Jump to content
Bklynracer

Supreme Court Takes First 2A Case in a Decade

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, xXxplosive said:

Absolutely.....this isn't a driver's license, it's not a privlege......it's the 2nd Amendment of the Bill Of Rights under the US Constitution.....do I need a permit to speak also........show me where in the 2nd and 14th it says so.......IMO, we're headed back to where we were before the decision was handed down  minus justifiable need.......that's not only what Thomas said......he said that we have the right under 2A to carry concealed outside the home and in public for self defence......nothing about a by permit process.....in my opinion this decision is Constitutional Carry.......omo.

Did you read the entire opinion?  There is plenty in there that references states are allowed to permit the process. 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

Did you read the entire opinion?  There is plenty in there that references states are allowed to permit the process. 

Quote: Evan Nappan...

Justice Thomas wrote the extraordinary majority opinion for the Court. He is by far the greatest modern hero to the Second Amendment. Not only did this decision remove the requirement of “showing need” for a carry permit, but it paves the way to challenge virtually every gun law on the books and any future gun laws that may be passed by the anti-gun rights crowd.

Justice Thomas ruled that, “…the constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.”

He goes further and points out, “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need…“That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, xXxplosive said:

Quote: Evan Nappan...

Justice Thomas wrote the extraordinary majority opinion for the Court. He is by far the greatest modern hero to the Second Amendment. Not only did this decision remove the requirement of “showing need” for a carry permit, but it paves the way to challenge virtually every gun law on the books and any future gun laws that may be passed by the anti-gun rights crowd.

Justice Thomas ruled that, “…the constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.”

He goes further and points out, “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need…“That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”

2 paragraphs from a 100+ page opinion doesn't even begin to summarize the issue. 

As with most opinions, the central issue is stated, followed by exceptions, cavets and limitations. 

Read page 80 of the published document. (It won't let me copy and paste is for some reason)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, samiam said:

Hey, by the time they get around to processing our applications and checking references, friends we met yesterday might pass the three year test <grinning, ducking & running>

So one on my 3 reff is retired law enforcment out of state.  Once they sign it how long do I have to turn it in to my local PD, the other two are current law enforcement in this state. Do I just fedx it back and forth?

Share this post


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

In Nappen's defense, Thomas and Alito did lay potential groundwork to allow those other challenges to be brought and possibly succeed, but that requires a process that can only happen over time. 

Not sure what you mean. They opinion states that NY State May continue to require licenses so long as they employ objective requirements. 

That leaves very little open to NJs licensing requirements as nothing is subjective; take and pass a qualifiying course, file paper work, don't be a prohibited person, petition references.. 

The only thing they left open is any subjective requirement, which could be dropping the requirement for references. But even still it's an objective process if 3 people are required to complete a  very specific form. I belive the opinion even states the process examines your "moral character"... and they didn't opinion on that aspect of licensing

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, H2oVento said:

So one on my 3 reff is retired law enforcment out of state.  Once they sign it how long do I have to turn it in to my local PD, the other two are current law enforcement in this state. Do I just fedx it back and forth?

You don't get extra points by using LE for references.  They usually don't allow LE from within your home agency.  There is no set time limit.  The qualification has to be within 6 months of the application, so that may be a good standard.  Check with your agency, they have final say. 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


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

I assume you are referring to footnote 9 on page 30:

"To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ 'shall-issue' licensing regimes, under which 'a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain' (a permit)...
... it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, 'law-abiding, responsible citizens'..."

Yes, that does say that a state may establish its own licensing and training requirements. It does not say that those requirements can be whatever the state damned well pleases to enact, with no limits. In fact, the last part of that footnote says:

"That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example (italics mine), lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry. "

That footnote comes after multiple comparisons of the Second Amendment with the First, and references to Heller, which it reaffirms and amplifies by negating Heller's interest balancing and strict and intermediate scrutiny provisions.

Examples:

"...the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s
historical tradition of firearm regulation... ("historical" in the sense of analogous to what was common in 1791 and 1868)

"Heller and McDonald point toward at least two relevant metrics: first, whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense, and second, whether that regulatory burden is comparably justified. Because 'individual self-defense is 'the central component’ of the Second Amendment right,' these two metrics are 'central' considerations when engaging in an analogical inquiry. McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767
(quoting Heller, 554 U. S., at 599).

"Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the
individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s 'unqualified command.'"

 "This Second Amendment standard accords with how we protect other constitutional rights. Take, for instance, the freedom of speech in the First Amendment, to which Heller repeatedly compared the right to keep and bear arms."

 "...the public understanding of the right to keep and bear arms in both 1791 and 1868 was, for
all relevant purposes, the same with respect to public carry."

I don't think that is exactly "cherry picking". I also think that Thomas' opinion isn't perfect - to my mind it was excessively deferential to existing regulations in "shall issue" states, but that is not the the foundation upon which Bruen rests, and it could be refined in future rulings, as Heller was in Bruen.

I also think that the NJ mandate that only a handgun used to satisfy a training course requirement and which is identiified by make, model and serial number on the application form may be carried is not going to survive future scrutiny. First, there is no possible plausible analogy between that requirement and firearms regulations in force in 1791 or 1868. Furher, it is clearly inimical to the ability to carry a gun for self defense. What happens if I hold a NJ carry permit and my gun is damaged beyond repair? Am I to be prohibited from carrying until I go through the application process again from scratch? Or do I only need to take my training and qulification again with the replacement gun (after waiting weeks for permission to purchase it)? Neither is even close to reasonable under what Thomas claims as the basis of his opinion. AFAIK NJ doesn't even mention that contingency, anywhere, or any way to address it. I have $100 that says that requirement is a goner, sooner or later. Maybe changing it to require that the gun carried be similar in form and function to the training  gun might pass muster, I don't know.

I'm referencing the last paragraph on pg 80. Which mentions objective licensing requirements are gtg. They carved out a bunch of foreseeable issues that you mentioned. However, you will be hard pressed to show qualifications with a specific handgun is unconstitutional when you add in the "publics interest", with the ability to qualify with any firearm you want, and as many you want. The state will paint it as a minor inconvenience in the interest of public safety, that doesn't actually prevent someone from carrying the firearm of their choosing. 

Furthermore, there is an unlikely chance such an issue even makes it to SCOTUS, unless someone plans on carrying a firearm they didn't qualify with and wants to be the test case. 

Thomas left a lot to be desired in the courts opinion. He was very broad in these statements which means they aren't too keen on ruling on them. 

I also see larger issues being more important with regards to the courts time.. we can't even get them to hear a mag ban case, a gun ban case, a bumpstock ban case... a lot of gun related issues were shot down this session.

Share this post


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

 

I also think that the NJ mandate that only a handgun used to satisfy a training course requirement and which is identiified by make, model and serial number on the application form may be carried is not going to survive future scrutiny. First, there is no possible plausible analogy between that requirement and firearms regulations in force in 1791 or 1868. Furher, it is clearly inimical to the ability to carry a gun for self defense. What happens if I hold a NJ carry permit and my gun is damaged beyond repair? Am I to be prohibited from carrying until I go through the application process again from scratch? Or do I only need to take my training and qulification again with the replacement gun (after waiting weeks for permission to purchase it)? Neither is even close to reasonable under what Thomas claims as the basis of his opinion. AFAIK NJ doesn't even mention that contingency, anywhere, or any way to address it. I have $100 that says that requirement is a goner, sooner or later. Maybe changing it to require that the gun carried be similar in form and function to the training  gun might pass muster, I don't know.

The way my attorney explained it to me... It's my butt that's on the line.  If I am involved in an incident and cannot prove that I am proficient with the exact sidearm that was used, I can lose my freedom, job, home and money.  I have to defend my actions in both criminal and civil courts.

I make sure that I document extensive training and a qualification with any sidearm I carry, whether there is an actual statute or not.  The fact that they want you to do the initial qual with the one you will carry kinda tells you where their line of thinking is.

Cover your butt every way possible.  You have everything to lose.

Share this post


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

Vermont has it right.....Both open carry and concealed carry are legal without a permit in Vermont

I believe there are 25 states that are constitutional carry. No permits needed for residents or non-residents. Merica.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, KurtC said:

If I am involved in an incident and cannot prove that I am proficient with the exact sidearm that was used,

The dead guys attorney may argue that you trained to kill, honing your murderous skills at every opportunity.

Rittenhouse didn't know squat about proficiency and still won.

