Supreme Court Takes First 2A Case in a Decade

[Grima Squeakersen 482]

***DELETED***

[raz-0 1,259]

19 minutes ago, samiam said:

I was reading through The Consitution a couple of days ago (guess I need a life, huh?) and it occured to me to wonder how well tested Artcle IV Section II, paragraph 1 is in regard to issues like this:

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

Seems to sort of anticipate the 14th A., in a way. OTOH, Section I of the same Article could be interpreted as taking this issue in the other direction, that's why I'm asking. 

 

I think article IV section 1 and 2 and flip sides of the same coin.  The privileges and immunities clause in the 14th exists to reiterate section 2 because slavery and civil war. It was then tossed because the authoritative administrative state doesn't like being told they can't do lots of things. Regardless of the actual why, SCOTUS pretty much stands behind it being obsolete, and won't be ruling otherwise because 100+ years of relitigation. 

 

but hey history and tradtion may change that. 

[YankeeSC 1,204]

1 hour ago, samiam said:

I was reading through The Consitution a couple of days ago

Semi relevant, interesting watch 

 

[YankeeSC 1,204]

1 hour ago, samiam said:

Maybe it's a practical joke by someone in Trenton

Maybe y'all are just overthinking this whole thing, and NJ doesn't yet have a clue about what it's doing and is scrambling to react, so the "official" advice is simply (and literally) all over the place until they can get it all sorted out and on the same page across all agencies.

[Grima Squeakersen 482]

***DELETED***

[MikeL417 33]

Don't think this has been shared here yet.
2C:58-4. Permits to carry handguns a. Scope and duration of authority. Any person who holds a valid permit to carry a handgun issued pursuant to this section shall be authorized to carry a handgun in all parts of this State, except as prohibited by section 2C:39-5e. One permit shall be sufficient for all handguns owned by the holder thereof, but the permit shall apply only to a handgun carried by the actual and legal holder of the permit.

[Grima Squeakersen 482]

***DELETED***

[MikeL417 33]

I don't think it has been tested yet however I know they are planning on adding a shit tonne of areas to the list. I was more or less posting this regarding the multiple handguns qualification questions and whatnot.

[Grima Squeakersen 482]

***DELETED***

[MikeL417 33]

They're gonna interpret all they want this is written what we can currently do and I also have US Law Shield/Nappen coverage for just this king of crap. Yeah you must record what you qualify on as required for the application but this clearly states what you can do after. It'll eventually get sorted out. *eyeroll*... eventually

[Downtownv 1,774]

9 minutes ago, MikeL417 said:

It'll eventually get sorted out. *eyeroll*... eventually

No They don't want it Black/White. They love the Gray areas, Huge Gray areas!

[JackDaWack 2,895]

1 hour ago, samiam said:

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in your quote that directly impacts the alleged requirement for the applicant to record each handgun he or she plans to carry, one way or the other. There is, in a different part of the statute, a requirement laid on the police chief or superintendent to "...also determine and record a complete description of each handgun the applicant intends to carry." I can easily see some bureaucrat spinning that into the "this applicant can only carry these specific handguns" restriction. That isn't my interpretation, as there is, afaik, no specific violation or penalty clearly articulated for a permit holder carrying something other than what is listed (IANAL). On the gripping hand, push come to shove, you know how that will be interpeted by a LEO, and then you get to pony up the big bucks for Nappen or some other expensive firearms rights specialist to make your case. Lose that, and you probably won't be allowed to carry a water pistol in NJ. 

It's could easily read that one permit is issued for the handguns you own and intend to carry, and only carried by you..

Then Paired with the qualification/ training statutes

AND that each handgun needs to be qualified with by the owner.

Nothing here stands out to me that any handgun you own is automatically covered by the permit. 

In essence the statute states you are only issued a single carry permit for multiple handguns you own.. 

[Mr.Stu 1,916]

The statute says what it says. However, read it all, specifically:

2C:58-4  Permits to carry handguns.

d.   Issuance by Superior Court; fee.  If the application has been approved by the chief police officer or the superintendent, as the case may be, the applicant shall forthwith present it to the Superior Court of the county in which the applicant resides, or to the Superior Court in any county where he intends to carry a handgun, in the case of a nonresident or employee of an armored car company.  The court shall issue the permit to the applicant if, but only if, it is satisfied that the applicant is a person of good character who is not subject to any of the disabilities set forth in subsection c. of N.J.S.2C:58-3, that he is thoroughly familiar with the safe handling and use of handguns, and that he has a justifiable need to carry a handgun in accordance with the provisions of subsection c. of this section.  The court may at its discretion issue a limited-type permit which would restrict the applicant as to the types of handguns he may carry and where and for what purposes the handguns may be carried.  At the time of issuance, the applicant shall pay to the county clerk of the county where the permit was issued a permit fee of $20.
 

The bold part is what they are using to restrict permits to the ones you submit quals for. On the cards that I have seen images of, they list the specific guns on the back of the card.

[Grima Squeakersen 482]

***DELETED***

[45Doll 5,874]

Heller v. D.C. held that the Second Amendment protects private firearm ownership. So how has Washington, D.C. managed to shut out thousands of law-abiding residents from getting carry permits?

Why, have the bureaucracy circumvent the court's decision, of course!

Heller Skelter › American Greatness (amgreatness.com)

[raz-0 1,259]

An interesting development. Quotes from the volok conspiracy column. 
“

• Does it violate the Second Amendment for the NYPD to deny a Bronx man a license to have a shotgun or rifle in his home because of his 2011 arrest, which did not result in a conviction, for domestic violence? The district court said no, but we're sending it back down for another look, says the Second Circuit, in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling.

