Jump to content

drjjpdc

Members
  • Content Count

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About drjjpdc

  • Rank
    NJGF Member
  • Birthday July 6

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    North Hanover Twp.
  • Interests
    Shooting, Music and Photography
  • Home Range
    Central Jersey R&P

Recent Profile Visitors

340 profile views
  1. Ditto supra. These babies would be better off reading Scalia's opinion in Heller and Alito's in McDonald. I wonder How many anti-gun folks know that both men that brought the suits were black Americans that both lived in high crime areas. Don't forget the importance of the 2nd Amendment but also that of transporting property to other areas and states (the Commerce Clause).
  2. I 've said it before but I still think that Roberts is tired of all these circuit court challenges to SC authority. I'll bet he would love to do something with strict scrutiny to get rid of these troublesome cases.
  3. Here is another indication for us to hope. Trump's Solicitor General asked for asked for leave from the Court to participate in oral argument was granted. The guy that was denied was an anti-2nd amendment lawyer with a specialty in linguistics. He wanted to take apart the language in Heller largely placed there by Scalia. The conservative justices on the Court wanted none of that! 18-280 NY STATE RIFLE & PISTOL, ET AL. V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL. The motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument is granted. The motion of Neal Goldfarb for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument is denied.
  4. The ironic thing is that the argument about affording another gun goes against the anti-gun sentiment, because you will be adding more guns to the population!
  5. From all the docs I read, argument means they all get together for oral argument. The mootness thing was decided in conference. Even after argument in December, they will continue talking and writing until a vote occurs.
  6. Not around here they don't, otherwise why all the questions on mootness?
  7. Here is some potential good news. The following link show %'s of Supreme Court decisions where they reversed lower court decisions. Regarding NJ & NY, They have reversed the 2nd and third court of appeals 60-70 % of the times. That's a pretty percentage for us. https://ballotpedia.org/SCOTUS_case_reversal_rates_(2007_-_Present) John
  8. Here's are the NRA-ILA that explain NYC last hope for refusing to hear the case. https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190920/us-supreme-court-schedules-nra-supported-second-amendment-case-for-argument What people have a hard time in understanding the reasons. Any time a law is passed that conflicts with the Constitution, then a judicial decision is required. It is not enough for the municipality to cancel the law. That is because they can always re-instate that law.
  9. I should have explained it better. There are only seven ranges in NYC but you have about 16,300 premises licenses. That's about 2500 folks per range. You couldn't get all those people into what's available. The range question is not THE REASON but just one of them. You are correct in your last point. There are only 2 permits in NYC, a carry permit and the premises permit which limits you to your home. That's also why one of the questions the justices will ask is why doesn't the Commerce clause apply in this case? https://www.wnyc.org/story/visit-nyc-firing-range-hear-gun-owners/
  10. When you get right down to the nuts and bolts of this case, it's not really about the 2nd Amendment. With a tiny fraction of New Yorker's able to practice at a gun range, how the heck are they supposed to practice when NYC can't accommodate their citizens?
  11. Really the whole point of this ridiculous gun case is that if you have a premises license & you can't get into a city range, how the heck are you going to practice? The city giving a license to a resident that can't practice is way more dangerous than someone transporting it!
  12. I don't know who did the brief but NJ has it's own case. Rogers v Grewal. The state dragged it's feet but the court made them reply to the petitioners.
  13. I have been reading all the briefs in this case. Paul Clement for the Petitioners has written 2 briefs referring to this silly argument by NYC. Here it is, about 25 pages or so. It's worth reading. Basically just because the state changed the law does not mean NYC did. If the state recent laws disappeared, the city opinions would remain intact. The only way to give the petitioners true relief is to make the court decide on it. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/114641/20190904133735900_18-280rb.pdf
  14. The amazing thing about this topic to me is the amount of briefs sent to SCOTUS. This case has brought forward at least 50 briefs! You have these screwball Democratic Senators threatening the Court if they don't make a decision that they like. In addition the NY case is not asking what Rogers is (shall issue). They are only asking to transport their guns unloaded and locked in a case. After all NYC only has 7 approved gun ranges. I just hope the justices have the brass to tell Whitehouse and Co. to shove it.
  15. People may think Roberts is a bit wishy-washy, but he is also not happy the way these Eastern Circuit courts are screwing up SCOTUS opinions. I think that's another reason SCOTUS will make a statement.
×
×
  • Create New...