supranatural

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.

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.

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?

Sorry, they're not constitutionally protected under the Right to Keep and Bear Timepieces.

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...

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.

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...

It's the same public safety philosophy behind gun free zones bring implemented... Which obviously does a lot for public safety...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

If everyone calls their congress representative (House and Senate) and pushes hard, I think it will pass just like Trump got elected despite the naysayers. If the majority of people continue to be Debbie Downers, we will continue to be felons in NJ and a dozen other states if we dare try to CC. Yes I think it will. They can fight it like they can fight Obamacare...they will lose. Fed trumps state.

In every state CCW means you can conceal carry except for prohibited places. You are not prohibited from CC in your car in any state that I can recall but since we don't have reciprocity I find myself getting out of the car to either put away or take out my CC pistol at each state line. What a pain the ass. And what if you go over a state line and don't realize it, and are pulled over just over the state line, like say in Maryland? Good luck. Reciprocity means we don't have to worry about being felons for things like that. The patchwork in general refers to places that are prohibited and for the most part it's the same everywhere - places that serve alcohol, schools, municipal buildings. But at least in NJ we will be allowed to carry concealed. Who cares if we have to know a patchwork of subtle differences? When you drive in another state you have to know their laws too right? Some states allow right turn on red, some don't. Some allow trailers on Parkways, some don't. Their is no nirvana with drivers licenses, why would you expect it with CCW?

EVERY state has prohibited places. In FL I can't carry in places that serve alcohol, I can't carry on college campuses or in schools. But again, this is the critical point - in most states you are permitted to have a firearm except for certain prohibited places. In NJ you are not allowed to have a firearm EVERYWHERE except for certain PERMISSIBLE places (your home, business, range, gunsmith, travel to these points...). It's reversed in NJ, this essentially reverses us to where everyone else is. It means I can walk off my property with a concealed permit and not be a felon. So what if you can't carry in a school - don't go to school then! People need to understand firearm laws and principles better before bashing this concealed carry bill. Again, if you don't like this bill, please feel free to call your local representative to tell them vote against it. It continues to amaze me how many people here want to shoot themselves in the foot and complain about the best piece of legislation to come down the pike in over a decade!

You don't seem to understand how this all works. The reason I have to wait till I am out of the DC area to put on my carry gun, and then put it in the glovebox when I hit South Carolina (I mistakenly wrote North Carolina before), is that they don't recognize either of my CCW permits. If we had reciprocity, I would not have to put my carry pistol into the glove box. Having reciprocity means I can put on my carry gun in my IWB holster, hop in my car and drive all the way to Florida or California or any other state and not have to go through hoops and hijinks putting my car in gloveboxes, or storage box in the trunk of my car or back of my truck, every time I cross a hostile state (i.e., one that does not recognize my Utah or Florida permits). Unless you're privy to info I'm not aware of...are SC resident permit holders required to put their guns in their gloveboxes of their cars even though they have a SC CCW? Cause that's the only way reciprocity would still have me putting my gun into the glovebox in SC...

It's not just if people in Free America want to visit NJ. Try NY, CT, DC, CA, etc. And an end to patchwork quilt of regulations in many ways. I hate it when I drive down to FL and I get to put on my piston, then in North Carolina I need to put it in the glove box and when I cross into South Carolina I can once again retrieve it from my glove box. Ridiculous. So if they do combine the two bills, what will you suggest we do? Call our representatives and tell them to vote against it, and wait another decade or two in the hopes that a similar bill without the NICS provision gets out of the judiciary committee? The number of negative people in here continue to amaze me. No wonder Murphy is the new governor... Yes I will support a NICS bill if it gets me concealed carry. NICS is here to stay and like our 300 million guns it's not going away unless you split the country into two - the dems and republicans (to paint it simply).

We go through all this but all it makes it is legal for us to have a firearm in our home, our business, at the gun shop/smith, at the range and travel in between. Anything else we are felons. Concealed carry remedies a large part of this by allowing us to carry wherever not prohibited specifically. At the moment, we are essentially prohibited from having a pistol/firearm EVERYWHERE in NJ except where they specifically permit us to (see above list). Concealed Carry reverses that so that we can carry EVERYWHERE except where specifically prohibited (which might be schools, bars, etc). Yeah we give up something - the fix NICS but so what? We have nothing now and to be honest, I think we should have a stronger NICS system. If you're not a felon, you have little to worry about. Gun control isn't going away, that ship has sailed just as the anti-gunners are not getting 300 million guns banned either as that ship has sailed too.

I just read an article that says the House version has provisions that penalize states that try to arrest legally carrying citizens by requiring then to pay the legal fees of the person if they successfully defend their case in court. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Bhunted I'm with you. Look at all the articles coming out from the left spewing lies about the the concealed carry bills all of a sudden... There's a reason for that. They're running scared because they know the possibility of their little house of cards tumbling down is very, very real. I think concealed carry will pass, and when it does and the streets don't run red from bloodshed, the libtard progressives will just have their "facts" and "logic" go up in smoke when exposed to the light of day... Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's okay... Then I'll just establish residency in Florida, get my resident permit and I'll be good to go... Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

PredictGov sounds like another liberal think tank... Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk