Jump to content
Bklynracer

Supreme Court Takes First 2A Case in a Decade

Recommended Posts

21 hours 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.

Oh, what, wait...states rights?  Heaven forbid.

The right to keep and bear arms has not ever been codified in NJ...as far as I can tell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

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. 

How so?

 

The legislature would have to vote permitless carry in...  you do not automatically get concarry...at least I do not think it works that way.

VT, has no law precluding carry, hence concarry...NJ is markedly different..  no?

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, 45Doll said:

So some of the justices reveal their penchant for legislating, and ACB is worried about where guns might end up?

The Supreme Court heard an important gun rights case - American Thinker

I read that. I don't necessarily agree with their take wholly, but they did bring up something interesting about Breyer that I didn't notice when listening. I took his remarks to be more of "how would you draw up guidelines that would prevent blood in the streets!?!?! YOU CANT!" Mostly because he's an asshole who believes the government can do whatever they want. 

But perhaps it was like Sotomayor... he was looking to steer the inevitable away from what was being discussed to and argued behind closed doors towards something more moderate. I think they might both have been trying to get the plaintiff to agree that some minimal measure would be sufficient. That would suggest either strict scrutiny or a fairly "dangerous" legal test is being proposed as the conclusion. 

 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fred2 said:

Are they done with arguments at this point?

and if so, when will there be a decision?

There’s no further input at this point, but the court will be doing stuff in chambers. The ruling will likely come in July. 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CAL. .30 M1 said:

How so?

 

The legislature would have to vote permitless carry in...  you do not automatically get concarry...at least I do not think it works that way.

VT, has no law precluding carry, hence concarry...NJ is markedly different..  no?

Interesting....I hear where you guys are going with this.....so what is the typical duration for a decision to be published after oral arguments are heard?

I need to google when IL changed their laws (I believe it was after the Heller case) ..... I have a few buddies there and their CCW law used to be like NJ, now they issue CCW permits if you pass the background checks and safety courses.....

In the meantime......I'm going to send an email to my state district legislator to initiate steps to start repealing NJ's current law after the SCOTUS opinion is posted...

Share this post


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

I read that. I don't necessarily agree with their take wholly, but they did bring up something interesting about Breyer that I didn't notice when listening. I took his remarks to be more of "how would you draw up guidelines that would prevent blood in the streets!?!?! YOU CANT!" Mostly because he's an asshole who believes the government can do whatever they want. 

But perhaps it was like Sotomayor... he was looking to steer the inevitable away from what was being discussed to and argued behind closed doors towards something more moderate. I think they might both have been trying to get the plaintiff to agree that some minimal measure would be sufficient. That would suggest either strict scrutiny or a fairly "dangerous" legal test is being proposed as the conclusion. 

 

I agree, the plaintiffs will win but the question is how far the decision goes. It really will depend on what five of them think. I read that Heller was watered down because of Justice Kennedy being wishy washy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GlennS87 said:

I agree, the plaintiffs will win but the question is how far the decision goes. It really will depend on what five of them think. I read that Heller was watered down because of Justice Kennedy being wishy washy.

That was the assumption at the time. The current belief is that it actually came down to Roberts being the problem. Once we see the opinion(s), we'll have a better idea, but Kennedy retiring was made contingent on a pro RKBA replacement more or less, and roberts contributions ot a number of rejections of RKBA cases seems to back up he's the problem. 

We will see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, CAL. .30 M1 said:

How so?

 

The legislature would have to vote permitless carry in...  you do not automatically get concarry...at least I do not think it works that way.

VT, has no law precluding carry, hence concarry...NJ is markedly different..  no?

Agree.  Since it is NY law being challenged, only the NY law would immediately be nerfed.   NJ law would have to be challenged based on the new precedent to be overturned.   
That said, a NJ challenge is in the queue and could be reminded to the lower court to review based on this decision.  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


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

NYPD Commish Warns Striking Down NY Gun Law Will 'Open Floodgates' of Violence

Yes, because it happened in every state became a “must issue”. Yet these asinine assertions always go unchallenged. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These forums have become a magnet for a group of extremely jaded and negative people who believe there is no hope and that we will never get CCW. Frankly, it's getting hard to listen to them. I listened to the oral arguments and legal scholars who did their own review of the scotus case and i  believe we face the following four scenarios:

A. Court sides with NY and we have no chance in hell and as a nasty bonus it threatens states that currently have "shall issue".

