Jump to content

supranatural

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    169

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by supranatural

  1. Posted

    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. Posted

    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.

    • Like 1

  3. Posted

    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?

    • Agree 1

  5. Posted

    3 hours ago, USRifle30Cal said:

    And when strict scrutiny is applied? Then......

    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...

    • Like 3
    • Agree 2

  6. Posted

    1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

    I agree, and hope you’re right. I’m just pointing out that NYC’s argument is different. There is a difference between “the case might be moot, soon” and “the case is now moot”. The court may give the later more thought. 

    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. Posted

    33 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

    That request was “we may change the policy, please delay”... I believe now it would be “we DID change the policy, please drop the case”

    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...

    • Agree 1

  8. Posted

    1 hour ago, Zeke said:

    Nothing stops them from changing it back after. SCOTUS knows this . It will rule on the merits of the law.

    What is interesting this law was put in place for” public safety “. I guess it’s no longer needed? Or was a lie to begin with?

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

    • Agree 1

  9. Posted

    5 hours ago, Bowling Ball said:

    There's only one thing that will stop them from writing unconstitutional laws.

    We the people

    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.

    • Agree 2

  10. Posted

    12 hours ago, Darrenf said:

    Strict scrutiny for any anti 2A law would be fantastic, but they will just continue to write laws knowing they will fail a Supreme Court decision   They don’t care as long as they can continue to delay our enjoyment of our rights until there are consequences for them. There are no consequences for lawmakers who write and enact clearly unconstitutional laws. The only penalty there is would be an election, and these morons have even more moronic voters who support them. 

    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. Posted

    On 5/24/2019 at 4:19 PM, Darrenf said:

    You might want to rethink that position. Sure, you’ve got your permit, but now you cannot carry within 10 miles of any school, hospital or government building.  Don’t think NJ lawmakers won’t do it. 

    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. 

    • Agree 1

  12. Posted

    6 hours ago, diamondd817 said:

    This is the gun control case they decide to take? Unbelievable. This will only benefit NYC guys owners. Let me know when they take up something all gun owners will benefit from. Like:

    1. Magazine capacity limits

    2. Assault Weapons

    3. May issue ccw

    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.

    • Agree 2
    • Thanks 1

  13. Posted

    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.

    • Agree 1

  14. Posted

    13 minutes ago, Downtownv said:

    You guys are not thinking like a liberal!

    Call these 2 a holes and demand they support Diane Fienstiens gun control!!!!!

    This is tied to the HR38

     

    You call and tell them you want them to support concealed carry, your wasting your time, you have a better chance of cory booker saving you from a burning building in Newark!

    Support Schumer/Feinstien!

    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."

    • Like 4

  15. Posted

    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.

    • Like 3

  16. Posted

    22 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

    WHEN this passes, i'll sure be glad that there's so many places that the law says we can't carry. 'cause at least i know that those intending harm will also be unarmed.

    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.

    1 minute ago, USRifle30Cal said:

    Do u honestly think this is getting past the Senate? 

     

    And if by miracle it does - u will still never be able to carry in nj.  The incoming gov and leg will fight it tooth and nail - we r acting like it's inevitable and it is far from it st all....sad to say 

    Yes I think it will.

    They can fight it like they can fight Obamacare...they will lose.  Fed trumps state.

    • Like 1

  17. Posted

    18 minutes ago, ChrisJM981 said:

    I'm not informed on their carry laws. You as the the CCW holder are responsible for following the laws for a CCW holder in each individual state, therefore it is still a patchwork. There is no federal standard, i.e. If one state requires you to declare to a LEO that you're carrying, you must follow that state law. If SC allows you to carry on your person with a CCW, then you wouldn't have to put it in the glovebox. 

    Again, you are required to be in compliance with the CCW laws of the State you are traveling through. 

    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?

  18. Posted · Edited by supranatural
    update

    10 minutes ago, Zeke said:

    Correct. But prohited places still need to be observed instate respectively. In addition to mag limits and ammunition types.

    What are N.J. carry laws?

    searching...

    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!

    • Like 1

  19. Posted

    14 minutes ago, ChrisJM981 said:

    The law only honors other permits. All state laws concerning the method of carry for a CCW holder still apply.

    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...

  20. Posted · Edited by supranatural
    add to message

    7 hours ago, OchoBlue said:

     

    People in Free America gain only if for some strange reason the want to visit NJ (sarcasm).

    Im sure the residents of Free America will not be happy with this 'trade' and will want NJ residents to 'get their own house in order'. 

    As someone else pointed out other than contacting our legislators (which in most cases) has minimal effect what we say on this forum won't affect the outcome or whether they combine the bills...

    No matter what the outcome, it is the closest NJ residents have come to having some of their rights restored since Drake and Perutta...

     

     

    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.

    43 minutes ago, NJGF said:

    Does anyone really want to support a bill that is embraced by Chuck and Diane. We need to be patient. Unfortunately that could take our lifetimes. But it is not worth going down a rabbit hole not knowing where it is leading. NICS can be fixed without any new legislation.

    We should support H.R. 38 as a standalone bill. If we don't have the votes yet then so be it. Don't vote for any politician that didn't support it. Call and/or contact your representative in the House today.

    And if we want to be free we should leave NJ (I know it is not so easily done because of family and jobs).

    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).

    • Like 1

  21. Posted

    7 hours ago, Downtownv said:

    I mean in NJ we go through layers of checks and balances that other states do not. NJ FID approval ,Purchase permitting/approval etc.

    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.

    • Like 2

  22. Posted

    The writer mixed up the Senate version with the House​ version. Hudson's bill as written will help us if you possess an out of state non resident CC permit. The Senate's version clearly states that you need a RESIDENT carry permit. This coupled with Hudson himself saying the Senate will be a tough push might be a problem for NJ residents.

     

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

    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

    • Like 1

  23. Posted

    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

×
×
  • Create New...