Jump to content
Bklynracer

Supreme Court Takes First 2A Case in a Decade

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

I'm working on it. I have a contact that does RPO quals, but he uses a form specific to RPO - I passed BTW. I am working on getting a more generalized form signed by him.

great and please let us know.  I'd like to sign up right away and my permit application in. 

 

thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and then the media reacts:

"The decision in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen is the latest in a string of supreme court rulings in which the conservative majority has undermined gun safety laws."

US supreme court overturns New York handgun law in bitter blow to gun-control push (msn.com)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, NJRulz said:

The Thomas opinion indicates that it is "settled" that places like polling places and courthouses "were 'sensitive places' where arms carrying could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amendment." And courts can analogize to simliar sensitive places, he adds.

On the other hand, Thomas adds, "expanding the category of 'sensitive places' simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of 'sensitive places" far too broadly."

This was the part that I always found nonsensical. There are literally dozens of states that rule the same places "off limits" such as courthouses, police stations, schools, polling places, etc.

An exhaustive expansion of "sensitive places" is just as unconstitutional as "justifiable need."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, NJRulz said:

guys not sure about you but i feel this opinion is much broader than we expected or in other words - Christmas in June! lol

In this case, Thomas explains, nothing in the Second Amendment distinguishes between home and public "with respect to the right to keep and bear arms."

it is Thomas' Birthday today as well!!

It is at least as broad as my best case expectations. I haven't yet read all 135 pages of Thomas' sometimes somewhat opaque writing in detail, but I did carefully read the syllabus, about the first 20 pages of his detailed opinion, and the final paragraph. It is great that he relied heavily on Heller, and secondarily on McDonald. Significantly, he enhances Heller by explicitly rejecting its end-means considerations in favor of relying almost solely on historical understanding at the time of the drafting of the Bill of RIghts, and at the time the 14th Amendment was enacted. I also very much like that he made several analogies to the approach to laws and regulations that encroach on the First Amendment. That should deflate some liberal hypocrisy. It also doesn't hurt in that regard that he mentioned more than once the need of black citizens to defend themselves with firearms, post-Reconstruction. My only (limited) misgivings are about the potential apparent wiggle room in several places in regard to the definition of "sensitive places", but my belief is that there is enough in the rest of the opinion to force states to minimize the scope of such places. This is a definite huge WIN! Here is Thomas' last paragraph:

"New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, MartyZ said:

So, is everyone submitting their carry permit application today? Can it be done online?

 

first and formost, i gotta admit. i was WRONG. WAY wrong. i truly thought that they'd succumb to the bs games going on. i am thankful i was wrong.

 

 that said.....i'll be calling my local pd when i come back up here for lunch. or i may wait till monday to give them time to get things into place to issue my permit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns for self-defense may continue to do so. Likewise, the 6 States including New York potentially affected by today’s decision may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall-issue States.

Bye Bye Justifiable need.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

It is a paper form and you need to submit supporting documentation, such as your shooting qualification.

 

43 minutes ago, MartyZ said:

Thanks Stu, do you have info on qualifications and who offers the training?

would florida or utah suffice?

 wait......utah doesn't require course of fire, so i guess not.....so...florida?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

first and formost, i gotta admit. i was WRONG. WAY wrong. i truly thought that they'd succumb to the bs games going on. i am thankful i was wrong.

 

 that said.....i'll be calling my local pd when i come back up here for lunch. or i may wait till monday to give them time to get things into place to issue my permit.

I'm considering submitting my application. I do have some concerns about that will be considered adequate training for us non-LEOs. I do not have a local PD where I live, so I wil be dealing with NJSP. That could turn out to be good, bad, or some of each :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 1LtCAP said:

 

would florida or utah suffice?

 wait......utah doesn't require course of fire, so i guess not.....so...florida?

The idiots in Trenton don't have anything in place yet.  Give them the weekend to try to obstruct this decision with B.S. requirements, fees, etc.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

 

would florida or utah suffice?

 wait......utah doesn't require course of fire, so i guess not.....so...florida?

Utah, Virginia, and Florida all initially accepted my NRA course from 7 or 8 years ago. Utah, at least, has since upgraded their training requirements, but I was grandfatheres in for renewals. I'm pretty sure that is not/wil not be accepted in NJ no matter what the reaction to Bruen turns out to be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CMJeepster said:

The idiots in Trenton don't have anything in place yet.  Give them the weekend to try to obstruct this decision with B.S. requirements, fees, etc.

Murphy will surely at least explore dicking around with an over-broad definition of "sensitive places" to try to make any carry as inconvenient as possible. How about "prohibited within 500 ft of all rest stops and toll plazas on any NJ state highway" :)

Share this post


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

I'm considering submitting my application. I do have some concerns about that will be considered adequate training for us non-LEOs. I do not have a local PD where I live, so I wil be dealing with NJSP. That could turn out to be good, bad, or some of each :) 

 

3 minutes ago, samiam said:

Utah, Virginia, and Florida all initially accepted my NRA course from 7 or 8 years ago. Utah, at least, has since upgraded their training requirements, but I was grandfatheres in for renewals. I'm pretty sure that is not/wil not be accepted in NJ no matter what the reaction to Nruen turns out to be. 

The statutes and Admin Code tell you what you need. I will be scrutinizing them and getting my app in ASAP.

Making assumptions based on what other States require is folly.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Murphy will surely at least explore dicking around with an over-broad definition of "sensitive places" to try to make any carry as inconvenient as possible. How about "prohibited within 500 ft of all rest stops and toll plazas on any NJ state highway" :)

Quote

"expanding the category of 'sensitive places' simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of 'sensitive places" far too broadly."

Quote

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, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I can't tell is if we got strict scrutiny or some new tier of scrutiny they re trying to make happen. It very clearly states strict scrutiny is a no-no. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I offer not only a well-deserved Thank You to Justice Thomas for penning this freedom-loving and long overdue opinion, but to the other justices who agreed with it, AND (though he certainly irks the hell out of me at times, lol) I think some due credit needs to go to former President Trump as well. His many conservative appointments to SCOTUS and other Federal courts, as it turns out, are really providing a bulwark against the encroaching attacks on Constitutional rights that we've been seeing as of late.   

  • Like 2
  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

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.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion).  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. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered.

 

mISHvyA.png

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, CMJeepster said:

The idiots in Trenton don't have anything in place yet.  Give them the weekend to try to obstruct this decision with B.S. requirements, fees, etc.

I'm sure they won't make it easy.  Probably make it as difficult as possible.

Still, VERY good news.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, EX Carnival man said:

I love the fact New Jersey was mentioned too.  I never thought I would live long enough to witness this. 

Me either.  (I turned 70 last month.)

 

1 hour ago, CMJeepster said:

Oh, and then the media reacts:

"The decision in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen is the latest in a string of supreme court rulings in which the conservative majority has undermined gun safety laws."

US supreme court overturns New York handgun law in bitter blow to gun-control push (msn.com)

Be sure to wear protective gear when you go out today, as liberal heads will be exploding all over the place!  :D

This is indeed a great day that I never thought I would see. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FV8vVG9XEAATbFD.png

 

...we will do everything in our power to protect *criminals* - while restricting the "rights" of second-class citizens, sorry, I meant second-amendment supporters.

Signed

Above-my-paygrade Murphy

 

Obviously can't believe this went our way, and it will be interesting to see how NJ truly plays out. After having been told, "don't even bother" when asking for a carry permit application years ago, it will be interesting to actually be able to go through this process. Eventually.

  • Like 2

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...