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


Spartiati last won the day on February 20 2019

Spartiati had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

27 Excellent

About Spartiati

  • Rank
    NJGF Regular
  • Birthday 01/11/1973

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    Scotch Plains
  • Home Range
    SCFGPA - Cherry Ridge

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Except that the opinion clearly calls out the 6 states that are may issue and that may issue is unconstitutional. NJ must go to Shall Issue. The permitting scheme can stand with the removal of justifiable need.
  2. Favorable only if they seek damages it appears to me. Solicitor General basically shot down petitioners theories of mootness.
  3. This is most certainly true. The 1st is certainly a fine example of that i.e. the message in speech is core and thus can’t be restricted however restrictions time, place, manner etc can survive intermediate. My hope would be they would expound on what is considered “core” to the second amendment and if core strict scrutiny applies. Surely no slam dunk here but given they are holding other cases I think it is reasonable to think they are doing so because they believe the opinion here will impact them thus this will have a broader impact than just transport.
  4. That's what everyone thought about Chicago/IL and guess what they have reasonable shall carry now. If the court ends up giving us strict scrutiny it will be a huge win that will give circuit court little play in ruling on these idiotic laws.
  5. If this will be ruled on narrowly, then why have they been holding the NJ case since May? It hasn’t even been rescheduled for conference. Could it be that it is being held pending results of the NY case? If they rule strict scrutiny must be used they could send NJ back to circuit and say reconsider using result of this case.
  6. This case in my view will be heard. Will be scheduled once the court comes back in session. NYC’s argument was 2nd doesn’t demand strict scrutiny. Changing the law doesn’t address the issue of how they determine whether or not 2nd amendment laws need to survive strict scrutiny. Notice NJ case is being held sitting there since May. They will hopefully hear this case and set the record straight on scrutiny that needs to be applied, then send NJ case back to circuit to reconsider based on NY decision which will hopefully force strict scrutiny.
  7. Very few decisions are made on petitions at first conference. Most petitions are relisted several times. As an example, the Indiana abortion case was relisted 15 times before today's per curiam decision. The most likely result is it will be relisted for conference next week.
  8. Won’t be heard until next session in the fall.
  9. NY briefing has not been stayed yet. In fact the petitioners have requested that the motion be denied. Would be great if SCOTUS denied the motion and said nice try NY. As for NJ the court will now schedule it for conference. Should be soon. I would think it will go to conference within next couple weeks. Then it’s just a matter of how many conferences it takes for them to make a decision...
  10. Agree it was somewhat obvious but wouldn’t call it cowardly. No reason to allow SCOTUS to review this as the law was stupid to begin with and by allowing people to transport really doesn’t bring on much risk to the public. They know this would have been a lost cause. So it’s a fight not worth taking as SCOTUS will likely finally strike down the use of lower levels of scrutiny.
  11. Smart move from the left..They are working together across the country to try and limit impact to other jurisdictions. Will interesting to see what SCOTUS does here.
  12. Unfortunately the 9th circus will swoop in and present a strained argument for how it is constitutional...
  13. What video? I don’t need to watch a video I read the opinion. The opinion is that the law is not constitutional because it is an impossible burden in the home. It doesn’t say a thing about the fee. Read the opinion. This will do nothing in NJ.
  14. Read the opinion regardless of whether or not it goes to SCOTUS it doesn’t challenge NJ regime except you can’t require in FID in the home which we already have.
  • Create New...