Jump to content
Bklynracer

Supreme Court Takes First 2A Case in a Decade

Recommended Posts

I had the same thought of applying prior to NJ circumventing any decision in our favor. But the decision may come months after the case is heard, so what would you think would be a good time-line for applying? Amazing that 2 other states treat me better as a non-resident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ShootersShooter said:

...so what would you think would be a good time-line for applying?

In my view, immediately after the decision is rendered.  Hypothetically, the law is unconstitutional at that point, but NJ will not have enacted any new restrictions.

It could be that SCOTUS grants a 90 day or 180 day "grace period" for the offending states to get their crap together prior to making the decision effective, or maybe not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I mentioned this in another post but I feel the organizations who do the Florida/Utah permit classes should have switched over to NJ permit classes,   Get everyones packet all ready except dated and we should all submit them the first day of the decision

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, DirtyDigz said:

Just thinking out loud - if "good cause"-type laws are found unconstitutional, of course NJ will look to still restrict the right as much as possible within the confines of the decision; they likely wouldn't survive a lawsuit challenging them, but they would still take time to get repealed.

Possibilities:
- Onerous fees ("$5,000 permit fee, renewable every 6 months")
- Onerous training requirement ($1,000 concealed carry course requirement, only approved class is held in Cape May on the 2nd Wednesday of every other month, capacity limited to 5)
- Exclusions on allowed carry places (Not within 10,000 feet of any school or childcare facility, state or federal government office or facility, place of worship, medical facility, business that sells alcohol, public park, sports or recreation facility, property owned by a public utility, etc. etc. etc.)
- Restriction on type/number of firearm allowed to be carried (only specifically registered 11 shot revolvers chambered in 8mm Nambu)

-NJ redefines "carry" as "must be concealed carry" and sets harsh penalties for the carrier/bounties for snitches if the carrier is discovered in public.

I'm considering getting a carry application queued up to submit immediately after a decision, if the decision is "good cause laws are unconstitutional".  It might actually sail through before NJ can react fast enough to come up with another way to restrict it.

If they try to limit it, this is not how it will be done by and large. 

Onerous fees on a constitutional right have already been litigated. NJ would lose.  Same goes for impossible to meet criteria like your training. Same goes for the school zone thing. If it is a ban, it's a ban, it doesn't matter how you get there. That extends to the non-existent firearms. The DC gun laws basically went over most of these kind of things and lost. 

Much more realistic is doing something like shall issue, but having something like having a moving violation disqualify you. The problem there is that it would likely disqualify all their existing permit holders including armed guards. Which greatly hinders their rules for thee, but not for me approach to things. That additionally has the problem of such things NOT eliminating your right to own firearms, and partially revoking a right is something you generally don't see much of. 

Restriction on type or number of firearms to be carried is very possible and already exists in places with shall issue permits.

I believe NV requires you to get a permit per firearm. As are the list of restricted places where carry isn't permitted. Although I do question how much you can get away with once it is deemed a right rather than a privilege. 

I think you will see what NJ has done in the past. They will burden it with every "reasonable" infringement and layer it up to make it an overall burdensome process without any particular step being extreme. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, raz-0 said:

Onerous fees on a constitutional right have already been litigated. NJ would lose.  Same goes for impossible to meet criteria like your training. Same goes for the school zone thing. If it is a ban, it's a ban, it doesn't matter how you get there. That extends to the non-existent firearms. The DC gun laws basically went over most of these kind of things and lost. 

Doesn’t matter.  It would still kick the can down the road as it would take years to litigate.  Especially with the lower courts rubber stamping their finding with the State. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, raz-0 said:

Onerous fees on a constitutional right have already been litigated. NJ would lose.  Same goes for impossible to meet criteria like your training. Same goes for the school zone thing. If it is a ban, it's a ban, it doesn't matter how you get there. That extends to the non-existent firearms. The DC gun laws basically went over most of these kind of things and lost.

