Jump to content

supranatural

Members
  • Content Count

    144
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Community Reputation

36 Excellent

About supranatural

  • Rank
    NJGF Member
  1. The case isn't about the ability to practice at a range but rather transport outside of the city, unless I recall incorrectly. Supposedly there are several ranges in the city where they can transport guns to practice but transportation to anywhere outside of the city, such as a another state's range, any competition event, an owner's second home or any destination outside of city limits. I think even if someone who lives in the city were to sell their residence move out of state would be prohibited from putting their firearms in a vehicle and drive out of NYC to their new residence.
  2. That scotusblog opinion sounds like the wishful thinking of a liberal lawyer. It sounds like so many liberal comments I've read who (figuratively) shout from the rooftops that the law has been amended so there's no point in the case being heard. If it's not such a big deal why are they raising such a ruckus about it? If it is such a minor case it wouldn't have garnered so much agitation from NY trying to moot the case.
  3. Wow that's pretty bold, one branch of the government threatening to "fix" another branch if they don't do what they want. Is there a better example of tyranny when one a branch of the government is threatening one of the other branches, each meant as a check and balance against the other, and furthermore on the issue of a constitutionally guaranteed right?
  4. Sorry, they're not constitutionally protected under the Right to Keep and Bear Timepieces.
  5. I've quoted from another website (thefirearmblog.com) : Strict scrutiny, if applied to all 2nd Amendment cases, would entail all gun laws being subject to three tests. Once the court determines that strict scrutiny should be applied, the challenged law or policy is presumed to be unconstitutional. The government has to prove it passes the strict scrutiny tests. First, the law or policy must serve a compelling government interest. Secondly, the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Thirdly, it must be the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. High capacity magazine bands, assault rifle bands, May Issue would all fail this test...
  6. Of course there's always the possibility that could happen. I'm just of the opinion that with a conservative majority on the court that they took this case for a specific reason... To add to the Heller ruling and prevent lower courts from subverting that case over and over again. The justices are not stupid, they know exactly why NYC is doing all this...To prevent what the court majority feels needs to be done. I think the conservatives on the bench feel that the 2A has been given short strict as one of our rights and it's time to address that.
  7. I'm pretty sure that won't fly with the court. It's believed that SCOTUS took this case not as a case to strictly defend NYC gun owners' right to transport outside of the home to other than the seven ranges but instead to set precedent for strict scrutiny for 2A laws. They know that if NYC changes the law there's nothing to stop them from changing it back after the case is dropped from the docket. The only way to keep NYC from gaming the judicial system is to set precedent via strict scrutiny. That's why the already told NYC that they weren't going to delay the case...
  8. It's the same public safety philosophy behind gun free zones bring implemented... Which obviously does a lot for public safety...
  9. I assume your point is that we need to vote out the anti-gun legislators. If so, it's been tried, we are too few in NJ for that to happen. SCOTUS is our best chance as the Heller decision showed. Like it or not, there are a lot less gun owners than non-gun owners in this country and if we depended solely on voting in gun favorable politicians we are in a losing battle over the long haul as it has been for the last 20-30 years. SCOTUS is our best shot right now at righting the wrongs that have been done to our 2A rights.
  10. With strict scrutiny appeals don't need to reach SCOTUS, all lower courts will be required to abide by strict scrutiny. Means that pretty much all restrictive laws won't even survive the first court ruling so draconian laws could be overturned very quickly. This hasn't been the case because all the lower courts have been using intermediate scrutiny.
  11. If SCOTUS rules in favor of the gun owners then it will probably establish that all gun laws must pass strict scrutiny rather than intermediate. That means that such a law as you purpose prohibiting firearms within ten miles of a school would fail such scrutiny miserably just as the transportation law in NYC is probably going to fail such scrutiny when it gets in front of SCOTUS.
  12. Go read up on strict scrutiny. SCOTUS took up this particular case rather than a right to carry like that case in California. There's a specific reason and it has to do with setting an overarching precedence for how *ALL* cases heard by lower courts are handled. If it goes to the way of strict scrutiny it leaves the door wide open for appeals to overturn a lot of onerous burdens/infringements on the Second Amendment. It will benefit an entire nation of 2A supporters.
  13. My understanding is that if SCOTUS rules against NY it isn't the ability to transport guns per se that would benefit us, it is the fact that the decision will very likely be with the declaration that laws restricting the Second Amendment would be subject to strict scrutiny for judicial review rather than just intermediate scrutiny. If that is the case, then it would be huge. Every case of appeal to NJ's gun laws could potentially overturn those draconian laws we are held under.
  14. You need to call them up and say that they need to support fix NICS even if they have to compromise and get concealed carry passed as part of it, you don't like it but you are willing to sacrifice for the greater good of background checks - tell them you're sacrificing "for the children."
  15. To the naysayers who say NJ will never allow it and it will be challenged in court by Murphy and his cronies. If they're smart they will take a lesson from Washington DC and not challenge the overturning of their CC May Issue law. If they do they stand a real chance it will have to go to SCOTUS and if it does, it could very well mean the end of May Issue for ALL states. It's strategic to not fight it. If they decide to take the tactic of fighting it, it's poor strategy that could end with them losing the entire war by focusing on the battle.
×
×
  • Create New...