Jump to content

Bowling Ball

Members
  • Content Count

    154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by Bowling Ball


  1. 3 minutes ago, Princetonian58 said:

    The breakdown demonstrates that the Chief Justice lacks the guts to vote in favor of a 2A case.  Although Kavanaugh supported the outcome of mootness, he did write a concurrence that explicitly stated he wants the Court to grant certiorari in Rogers, Gould or one of the other cases that have been repeatedly subject to conference but not acted on.  And he endorsed Justice Alito's reading of Heller/MacDonald.  So there are clearly enough votes for a grant of certiorari: Kavanugh; Alito; Gorsuch; and Thomas.  Once again, it boils down to CJ Roberts.  The pending 2A cases are far more momentous so I'm afraid that Roberts will punk out again.

     

    It's possible that Robert's didn't want NYSRPA to be a political rally point, since he thinks it IS moot at it's core.

    Rogers vs Grewal and Worman vs Healey hopefully will provide that political shelter in a sense, since the cases don't involve this unseen level of skullduggery as NYSRPA.


  2. 54 minutes ago, 124gr9mm said:

    It's been a long week for me, so I don't really follow this.

    I thought short AR's (brace stock, vertical grip, etc, etc) were OK in NJ now.

    I don't understand the significance of the effort this guy went through.

    With this stamp you could build a sub 26" AOW.

    This opens the door to other manufacturers as well. For example an MP5K with a brace and VFG would be possible if sold as an AOW if a MFR wanted to invest the time.  

     

    • Like 2

  3. 10 minutes ago, PK90 said:

    The Feds will approve an AOW, but the NJSP will not like it and threaten charges. It happened to me many years ago, but things may have changed. 

    What laws are there preventing this?  

    https://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/pdf/firearms/njac-title13-ch54.pdf

    AOW from a receiver.  AOW because:

    1. Utilize an ATF Approved Pistol Stabilizing Brace

    2. Have a Vertical Fore Grip

    3. An OAL Under 26 Inches

    New Jersey Compliance:

    1. Per the Statues AOWs are Not Illegal in NJ

    2. I am NOT Requesting to Build an AOW from a Rifle, Pistol or Shotgun

    3. Lower Receivers are Deemed Firearms


  4. 46 minutes ago, The_Matrix said:

    Do tell. 

    Explain further. 

    What are you building?

    Oh...Congrats

    Not me, just somebody from Reddit that posted this. Figured I would share if anybody else was interested.

    This does indeed open many opportunities for further exploration of the laws that were once deemed off limits in NJ. 

    Thank goodness for this younger generation that questions tyranny.

    • Like 1

  5. On 2/3/2020 at 2:44 PM, raz-0 said:

    The people pushing gun control are very interested in developing a voter base that is in constant fear of something with the only option for a resolution being voting yet again for the politician or party that says only they can fix it. Their goal is to make the problem seem maximally threatening to that population, and to destroy the opposition voting block associated with it. Not a one of them is actually trying to fix anything. They are trying to farm votes and destroy your political power and that is it. 

    Another problem is 'conservative' politicians not actively pushing against gun control, rather simply touting fear of gun control to get conservative voters to the polls.

    If there was NO WAY any anti gun measure could be passed, conservatives would lose votes. People would not be mobilized to vote conservative or they may cast their vote towards a liberal candidate, seeing as their 2A rights are secured.
     


  6. 17 hours ago, Maksim said:

     

    IIRC the case, was about a guy who was completing 80% lowers and selling them.

    Roh would have the 80% lower ready to be milled in a cnc machine, the customer would push the 'start' button, which would finish the lower.
    Technically the customer  buying the 80% lower was the manufacturer.

    About the article
    This is still a technicality regarding the serialization of AR15's...But one that is fixed at a congressional level, which we do not want any part of right now. JMO, if congress 'fixes' this, they would most likely serialize the upper and lower, problem solved for them.


  7. 5 hours ago, louu said:

    I haven't been following this stuff lately, can someone quote me and give me a rundown of what's been going on? 