Jus say'n.

Share this post


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

Vermont has it right.....Both open carry and concealed carry are legal without a permit in Vermont

I used to go hiking in Vermont.  When I inquired about firearms, I was told that while the state has no permitting requirement, there are local ordinances that may have prohibitions as well individual buildings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Scorpio64 said:

The dead guys attorney may argue that you trained to kill, honing your murderous skills at every opportunity.

Rittenhouse didn't know squat about proficiency and still won.

Jus say'n.

Rittenhouse spent 2 years of his life defending his actions and only won because it was televised.  If it wasn't on TV, he would have been railroaded into prison for the rest of his life.

You can't imagine all the possible charges and lawsuits you will face for using a firearm to defend yourself.  You might be lucky enough to stop the assailant, but if you injure an innocent bystander, they will nail you to wall.  If  you used a sidearm that you haven't qualified with, well...that's just icing on the cake for DA.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, KurtC said:

 If I am involved in an incident and cannot prove that I am proficient with the exact sidearm that was used,   I can lose my freedom, job, home and money.  I have to defend my actions in both criminal and civil courts.

You can't imagine all the possible charges and lawsuits you will face for using a firearm to defend yourself.  You might be lucky enough to stop the assailant, but if you injure an innocent bystander, they will nail you to wall.  If  you used a sidearm that you haven't qualified with, well...that's just icing on the cake for DA.

Cover your butt every way possible.  You have everything to lose.

Are we sure we still want to conceal carry in N.J. ?

The interpretation of the law may have changed but the same evil people are still running the state and court systems. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

Are we sure we still want to conceal carry in N.J. ?

The interpretation of the law may have changed but the same evil people are still running the state and courts. 

 

Exactly.  Everything is against you in NJ.  Our state animal should be the Lawyer.  The SCOTUS decision gives us more liabilities than rights.  You now can enjoy the right of carrying 2 lbs of steel on your hip and wearing extra clothing in the summer heat.  You still do not have right of self defense.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any incident with your sidearm is going to get you arrested, for something. There is a long list of possibilities.  The Self Defense plea in NJ is extremely restricted.

Hopefully, the judge allows bail and you can afford it.  Otherwise, you are going to spend the next 6-12 months sitting in jail while a 25 year old Public Defender visits you for 5 minutes a week, telling you that he is working on your case (which he isn't).  When your court date finally comes up, he throws you under the bus with a plea bargain.  

Welcome to the real world.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Bomber said:

Are we sure we still want to conceal carry in N.J. ?

The interpretation of the law may have changed but the same evil people are still running the state and court systems. 

 

Case in point: https://dailyvoice.com/new-jersey/ocean/news/hackensack-ex-con-assaulted-female-neighbor-as-she-held-baby-police-charge/836493/?emh=ad33154b53f55e3310f2406bb77fa851d116e1da&lctg=73pzvZR42I1zxSoLRbEymSFnrh3kWHDg&utm_source=breaking-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign= breaking-ocean-120609&article_click=1

I think if you feel your life is truly in danger, you sure as hell will glad you have your sidearm with you.

I don't buy this "You HAVE to carry ONLY the gun you were certified on" I have traveled for many years with various permits and never did I think I had to have a particular gun. Nor was that mentioned in any of those states during their licensing process. This sound like the making of a wives tale, to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, KurtC said:

Any incident with your sidearm is going to get you arrested, for something. There is a long list of possibilities.  The Self Defense plea in NJ is extremely restricted.

You know, you are right.  Carrying for self defense is bullshit.  It's better to get carjacked, raped murdered.  Faaaaar less complicated.  Funerals are much cheaper than defense attorneys.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Downtownv said:

And the winner of "The first NJ Concealed carrier, to be charged is..........."

Every liberal media outlet in the US is chomping at the bit to find out who it will be. 

I'm not trying to convince folks not to carry,  I'm just trying to make folks aware of reality in NJ.

By the way, you cannot use lethal force to stop a carjacking.  This is where you need to be aware of the extremely limited conditions where lethal force can be used in self defense.

This isn't Pennsyltucky.

Share this post


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

By the way, you cannot use lethal force to stop a carjacking

Gee, not even if the carjacker is threatening the owner with a sharp pointy stick, or a Glock?  I guess I need to find that part of NJ law where is say a vehicle owner must peacefully relinquish property to a thief, if the thief has a weapon.

