Jump to content
Bklynracer

Supreme Court Takes First 2A Case in a Decade

Recommended Posts

On Thursday, Murphy called the Supreme Court decision tragic.

“Based on a deeply flawed constitutional methodology, a right-wing majority on the United States Supreme Court has just said that states can no longer decide for ourselves how best to limit the proliferation of firearms in the public sphere,” he said. “Let there be no mistake – this dangerous decision will make America a less safe country.”

And just like that, the Bill of Rights in no longer above his pay grade...

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media%2FFV8uFmOWAAgG7Ui.png

 

10 minutes ago, Fred2 said:

What exactly does this mean?

 

We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

 

SCOTUS kicks the case back down to the lower court from where it was appealed to SCOTUS and orders them to "redecide it, the right way this time"

 

Share this post


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

translation = "As NJ's Chief law enforcement officer, I will not be following the law..."

I am never amazing by the wealth of ignorance in todays society 

he is also wrong in that statement of "all other requirements still apply" as we should no longer be needing justifiable need.

5 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media%2FFV8uFmOWAAgG7Ui.png

 

FJB AND FPM

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the only good news I've heard in almost three years.

However, I recall a conversation I had with my NRA instructor when I first got involved in this.

"We will NEVER, EVER, EVER get CC in this state."

"But what about flipping the legisl..."

"NEVER HAPPEN"

"But what about a federal court ru..."

"WE WILL NEVER HAVE CONCEALED CARRY in NEW JERSEY, PERIOD!"

"Well let's say the Supreme Cou..."

"##$*(&#$ (first Amendment Lounge utterances) the $#*(*&$# and your $*(*&#$#$ ..."

Yes the Supreme Court has ruled, but we now live in a post-truth, post-reality, post-justice world. The USA no longer exists as we believed it did three years ago. I would not be surprised if NY and NJ simply ignored this ruling, either by continuing to bust our 'nads over issues like bathrooom trips and coffee stops, or by passing such draconian licensing requirements as to make the SCOTUS decision moot. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/in-6-3-ruling-court-strikes-down-new-yorks-concealed-carry-law/

 

Quote

The 6-3 ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, is the court’s first significant decision on gun rights in over a decade. In a far-reaching ruling, the court made clear that the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right “to keep and bear arms” protects a broad right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense. Going forward, Thomas explained, courts should uphold gun restrictions only if there is a tradition of such regulation in U.S. history

....

Although U.S. history has at times placed some “well-defined restrictions” on the right to carry firearms in public, Thomas explained, there was no tradition of a broad prohibition on carrying commonly used guns in public for self-defense. And with rare exceptions, Thomas added, there was no historical requirement that law-abiding citizens show the kind of special need for self-defense required by the New York law to carry a gun in public. Indeed, Thomas concluded, there is “no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.”

In concurring opinions, both Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Brett Kavanaugh sought to portray the scope of Thursday’s decision as limited. The court’s ruling, Alito stressed, “decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kind of weapons that people may possess.”

In an opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Kavanaugh contended that Thursday’s ruling will not bar states from imposing any licensing requirements. There are 43 states, he noted, that use licensing schemes that include requirements such as background checks, firearms training, a check of mental health records, and fingerprinting. Such schemes are objective, Kavanaugh explained, rather than granting “open-ended discretion to licensing officials” and requiring “a showing of some special need apart from self-defense.” Justice Stephen Breyer dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Arguing that the question before the court was “the extent to which the Second Amendment restricts different States (and the Federal Government) from working out solutions to” gun violence “through democratic processes,” Breyer faulted his colleagues for striking down the New York law without a record that would allow it to determine how the New York scheme actually works in practice, “without considering the State’s compelling interest in preventing gun violence and protecting the safety of its citizens, and without considering the potentially deadly consequences of its decision.”

 

Share this post


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

Maybe the only good news I've heard in almost three years.

However, I recall a conversation I had with my NRA instructor when I first got involved in this.

"We will NEVER, EVER, EVER get CC in this state."

"But what about flipping the legisl..."

"NEVER HAPPEN"

"But what about a federal court ru..."

"WE WILL NEVER HAVE CONCEALED CARRY in NEW JERSEY, PERIOD!"

"Well let's say the Supreme Cou..."

"##$*(&#$ (first Amendment Lounge utterances) the $#*(*&$# and your $*(*&#$#$ ..."

Yes the Supreme Court has ruled, but we now live in a post-truth, post-reality, post-justice world. The USA no longer exists as we believed it did three years ago. I would not be surprised if NY and NJ simply ignored this ruling, either by continuing to bust our 'nads over issues like bathrooom trips and coffee stops, or by passing such draconian licensing requirements as to make the SCOTUS decision moot. 

See what I mean?

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2022/06/i-wanted-kill-them-jury-finds-times-square-car-daniel-greenfield/

We have no legal system or justice system, only insanity. Anything can happen here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours 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)

In 1987 or so when Florida passed concealed carry, I remember liberals and their media minions were screaming "there will blood in the streets".  Newspaper headlines were saying the same thing. 

As to why we haven't had a mass shooting yet in NJ, I'm thinking it boils down to luck. Because law-abiding don't commit mass shootings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dilbert1967 said:

As to why we haven't had a mass shooting yet in NJ, I'm thinking it boils down to luck. Because law-abiding don't commit mass shootings.

Most likely because most of the psychos capable of such atrocities are in Trenton.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dilbert1967 said:

In 1987 or so when Florida passed concealed carry, I remember liberals and their media minions were screaming "there will blood in the streets".  Newspaper headlines were saying the same thing. 

As to why we haven't had a mass shooting yet in NJ, I'm thinking it boils down to luck. Because law-abiding don't commit mass shootings.

technically we almost did. didn't the buffalo killer mention lakewood?

Share this post


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

Today gives me hope there’s a reason I haven’t sold my p365

i'll probably carry my beretta. i carry my sr9c at work, but i can't get a full comfortable grip on it when drawing.

Share this post


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

What exactly does this mean?

 

We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

 

This is telling the lower court they are wrong and to redo it. I believe this is there because the correct ruling should be to issue the permit, which the lower court needs to do rather than scotus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, dilbert1967 said:

As to why we haven't had a mass shooting yet in NJ, I'm thinking it boils down to luck

 It wouldn't look too good for the Left if a state with it's own form of AWB ban and numerous other restrictions had a mass shooting. 

The "we need more gun control laws" argument is getting old, people don't believe it anymore, (not that it stops them from hacking away at our liberties anyway). 

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...