B. The court strikes down NYs law in favor of a "shall issue" regime, but may allow states to apply the "sensitive locales" doctrine.

C. The court provides a broad ruling striking down "may issue" regimes and "sensitive locales" doctrine and replacing it with "shall issue" only.

D. The court provides the broadest possible ruling striking down any and all permitting regimes.  

So, A is possible but, unlikely considering the make-up of the court and the questions asked by the conservative majority. If A would to occur, it would ruin any hopes of conceal carry in the 7 renegade states (NJ). Scenario A, i don't wanna think about! Realistically, scenario D is a wet dream and though i would love to see it happen I just can't see the court ruling so broadly. So, that leaves us with scenario B and C. For many of us, this will be the last major SCOTUS gun case in our lifetimes. Considering it takes SCOTUS 20 years to hear a gun case of this magnitude, this will likely be the last case of our lives. I believe we have a small sliver of hope in getting carry by 2022. Illinois and DC had their day, we may too! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, contigo100 said:

These forums have become a magnet for a group of extremely jaded and negative people who believe there is no hope and that we will never get CCW.

I'll speak for myself, But I believe, We are not jaded or negative. Just don't think it will happen.

The Charlie Brown effect.

With the makeup of NJ and the courts becoming politicalized, see it becoming harder and harder, But will always believe in the fight. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, contigo100 said:

These forums have become a magnet for a group of extremely jaded and negative people who believe there is no hope and that we will never get CCW. Frankly, it's getting hard to listen to them. I listened to the oral arguments and legal scholars who did their own review of the scotus case and i  believe we face the following four scenarios:

A. Court sides with NY and we have no chance in hell and as a nasty bonus it threatens states that currently have "shall issue".

B. The court strikes down NYs law in favor of a "shall issue" regime, but may allow states to apply the "sensitive locales" doctrine.

C. The court provides a broad ruling striking down "may issue" regimes and "sensitive locales" doctrine and replacing it with "shall issue" only.

D. The court provides the broadest possible ruling striking down any and all permitting regimes.  

So, A is possible but, unlikely considering the make-up of the court and the questions asked by the conservative majority. If A would to occur, it would ruin any hopes of conceal carry in the 7 renegade states (NJ). Scenario A, i don't wanna think about! Realistically, scenario D is a wet dream and though i would love to see it happen I just can't see the court ruling so broadly. So, that leaves us with scenario B and C. For many of us, this will be the last major SCOTUS gun case in our lifetimes. Considering it takes SCOTUS 20 years to hear a gun case of this magnitude, this will likely be the last case of our lives. I believe we have a small sliver of hope in getting carry by 2022. Illinois and DC had their day, we may too! 

It will be B - and it will resort to states rights....  

 

I doubt this will be the last....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting discussion of this from The Federalist this morning:

https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/08/6-things-we-just-learned-about-the-supreme-courts-gun-rights-case/

I particularly liked the part where NYS was trying to make the case that it was safer to have people carrying firearms in less populated areas than in denser areas, to which Justice Roberts quipped, "How many people get mugged in the woods?"

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, contigo100 said:

These forums have become a magnet for a group of extremely jaded and negative people who believe there is no hope and that we will never get CCW. Frankly, it's getting hard to listen to them. 

You must new new here....Oh, fourteen posts.  NVM.  You ARE new here.  Lol.

I'm hoping NY law gets shot down.  I thought NJ's "justifiable need" scheme would have been challenged years ago after DC's "good cause" scheme fell 

It is my understanding that DC's "good cause" scheme was based on NJ's "justifiable need" scheme.  Yet here we are.

If NY law gets overturned, which I REALLY hope it does, then NJ will go kicking and screaming and initially saw they are complying but won't.  They'll make it as difficult as possible.  No carry within 500 yards of a school, government office, post office, court house, etc, etc,etc.  Which means in more densely populated areas you won't be able to carry. 

Hope I'm wrong, we win and NJ falls in line with other free states. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, gleninjersey said:

You must new new here....Oh, fourteen posts.  NVM.  You ARE new here.  Lol.

