Jump to content

chic013

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    60

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    N/A

Posts posted by chic013

  5. Posted

    I like the Taser Pulse.  Nice feel, very light and is very much like my Glock 43 as far as size, so very concealable.  Yes, it's pricy but as noted by others, you can legally carry it and it is at least something in the way of an insurance policy for personal defense while outside the home.  The plus model has the ability to send your location via your smartphone to LE should you ever need to deploy it.  

    • Thanks 1

  7. Posted · Edited by chic013
    typo

    41 minutes ago, Princetonian58 said:

    Nice job on the petitioner's reply by Dan Schmutter and colleagues.

    I too would handicap SCOTUS like PDM.  The wild card is Roberts and I'm sure he is wrestling with the impact on the country, given its current state of political division, if the Court forces all the blue states to allow some form of carry outside the home.  Libturd heads would explode everywhere.

    Agree.  However, Roberts needs to follow the Constitution.  And must do so with strict scrutiny in our case.  It is not supposed to be about wrestling with any personal views or outside noise.  The 2A is clear and States within the union that attempt to usurp it must be stopped.  

    I get your sentiment and I too feel he is the wildcard, but being on the high court, Roberts need to put that stuff aside and rule based on law.  

    Hopeful on my end here and for us all.

     

     

    • Like 1

  8. Posted

    45 minutes ago, PDM said:

    I have a big smile on my face.  Even if cert isn't granted, I really feel like these guys did a great job.  In particular, I like the response to NJ's assertion that there is no evidence regarding the percentage of permits granted: it doesn't matter.  The law is unconstitutional on its face because it de facto differentiates between people with a special, "justifable need" and "ordinary citizens".  The footnote is a nice touch, pointing out that the percentages are likely irrelevant because most people are discouraged from ever applying and going through and onerous and expensive process because they know they will be denied.

    I've been disappointed so many times, but I will venture to say that I am optimistic about this.  It seems that with Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch cert should be granted since you need 4 justices to grant-- I will actually be shocked if it isn't.  Roberts has unfortunately become rather scary, and I worry that if cert is granted he could flip, but hard to believe that a Justice who signed onto Heller and Mcdonald would let this flagrantly unconstitutional law to stand.  I could see him insisting on as narrow a holding as possible.  We will see. 

    I will read the response brief shortly, however, I agree with your assessment.  I'm very optimistic that the true rule of law will be interpreted appropriately.  My wish is for Justice Kavanaugh to write the opinion and stick it solely into the chest of one Cory Booker, who made a mockery of his confirmation hearing.  No way Kavanaugh forgets Booker and payback/karma will be rightfully bestowed.  

    • Like 2

  9. Posted

    18 hours ago, 124gr9mm said:

    Another thing to consider is that the recent stream of negative attention the NRA is receiving is AGENDA-DRIVEN.

    With a conservative leaning Supreme Court, the anti-gun lobbies and Democrats are absolutely afraid that the NRA could back/push court challenges that would end up hamstringing the horseshit/meaningless state gun laws that they champion in order to win favor with the electorate.  If the NRA can fund court challenges that kill the feel-good "look what "i've done for crime" laws , then they're a dangerous threat.

    Very good assessment.  I agree 100%.  

  12. Posted

    12 hours ago, Underdog said:

    There was a discussion with a Trump advisor that indicated that Trump "banned" the bump stock to avoid it going to congress because congress would have tacked all kinds of other regulations pertaining to the Second Amendment as well.  By doing this those other things were supposedly not brought to the table.  And it was discussed that the belief was that this would be ultimately turned around in the courts.  I don't know if I believe all of this, and I still think it sets a very dangerous precedent.   It would show that Trump is still supporting our Second Amendment Rights.  Also, he got a standing ovation when he said he would stand for the Second Amendment recently at a rally. 

    I think there is some merit to this.  Toss the anti-2A crowd a "bone" to keep them at bay.  I watched the recent rally and was happy to hear him restate his 2A position.  Hopeful for good things to come for us.  Keeping the faith.  

  13. Posted

    46 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

    So it says the entire law was invalidated. So does that mean CA residents can get 30’s again or is it back to the old limit which I think was 15

    I’d have to think that can get what they wish now. If I’ve read the ruling right. If the law was found to be unconstitutional as I am understanding then any limitations are same.

    Time for NJ to get this case going or updated citing this ruling  

     

  17. Posted

    1 hour ago, sakkas said:

    Its really time to demand our elected officals obey and respect the Constitution and bill of rights and those that don't should be bought up on charges of violating thier Oath of Office!

    Unfortunately the only way it changes is the power of the vote. Nothing will change otherwise, barring a miracle at the SCOTUS. (Which I try to be optimistic of). 