    The case was granted certiorari despite NYC claiming it's moot since they rewrote the law at the 11th hour. 

    It's scheduled for oral argument on 12/2.

    I, along with many think it may reaffirm Heller, since it's obvious the circuit courts are outright playing games with intermediate scrutiny ruled in Heller.

    NYC's argument is if you can afford a car/ home,  you can afford a second gun in your other house,  therefore you don't need to transport the gun. 

    It's the 4th 2A case EVER being granted cert,  so it's a milestone in itself. 

    If we get strict scrutiny,  many current gun laws may be struck down after being challenged. 

    We're just anticipating Murphy/Grewal's next move,  thinking they'll just keep writing new laws to keep us busy fighting them in court. 

     


  8. 10 hours ago, raz-0 said:

     

    If they outright ignore it, SCOTUS can find individuals in contempt. At that point it is a matter of who controls the executive branch and thus determines the nature of the AG. The AG can bring charges directly to SCOTUS if they desire. The AG can also bring it as a civil rights case, or a RICO case. 

    I can see this happening in NJ. Although It would probably take decades of fighting to get the attention of the executive branch. 

    On another note,  FUDDS and guys wearing white New Balances are big contributors to the reasoning behind background checks and the like.


  9. 2 hours ago, BobA said:

    Which is why all this needs to be addressed under "Not to be infringed".  Anything short of a back ground check is an infringement.   And even at that, if they want me to get a back ground check then they should pay for the back ground check. Check?

     

    The only check when purchasing a firearm is the clerk counting my money, other than that we're losing the whole point.  

    It's only a matter of time before you,  I, we,  fail passing a 'background check' based on our thoughts or political views. 

    They consider us dangerous to society already,  the only thing stopping them is there's too many of us.

    Another generation of these most basic infringements and we're just another Ecuador or England. 


  10. 1 hour ago, JHZR2 said:

    That’s a good point/question.  If they get slapped down, especially if one of the NJ cases ends up at the SC, will they reconsider?  Or at least slow down?  

    I suspect to appease the base that they surely consider to be “useful idiots”, they’ll just keep writing and signing in laws, knowing full well that they’ll get scrutinized and struck down.  But so long as they sign them in at the right place and the right time to give the optic of doing something, I suspect they’ll keep doing it. 

    Then the question becomes, what is the citizens’ recourse to “lawmakers” continually writing unconstitutional laws that they know will be struck down?

    I was thinking about them leaving the existing laws on the books to linger unless someone took in the cost to challenge.  But they could keep making new unconstitutional laws just for the sake of doing it, I suppose(?). 

    We all know the answer to that.....


  11. 1 hour ago, JHZR2 said:

    I’d have to suspect that since these people won’t go quietly, they’ll slow roll any process. 

    Not an expert, but I’d have to suspect that they won’t just wipe every law from the books - they’ll wait for each and every one to be scrutinized however it is, and require each one to have a costly assessment, even if scrutiny is applied correctly and implemented at the lowest possible level. 

    Its like suing an at-fault party that is insured - they’ll work to make everyone bleed. They’re trained to get to the jury trial, because they know it’s the most costly approach and not worth it to most to invest the effort. In this case the rights grabbers will try to make everyone bleed because their backers have deep pockets. 

    Agreed,

    The sad part is, while we're fightingin upper courts for scrutiny to be applied to laws on the books already, Murphy will keep signing more laws in, just worded differently.

    It's a fight, make no mistake.


  12. The 9th Circuit is holding Young vs Hawaii pending this case...

    Ask yourself, what does Open carry have to do with locked and unloaded transport in NYC?

    Even the 9th is thinking they will set a strict scrutiny. 

    I'm overly optimistic, but we've been a long way since coming this close to a win!

    NYC doesn't stand a chance in oral arguments, they defended this law for almost a decade as constitutional.

    • Agree 1

  13. 1 hour ago, diamondd817 said:

    Where did SCOTUS say they were taking this case to apply "strict scrutiny" to 2A cases? This is all pure speculation.

     

    There are always multiple 2A cases being held by Scotus. This means absolutely nothing.

