voyager9

I love how they imply that Bruen threw out the entire CCW permit process when it just nuked JN. And just so your opinion of NJ.com doesn’t get too high there is this op-ed

Need to kick him in the nuts, but he ain’t got any.

Careful. That’s only a slight detour to allowing the ban on carrying at bars or anyplace that serves alcohol.

Mr F. K. Ofmurphy just registered in opposition.

It’s the divide-by-zero rule of lawmaking. Something that appears valid if you don’t know anything about the subject yet makes it literally impossible to comply.

Jus say’n.

I read elsewhere a very similar bill was proposed in 2013 and didn’t go anywhere. Hopefully the same thing happens with this one. It’s blatantly unconstitutional in multiple ways.

I don’t want to kink-shame, but….

I’d delete all my social media accounts and create a new Pornhub account. PD won’t have enough eye-bleach for what will be on that feed.

That’s what I did.

We have tried to be prepared a little bit. With three kids it’s tough. We were aiming for the “few days/weeks/natural disaster” thing not “global shortage for years” thing. Guess I need to buy more food. Or ammo. Most of my neighbors are unarmed.

What a cool event. Might sign my daughter up. Wish it wasn’t an hour away edit: signup site says 0 spots left?

I’m not saying the 3rd won’t remand it. After all the 9th did for their similar case. I can certainly see the 3rd pulling the same BS. I just mean that this current order doesn’t do that.

Nobody is arguing the definition of Remand. Just that the order is the 3rd circuit reacting to scotus remanding their decision. It is not the circuit remanding to the district.

Of that, we can all agree.

Nowhere does it mention the District Court. It just says that since Scotus vacated and remanded, the circuit court is recalling their prior decision (mandate) for additional proceedings. Compare that with the 9th circuit, which has remanded the case to the District. That order specifically says it is the circuit remanding to the district.

Right. But the way it is worded the circuit court is recalling their decision because scotus vacated and remanded. SCOTUS is the court that is remanding.

That’s not how I read the notice. The circuit court is recalling their prior decision for further proceedings because scotus vacated and remanded it back to the circuit court. It never mentions the district court.

Right. It was SCOTUS doing the remanding.. technically a Grant, Vacate, Remand (GVR) back to the Circuit. The way I read it is that the District is recalling their previous mandate (ruling) on the case because Scotus told them to.

The 9th circuit just did the same thing with the CA AWB that was GVR’d back from scotus. Remanded it to the district court to rehear the case. 100% an attempt to delay because they have no ground to stand on. Edit: where does this say it is the 3rd circuit remanding it back to the District? After rereading it it sounds like the 3rd district is accepting that SCOTUS remanded it back to them and are recalling the case for additional hearings.

I have a knife that has a window punch and seatbelt cutter on one end. I forget the make. Here is an example(not saying get this one, just what they look like).

I believe one of the Republicans who voted for it is retiring. His vote isn’t based on constituency or remaining in office. He’s just a spiteful asshole.

If I remember right, he already won the primary. Not much they can do unless they want to give his seat to a democrat.

The fact that 2 republicans (NY and PA) voted for it is concerning. With 5 dems voting Nay those two traitors were the deciding votes. They could have sunk it in the House.

I’m sure the head of this department, who’s career depends on “success” will be level headed and apply common sense to the “civil actions” his office brings.