”

 I find this very interesting because this is the second circuit, who not only just rubber stamps 2a violations but helps the state argue them.  I wonder if bruen got the message across that it won’t be tolerated any more out if they are just giving the prosecution a do over. 

[1LtCAP 4,262]

he wasn't convicted of ANYthing? give the guy his permit

[CMJeepster 2,777]

Handgun sales increase after Maryland changes permit standard (yahoo.com)

[CJack 138]

On 7/16/2022 at 10:02 AM, 1LtCAP said:

he wasn't convicted of ANYthing? give the guy his permit

It also time get  the laws pertaining to "convicted felons" cannot exercise 2A, thrown out.  States like NJ are actively making laws to turn a regular law-abiding citizens into "felons" by simple things like concealed carrying in a "sensitive location" etc.  Its the same States that also actively advertise how people who served their felony sentences can restoring voting "rights".    If a person can walk around in free society, work a job, pay taxes and not a ward of the state, then that person should be able to exercise ALL of their rights not just those massa allows us.

If a person is such a threat that they cannot be trusted with 2A, then they should either be incarcerated, be ward of state or death penalty.

[GRIZ 3,369]

1 hour ago, CJack said:

It also time get  the laws pertaining to "convicted felons" cannot exercise 2A, thrown out.  States like NJ are actively making laws to turn a regular law-abiding citizens into "felons" by simple things like concealed carrying in a "sensitive location" etc.  Its the same States that also actively advertise how people who served their felony sentences can restoring voting "rights".    If a person can walk around in free society, work a job, pay taxes and not a ward of the state, then that person should be able to exercise ALL of their rights not just those massa allows us.

If a person is such a threat that they cannot be trusted with 2A, then they should either be incarcerated, be ward of state or death penalty.

I think we should concentrate our efforts on getting rights restored to people who haven't committed a felony.  Looking to restore a felon's 2A rights is a hard sell.

Now I'll agree with you to a point.  But where does that point lie?

 It wouldn't bother me if Martha Stewart's 2A rights be restored.  She was convicted of lying to the FBI and obstruction.  She was prosecuted by James Comey who wanted to put a celebrity conviction on his resume.

You'd be hard pressed to justify restoration of rights to a violent felon.

[CJack 138]

1 minute ago, GRIZ said:

I think we should concentrate our efforts on getting rights restored to people who haven't committed a felony.  Looking to restore a felon's 2A rights is a hard sell.

Now I'll agree with you to a point.  But where does that point lie?

 It wouldn't bother me if Martha Stewart's 2A rights be restored.  She was convicted of lying to the FBI and obstruction.  She was prosecuted by James Comey who wanted to put a celebrity conviction on his resume.

You'd be hard pressed to justify restoration of rights to a violent felon.

Agreed, but "violent felon" shouldn't be walking the society sucking at the Govt teet, having his/her voting rights restored etc. I know, I know, the ideals and reality are two very very different things. 

The very definition of  felon (and even violent felon) has been misused, abused and watered down to a point that now, if NJ/NY/MA/RI etc gets their way someone is a felon for merely getting caught in "sensitive" place with a firearm. The State has proved over and over again that it has abused the laws on the books that are really meant for hardened criminals.  And "subjective" restoration of 2A right is not happening in states like ours.

 

[Grima Squeakersen 482]

***DELETED***

[GRIZ 3,369]

33 minutes ago, samiam said:

I think you just stated the point where it should stop. Violent crimes, meaning some variety of physical attack on another person or persons. OT, but: everyone except parasite career politicians and some defense lawyers would be well-served by getting non-violent crimes off the books (at least as felonies), period. Ordinary citizens are far more likely to be victimized by such violations that benefit from enforcement of same on someone else, and, so far as I can see (not an LEO) they cannot be helpful to cops in any global sense, either. 

The point would have to be too flexible IMO.  For example, Al Capone was convicted of income tax evasion (a non-violent crime) not the numerous homicides and shootings he played a role in.  I know of drug traffickers who never got convicted of any of the violent crimes they were involved in but were convicted of money laundering, a non-violent crime.

I do agree some felonies need to be reclassified.  I remember hearing in some state clamming on a Sunday was a felony.

On the other hand, Ted Kennedy pled out to leaving the scene of an accident.  He got a 60  day suspended sentence, paid a fine, and had his license suspended.  He in fact left the scene of an accident where a death occurred punishable by 2-10 years in Massachusetts.  A felony by the Federal definition.  

Being in the right family worked for him.

[CMJeepster 2,777]

Spadea is talking about this right now on NJ101.5

[Grima Squeakersen 482]

***DELETED***

[CMJeepster 2,777]

RI fucking around with the ruling:  Opinion/Calenda: Attorney General Neronha’s misguidance on concealed carry (yahoo.com)

[CJack 138]

29 minutes ago, CMJeepster said:

RI fucking around with the ruling:  Opinion/Calenda: Attorney General Neronha’s misguidance on concealed carry (yahoo.com)

We would have been better off if Roberts and Kavanaugh kept their opinion to themselves.  If we go by SCOTUS track record, its going to be another 10 years and 100s of thousands of people's rights denied before they take up another case.  And by then who knows.  Roberts was enough of a sell out, now I have feeling we got Kavanaugh as well in that category.    There is real danger that future cases may see a 5 libs / sellouts vs 4 constitutionalists.

[EX Carnival man 223]

Nj's mag ban and AR ban days are numbered. 

 

 

[Xtors 333]

40 minutes ago, EX Carnival man said:

Nj's mag ban and AR ban days are numbered. 

 

 

Wow. This is good news!!! Thanks for posting.

[CMJeepster 2,777]

NY's new gun laws restrict weapons in businesses, but some owners welcome them. Here's why (yahoo.com)