I'm hoping NY law gets shot down.  I thought NJ's "justifiable need" scheme would have been challenged years ago after DC's "good cause" scheme fell 

It is my understanding that DC's "good cause" scheme was based on NJ's "justifiable need" scheme.  Yet here we are.

If NY law gets overturned, which I REALLY hope it does, then NJ will go kicking and screaming and initially saw they are complying but won't.  They'll make it as difficult as possible.  No carry within 500 yards of a school, government office, post office, court house, etc, etc,etc.  Which means in more densely populated areas you won't be able to carry. 

Hope I'm wrong, we win and NJ falls in line with other free states. 

 

 

DC's good cause law was struck down at the circuit level, thus no relief for other circuits unless your legislature was feeling like they really wanted to get ahead of things.... which I have never seen happen with RKBA stuff, so....

We've already been down the road of radius bans on things. If it looks like a ban, it is a ban and will be struck down. I doubt we will see it, and if we do it will die in short order. 

Thinking about it, I have come up with what I suspect we will see. ALL signage counts. No requirements it be legible, clearly posted, in a language you can read, or whatever. Violation of the signs will be a felony and strip you of your 2a rights. It's like the texas lawsuit law, but without the money changing hands. There is no government ban, just enough prohibited places that you can't do much of anything and carry, and the government isn't even defining them. Probably see it coupled with a law making it illegal to store a firearm in an unattended vehicle as well. No idea how that would fare in court, most of the country it's all just trespass laws that aren't felonies. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Old Glock guy said:

Here's an interesting discussion of this from The Federalist this morning:

https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/08/6-things-we-just-learned-about-the-supreme-courts-gun-rights-case/

I particularly liked the part where NYS was trying to make the case that it was safer to have people carrying firearms in less populated areas than in denser areas, to which Justice Roberts quipped, "How many people get mugged in the woods?"

The follow up question should have been, where’s  the geography clause on the 2A?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming in 23 a favorable SCOTUS decision, until a NJ State or Federal Court concludes that the NJ Statute, cannot survive in it present form and  that it too is unconstitutional, it will have no immediate impact. The only way it would have an immediate impact is if SCOTUS issued a very broad ruling that any  non shall issue permit scheme  violates 2A if reason given -self defense does not justify issuing a permit   Other than that you would need  a concession made by the NJ Attorney General to a Court followed by an Appellate Court decision or a favorable Appellate Court decision without the NJ Attorney General concession. You can also expect NJ to further burden the issue with permits that are only valid for a very limited duration, onerous training requirements, high permit fees, expansive sensitive time and place restrictions and years of further litigation challenges. It would, however, be the start as opposed to the end of securing the right. 

Share this post


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

Assuming in 23 a favorable SCOTUS decision, until a NJ State or Federal Court concludes that the NJ Statute, cannot survive in it present form and  that it too is unconstitutional, it will have no immediate impact. The only way it would have an immediate impact is if SCOTUS issued a very broad ruling that any  non shall issue permit scheme  violates 2A if reason given -self defense does not justify issuing a permit   Other than that you would need  a concession made by the NJ Attorney General to a Court followed by an Appellate Court decision or a favorable Appellate Court decision without the NJ Attorney General concession. You can also expect NJ to further burden the issue with permits that are only valid for a very limited duration, onerous training requirements, high permit fees, expansive sensitive time and place restrictions and years of further litigation challenges. It would, however, be the start as opposed to the end of securing the right. 

I hope, pray, and believe you are wrong!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping the decision is in 22 and not 23.

also there are more states than NJ that will be affected, NJ I believe is the only one in the 3rd circuit so I prey that the SC realizes that with all the states in different circuits that will hopefully get put in their place that their ruling covers all the potential future challenges from these different courts.

I believe the impact will be immediate either on our part or theirs but it will be immediate.   The important thing is that WE are ready to act. WE know there will be a decision and should prepare ourselves as should the 40+ other states should this decision go wrong which I dont see happening.

Hoe do we prepare ourselves:

1.  Think like your enemy and what actions they may try ( think outside the box ) they are well funded and slimey.

2.  prepare applications to submit on that day,   expect last second application changes by them ,  see # 1 

3.  NJ 2A groups submit lawsuits THAT day should the state resist.    see # 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...