No argument that NJ would lose in some court....eventually.  But there's nothing to prevent NJ legislators from enacting restrictions and NJ judges from enforcing them while they work their way through the courts, right?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/nj-gov-changes-state-law-so-nurses-other-medical-professionals-can-perform-abortions/

"No argument that NJ would lose in some court....eventually.  But there's nothing to prevent NJ legislators from enacting restrictions and NJ judges from enforcing them while they work their way through the courts, right?"

Correct,  just like Murphy is changing laws in anticipation of a supreme court ruling on abortion.    Texas crafted a law that bans abortion that seems to go around the SC roe v wade decision.   Make it so anyone can charge a doctor / clinic for violating Texas law,  What clinic or dr. is going to take that chance.   Murphy and the commies are up to something with this change.  keep an eye on it.

The only real difference is one of these topics is a real constitutional right and one is a created one.

https://www.ammoland.com/2021/10/what-the-supreme-court-wont-do-for-our-right-to-bear-arms/#axzz7A21femoC

 

this ammoland article doesn't make me feel too good about the whole thing either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

No argument that NJ would lose in some court....eventually.  But there's nothing to prevent NJ legislators from enacting restrictions and NJ judges from enforcing them while they work their way through the courts, right?
 

There are some things not so much preventing it as making it a bad strategy that has played out with bad consequences from the perspective of gun grabbers. 

As I mentioned previously, there's the absurd suggestions, and then there's the things that are more arguable in court. Where that line gets drawn depends on the eventual ruling. 

For example, a $5000 fee for a permit is very likely to lose, and even worse than a ban, it is clearly exclusionary in a manner not permissible for an enumerated right. As has been demonstrated in the last couple of years, while a court case make take a long time to go all the way to scotus, a plea for an injunction moves MUCH, MUCH faster.  If you float something thumbing your nose at the scotus ruling, NJ could find itself with constitutional carry for brief periods due to injunctions. And because such things are basically ways to say to lower courts that they are dumbasses fir their rulings, the liklihood is that the speed of that will increase with repetition. So the preferred way to go about it would be something more arguable in court without looking like a dumbass. 

What you will see will be death by a thousand more reasonable cuts, or at least something novel. Generally things that don't say no so much as fill the act with sufficient peril as to make it unattractive, much like an extension of the existing NJ laws. 

For example, I don't see the ruling coming down in a way that all the states that forbid carry in bars have to strike that portion of the law. 

NJ could extend that to any establishment that serves alcohol, which given how NJ does the math means a lot of places you go out to eat. They could also try something novel like the the inverse of the 30-06 law in texas, and state that carry is only legal in public outdoor spaces that aren't government owned, and in buildings that have posted a sign indicating it is ok to carry concealed. That would be novel, and a much muddier argument. Maybe you add something to that like making it illegal to store a firearm in a car unattended, which would make complying with the above rule really hard AND effectively bring back the burdensome travel restrictions on simple transport without a permit. 

History has demonstrated that scotus doesn't want to be reviewing every law, and that the gun grabbers want to force every law to go as far up the judicial chain as possible, so I highly suspect we will get a judicial test out of this. Hopefully it is well crafted. A well crafted judicial test or a call for strict scrutiny and only strict scrutiny are really the only options that aren't theater given the behavior of the lower courts to date. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been a fan of Broadway, and this has all the elements of the theater. The drama awaiting their decision and the wording therein, the comedy of over-reactive wailing & weeping by progressives if it turns in our favor, and finally how interesting the choreography by them here in NJ in an attempt to dance around the ruling with new schemes and repressive regulations. They surely will not "Go gently into that good night" as warned by Dylan Thomas, but will surely "Rage rage against the dying of (their)light"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, diamondd817 said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/op-ed-did-supreme-court-100058728.html

 

Still think the Supreme Court is going to fix this?

Dig a bit into the author of that article and I think you'll uncover a political leaning.

Here's a starting point for you:

https://twitter.com/aarontanglaw?lang=en

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DirtyDigz said:

Dig a bit into the author of that article and I think you'll uncover a political leaning.