Maybe we need an info booklet on how that works.

Dick and Jane were carpooling to work.  Jane was driving and stopped at a red light.  A carjacker suddenly appears and points a gun at Jane.  Dick sez, "Gee Jane, I'm sorry I can't use my CCW to protect us, it's a carjacking.  God damn that carjacking loophole!!!!!

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Scorpio64 said:

Gee, not even if the carjacker is threatening the owner with a sharp pointy stick, or a Glock?  I guess I need to find that part of NJ law where is say a vehicle owner must peacefully relinquish property to a thief, if the thief has a weapon.

Maybe we need an info booklet on how that works.

Dick and Jane were carpooling to work.  Jane was driving and stopped at a red light.  A carjacker suddenly appears and points a gun at Jane.  Dick sez, "Gee Jane, I'm sorry I can't use my CCW to protect us, it's a carjacking.  God damn that carjacking loophole!!!!!

 

This is where you need to take the time to learn the specifics of New Jersey self defense law.  If you receive proper training, they will explain a lot of it.

 

In general, lethal force cannot be used in New Jersey to protect property, such as your vehicle, even if the assailant has a weapon.  The assailant has to be actually trying to inflict grave bodily harm or death in order to obtain your property.  This applies even in your own home.

 

You are permitted to draw your firearm to a ready position and verbally challenge the assailant.  Hopefully, this discourages him and he retreats.  In order to discharge your firearm, the threat not only has to be immediate, but it has to be "imminent."  This is an extremely subjective legal term, especially in NJ.  Be sure to have a lawyer that is familiar with firearm law in this state.  The criminal has more rights than you do.

 

If the carjacker approaches you from the blind side and points a gun at your head, don't think that you can draw and fire before he pulls the trigger.  It takes an extensive amount of training to come even close to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Scorpio64 said:

Gee, not even if the carjacker is threatening the owner with a sharp pointy stick, or a Glock?  I guess I need to find that part of NJ law where is say a vehicle owner must peacefully relinquish property to a thief, if the thief has a weapon.

Maybe we need an info booklet on how that works.

Dick and Jane were carpooling to work.  Jane was driving and stopped at a red light.  A carjacker suddenly appears and points a gun at Jane.  Dick sez, "Gee Jane, I'm sorry I can't use my CCW to protect us, it's a carjacking.  God damn that carjacking loophole!!!!!

 

Yeah, If I dont feel threatened why would I give up the vehicle? If I feel threatened that's an acceptable use of force. If the carjacker already is in the vehicle driving off, that's a no go.

I think we need to stop with the overly generalized hypotheticals here. This is also why you don't talk to the cops after, because it's NOT about stopping the theft of a vehicle, it's about defending your life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

Yeah, If I dont feel threatened why would I give up the vehicle? If I feel threatened that's an acceptable use of force. If the carjacker already is in the vehicle driving off, that's a no go.

I think we need to stop with the overly generalized hypotheticals here. This is also why you don't talk to the cops after, because it's NOT about stopping the theft of a vehicle, it's about defending your life. 

Feeling threatened alone or being verbally threatened alone does not justify the use of lethal force in New Jersey.  There has to be other conditions.  Carjackers do not normally kill people in their cars, as it is difficult to remove the body and clean up the brains and blood.    If you see an armed individual approaching your car, you are certainly permitted to draw and verbally challenge.  If he raises his knife or handgun at that point, lethal force is justified.

There was a case in Philadelphia a year ago where the victim was standing outside of his vehicle, in his mother's driveway.  In that incident, the assailant shot and killed the victim and then drove off the vehicle.  In that case the victim would certainly have been justified in using lethal force for self defense, but he was unarmed.

Take as much quality training as available.  Read up on expert witness testimonies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, samiam said:

Hey.Shooters NJ is on there twice, so they must have paid twice :D ONLY JOKING, Shooters has been my go to gun store for more than a dozen years, and imo they do a very, very good job.  

i took a low-light shooting course there with sepvulda. was a good course. but a hell of a drive. if i can't find anything close, i'll do what i gotta do thoughh. i'll even close on a saturday if i need to. and i ain't done that in almost 10 years.

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...