  18. Posted

    I chose my references based on the application criteria of individuals who can speak to my character and have known me well beyond the time periods required. I told them I was seeking to purchase firearms and needed to supply references. They were more than happy to do so and neither of my references owns firearms.  

    Those are the types of references you want  

     

    • Agree 1

  19. Posted

    14 minutes ago, Sniper said:

    It's a nice belief thinking that SCOTUS will reverse these laws, but in reality, it's an extreme long shot. The SCOTUS hears/argues only 1% of cases presented to them. They get thrown 7000 - 8000 cases a year, but only argue 70 - 80. To think that they'll take on these 2A cases, when there is currently only a +1 conservative lean, isn't realistic.

    Thinking the SCOTUS is going to save us is a fairy tale, this is why I believe the 2A community needs to take these matters in their own hands and fight fire with fire. These ridiculous bills will continue to be introduced, as the Dem lawmakers have no blow back. They'll just keep throwing crap on the wall, hoping one will finally stick.

     

    I certainly can’t argue with you. I know it’s a long shot but I have to believe all this heightened rhetoric is surely being noticed by SCOTUS. Especially the recent threats of declaring a national emergency on firearms as democracts have been spewing in retaliation to the president. 

    I also believe Justice Kavanaugh to be a professional, upstanding justice, but it could be a nice twist to “send notice” to Booker and NJ should they grant cert in the Rogers case. 

    Other states are slowly but surely taking positive legislative steps as well. Think we’re at 16 states now with constitutional carry with more to go. Still a long ways there as well but I’ll take any positives as good towards justice for the 2A. 

  21. Posted

    11 hours ago, Sniper said:

    The question is, how does the 2A community stop these crazy Bills from even being written and considered?

    Also, with this level of attack, who still thinks PA is a "safe", 2A friendly state to move to?

    That’s a great question. As we saw here with Murphy, they hold these round table meetings but never include the counter parties. They stick only with like-minded yes-men/women. 

    That’s pretty much how tyranny is defined. 

    And then of course, after they pass all these infringing legislative measures, it takes years to fight in court. Along with burden of costs. 

    I’ll keep saying this, it is all on SCOTUS to take these cases and act. 

    • Like 1
    • Agree 2

  23. Posted

    17 hours ago, galapoola said:

    Well IL went as far as court of appeals and they got 180 days to craft a system.

    DC lost also at appeals and DC was pretty quick, then re-interpreted the ruling and it took a few years and another judge if I recall.

    My guess is NJ will do what they did with stun guns, they issued a one pager to all PD's noting the change. When I emailed my local chief he was aware of the letter and was vague on it's practical application. Couldn't nail the guy down. I went as far as providing a scenario. What if I had on my person a concealed stun gun, for all lawful purposes and an officer was knowledgeable of this, would I be arrested? He couldn't or wouldn't answer. I understand that they can't give legal advise but come on.

    The first application after a win at SCOTUS will have to go before a superior judge for issuance, that's the law currently. He/she would have to accept self defense, if SCOTUS spells that out in the opinion, and then accept that as a justifiable need. No need to craft a new law. The legislature can pile on new laws that make it more expensive, more time consuming, more qualifying and begin to spell out where you can carry.

    Thanks.  Makes sense.  

  24. Posted

    14 hours ago, BobA said:

    AND THIS IS F—king WHY THIS WHOLE F——ing ENCHILADA NEEDS TO GO UP AS INFRINGEMENT.  

    Yes, that is what should occur.  All matters of infringement should be stricken and ruled un-constitutional. There are 16 states (last I recall) that are constitutional carry, no permits.  Some are newly added like OK and KY.  I could only hope the NJ cases attorneys will cite to SCOTUS.  The 2A has been through enough political BS and it needs to be restored in full to the entire Union.  

  25. Posted

    Good info by all.  Thanks.

    So "if" it were to succeed at SCOTUS, anyone have any crystal ball thinking on the possible scenarios?  I know it would all hinge on the wording and opinions of the court, but interested in other folks views.  Just trying to stay positive and hopeful.  LOL. 

    Would it be immediate upon ruling?

    Would the state have a timeframe to comply and facilitate means of permits/processing?  

    I know i'm putting the cart way before the horse, but if this were to happen, would it possible that since we've all been through the process of FID application, with background, mental health, reference screening that the FID serves as CCW.  Albeit a photo ID may be best for positive ID which the FID lacks, so perhaps a reparation for the state to issue photo ID, no costs (wishful thinking). 

    Would some level of training be needed or included, much like with Utah or Florida classes we've taken.  

    Happy to hear thoughts of others.  Keeping the faith.

×
×
  • Create New...