Here's a starting point for you:

https://twitter.com/aarontanglaw?lang=en

Bio from the article

"Aaron Tang is a law professor at UC Davis and a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor"

right here is your answer.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i personally am holding a very small amount of hope. but i pretty much expect them to do mostly nothing that will help us. the fact is that if we as a country have allowed an unalienable right to get so restricted over the decades that it needs to go to the scotus......we're boned.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

Sotomayor is already trying to position it that plaintiff is asking the court to "make decisions for the state legislatures".

She's going to lean that States can make their own rules regarding the issuance of carry permits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 124gr9mm said:

Sotomayor is already trying to position it that plaintiff is asking the court to "make decisions for the state legislatures".

She's going to lean that States can make their own rules regarding the issuance of carry permits.

They’re focusing so much on limits to specific places (including in her case the entire NYC) and Clement biting instead of focus on the arbitrary denial of the person.  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, voyager9 said:

They’re focusing so much on limits to specific places (including in her case the entire NYC) and Clement biting instead of focus on the arbitrary denial of the person.  

She's trying a death by 1000 cuts approach.

"What about college campus.  What about the subway.  What about a football stadium.  What about a protest with 10,000 people".

She's going to argue if you can limit gun carry there, why not just at the permit stage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, 124gr9mm said:

She's trying a death by 1000 cuts approach.

"What about college campus.  What about the subway.  What about a football stadium.  What about a protest with 10,000 people".

She's going to argue if you can limit gun carry there, why not just at the permit stage?

Agree. Clement gave up and opened the door for the state to declare everywhere “sensitive”.   So far doesn’t seem to be doing well at all.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is fun. She's not accepting that the court revised the question and wants to go back to the lower court because the question asked that she already admitted was very dangerous, wasn't part of the lower court litigation. 

So far it's the left leaning judges beating up on the plaintif, and the right leaning beating up on the defense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that was interesting. 

The usual NY/NJ argument of "if any government did it, we can do it now regardless of how wrong it may be" defense. And wanting to remand it so they can retry it or find new data or whatever, just remand it please. 

I think the plaintiff made some really good arguments regarding constitutionality and the nature of a constitutional right. I think he got across the point that there is no other enumerated, incorporated amendment that simply does not exist for any citizen without getting a permission slip first. 

 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just curious......if SCOTUS rules in our favor....what would be the course of events that would take place so we can get CCW permits issued in NJ.....

- would the current state law that we need to demonstrate urgent necessity to carry be null and void?

- do we have to wait for the current law to be revised and passed by NJ's legislatures and the gov to sign it before submitting our applications?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lu6973 said:

just curious......if SCOTUS rules in our favor....what would be the course of events that would take place so we can get CCW permits issued in NJ.....

- would the current state law that we need to demonstrate urgent necessity to carry be null and void?

- do we have to wait for the current law to be revised and passed by NJ's legislatures and the gov to sign it before submitting our applications?

I'm curious about this as well.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will NEVER,  get carry in NJ...  EVER...no.matter the outcome of this case, which I think will be positive affirmation of the right to self defense is beyond the home as well.

We couldn't kick Murphy out....u think you'll get carry?  Yes I am pessimistic 

On 11/2/2021 at 8:35 AM, 1LtCAP said:

i personally am holding a very small amount of hope. but i pretty much expect them to do mostly nothing that will help us. the fact is that if we as a country have allowed an unalienable right to get so restricted over the decades that it needs to go to the scotus......we're boned.

It is only this unrestricted in certain states....move 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lu6973 said:

just curious......if SCOTUS rules in our favor....what would be the course of events that would take place so we can get CCW permits issued in NJ.....

- would the current state law that we need to demonstrate urgent necessity to carry be null and void?

- do we have to wait for the current law to be revised and passed by NJ's legislatures and the gov to sign it before submitting our applications?

Unless the court gives them a time frame to comply, we have constitutional carry until they pass a new law. If they give them a grace period we have the old law until the deadline and presumably a new one then. 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...