    You're correct,  it is speculation to assume scrutiny being applied,  although I did preface that statement with 'I believe'.

    I do not recall a recent 2A case being granted certiorari.  


  14. On 10/10/2019 at 6:08 PM, diamondd817 said:

    And since Heller, almost every case involving AWB, mag limits, and CCW denial has been upheld. As great as a case everyone thinks Heller was, it really wasn't. Left way too many holes and openings to further restrictions. That was 2008. Mcdonald was 2010. This will be 2020 and change nothing. Next case will be 2030.

    And I hope I'm wrong.

    The cases that were upheld at the lower courts were judged using a 'rational basis'.

    Based on the Heller ruling,  lower courts must use an intermediate scrutiny.  Virtually all cases claimed to use IS but used a 'rational basis' instead. SCOTUS is aware and I believe judge Thomas has stated his frustration with exactly this. 

    Young vs Hawaii,  the 9th circuit court used intermediate scrutiny according to Heller. This allowed open carry, since section 9 of Heller states at least one carry option must be available.  

    Needless to say,  California lost their minds since they in essence would be forced to grant open carry, the 9th circuit put it on hold pending NYSRPA. 

    I believe to avoid circuit splits and further confusion,  a 'strict scrutiny' would be applied to NYSRPA. It gives the lower courts much less wiggle room.

    On 10/10/2019 at 5:45 PM, diamondd817 said:

    Because this will have the least impact and controversy out of all the real 2A cases out there. This will be the, "see, we took a 2A case", and will not have to touch another 2A case the next 10yrs again.

    There are a total of 5 2A cases being held by SCOTUS at this moment,  a sixth possibly next week. 


  15. 4 minutes ago, diamondd817 said:

    Because this will have the least impact and controversy out of all the real 2A cases out there. This will be the, "see, we took a 2A case", and will not have to touch another 2A case the next 10yrs again.

    I doubt that. 

    I feel this is going to be a case where we get a favorable ruling on both issues being presented. 

    NYC spent the better part of a decade defending this law as constitutional.  They will be asked for that same argument again,  not on their home turf.  

    Instead of attempting to defend this law  as constitutional,  they attempted to defer based on voluntary cessation. 

    I feel this will be a landmark case. 

    • Agree 1

  16. 1 hour ago, kc17 said:

    Are you saying SCOTUS could say don't try to play games with us stopping us from hearing a case, but still uphold NYC's original law? Not asking if you are saying that IS what they will do, only you see a way that they COULD. 

     

     

    No. 

    The main issue about the 2A in this case is the lower courts upholding this law.  They claimed to have applied intermediate scrutiny but used a rational basis instead.   

    Their rational basis was a joke,  being such it's clear to SCOTUS that there is a rebellion in the lower courts. I feel to correct this  SCOTUS will issue strict scrutiny. 

    As far as the voluntary cessation issue,  i feel this could become a landmark case.  

    NYS and NYC messed up badly. 

     

    • Thanks 1

  17. This case may get a split ruling.

    Mootness is a key element here, and plays a much bigger role than most think. I feel mootness may get a unanimous verdict, and they would split on the 2A.

    This will become a landmark case against the government, with the mootness opinion written by RBG.

    Voluntary cessation is the cause of this case reaching where it did I think, the court is aware of the games NYS and NYC were/are playing.

    Just my opinion

    • Agree 1

  18. 1 hour ago, SJG said:

    If this becomes a "bump stock" fiasco all the "others" and SBR work arounds may be done. Interesting question as to what will happen to all the originally mfg and sold firearms with braces that are in the marketplace. Unlike bump stocks, i don't think any firearms were mfg and sold with bump stocks to begin with.

    Nothing will happen.  The fudds don't care and this ruling only affects us with too much to lose.  The NRA wants nothing to do with the real fight either. 

    They know we won't fight. 

    The left has nothing to lose,  they get paid to get into confrontations with police and create news stories.  Fool the nation into thinking everybody thinks the way they do. 

    But to get to the point,  since this goes contrary to past determinations,  the BATFE wil allow a 'comment period'.

×
×
  • Create New...