Jump to content
Bklynracer

Supreme Court Takes First 2A Case in a Decade

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, oldguysrule649 said:

To summarize my main takeaways from the news conference.

1) They have clearly capitulated with respect to justifiable need.  It is dead and buried!  Stated the SCOTUS ruling is immediate and time is of the essence to align with it.  

2) I anticipate that by end of day the AG will issue a directive to all of NJ law enforcement that justifiable need is no longer required.  The rest of the existing concealed carry application and approval process remains in full force.

3) The are going to push very hard to legislate an expansive list of sensitive places.

4) They also indicated they intend to make liability insurance be required,  "Like you have when driving an automobile".  (I am not referring to plans like US Law Shield but rather liability insurance.)

5) They anticipate 200,000 concealed carry applications.  Mentioned improving the existing online system(presumably a reference to FARS) to also handle these types of applications in the future.   The head of the NJSP made mention of communication with all NJ law enforcement entities with regards to the ruling and the staffing challenges with respect to processing these applications.

2 & 4 appear to be contradictory. How can they keep the current process and application intact (except for elimating justifiable need) and require liability insurance, when the current process does not require that, and the current application does not request policy information. Also, as I mentoned earlier, I suspect requiring any outrageously expensive liability coverage would fail Thomas' tests. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Here is another question. Will we be able to leave our pistols in the car if we need to go into a building that does not allow guns?

Don't give them ideas! :D I suspect that even though States can enact "sensitive places", if they prevent us from keeping it in the car would that not violate Thomas ruling? We are allowed to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense after all....

Share this post


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

Integrating it into FARS would be one helluva improvement.  Hopefully the fingerprints already on file will be acceptable.  As it is now, you need a fresh set run through the system with the results going to your local PD.

re fingerprints - don't count on it. One of my pet peeves with my out-of-state CHP is that some require a fresh print submission with every renewal. I thought one of the reasons for using fingerprints for definitive ID is that they are (relatively) unique to the individual, and, absent some kind of mutilation, don't change over time, but what do I know? At least one of the states requires that prints be inked, not electronically scanned, which is also a PITA.

Share this post


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

I hope we're just being paranoid here and not predicting the future. I, for one, would have difficulty shooting an 8" target at 75 freaking feet with any consistency. Maybe with my ruger .22 semiauto, but probably not with any serious self defense weapon.

Actually, most quals are done using an FBI "Q" target, which is similar to the old IPSC coke bottle.  It's not easy to miss.  Even if you blow some of the 25 yard shots, you can still make 80% to pass.

Short barrels naturally have a short sight radius and take a bit more discipline.  The important thing to consider when choosing a sidearm is that compacts are more difficult to shoot than medium or full size.  

Share this post


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

Here is another question. Will we be able to leave our pistols in the car if we need to go into a building that does not allow guns?

That is hopefully covered in the existing NJ regs. Also the question of whether we will be able to CC in a vehicle (there is some variance in that among shall issue states. Unfortunately, I don't know the answers to either question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, marlintag said:

Don't give them ideas! :D I suspect that even though States can enact "sensitive places", if they prevent us from keeping it in the car would that not violate Thomas ruling? We are allowed to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense after all....

I mean a vehicle is an extension of your home in a lot of legal situations. It is not particularly sensitive and would be hard to prove it is so. 

Share this post


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

Here is another question. Will we be able to leave our pistols in the car if we need to go into a building that does not allow guns?

Yes.  Just lock your doors.

Last time I checked 2C, which may be longer than I remember, the no no list includes all Federal Property, such as Post Offices.  Remember that a Post Office parking lot may be Federal Property, street parking is not.  Casinos and Educational Facilities require the approval of the governing body.

I think the Dems want to add Public Property and Private Property to the list.  :rolleyes:

Share this post


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

2 & 4 appear to be contradictory. How can they keep the current process and application intact (except for elimating justifiable need) and require liability insurance, when the current process does not require that, and the current application does not request policy information. Also, as I mentoned earlier, I suspect requiring any outrageously expensive liability coverage would fail Thomas' tests. 

Truthful best guess answer? 

Their intent is to issue permits slowly, and to try to make them effectively useless. They will do many things which will get shot down one at a time. While doing this they will be appealing to the party to do something at the federal level to protect their scheme and make this problem go away. 

I don't think there will be any requirement for liability insurance soon. To rewrite the permitting statute would put them at peril of an injunction that would leave them with no permitting requirement. The way the case was decided that COULD have been done yesterday, but the court was kind enough to hand down the decision in a way that gives them the ability to comply without revoking the current law. (this would have been a definite for NY, not so sure about NJ). 

It is likely in their bag of tricks for delaying along the way. Because phildo is not that bright about such things, he may have tipped their hand about it when he really shouldn't have. 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, oldguysrule649 said:

Listening to the Governor now.  Sounds like he/NJ will accept the Supreme Court ruling and no longer required justifiable need.  However he is calling for legislation to define an expansive list of "sensitive places". These to include bars and restaurants where alcohol is served as well as "BY DEFAULT" private property (malls, homes, etc.) without the permission of the owner.

DA's office to issue a directive today to NJ law enforcement with revised guidance consistent with the SCOTUS decision.

Some shall issue states disallow carry where any alcohol is served; at least one bars it in a "bar" where only (or mainly?) booze is offered, but allows it in a seated restaurant that serves alcohol with food (distinction remains even if those facilities are under the same roof). We'll need to wait and see what our clowns come up with... I think any broad "disallowed by default" regulation is going to violate the Bruen ruling. Certainly property owners must be grnated the authority to forbid carry on their premises. 

Share this post


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

They already made insurance illegal once, and driving is not a constitutional right. 

I suspect they will be surprised what is no longer constitutional in the long run. 

I totally agree.  It sounded, today at least, they they will be trying to hit a grandslam with respect to defining sensitive places. Such an overreach could be in clear conflict with Scotus's wording with respect to sensitive places.  I imagine that when an actual  bill is written and goes thru the committee process, it could be watered down to conform with the new reality.

Obviously we all need to remain vigilant and keep fighting.  While most of the posts over the last day have focused on NJ's now defunct justifiable need requirement and the concealed carry application process; SCOTUS's revised guidance on the standards (i.e. text, history, and tradition only) that courts must use going forward to judge 2A laws is a huge gamechanger for the entire country and for us.  Laws restricting magazine sizes,  "assault" weapons, and so on will now be subject to being overturned based on the new guidance.  Stay tuned in  the coming week to see what SCOTUS does with t he cases they have had on hold pending yesterday's decision.  Our elected officials better have Advil on hand as I believe more headaches are coming their way.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

2 & 4 appear to be contradictory. How can they keep the current process and application intact (except for elimating justifiable need) and require liability insurance, when the current process does not require that, and the current application does not request policy information. Also, as I mentoned earlier, I suspect requiring any outrageously expensive liability coverage would fail Thomas' tests. 

#2 is what is in effect now.  No insurance required.

#4 would require future legislation.  I was only trying to pass along what I heard.

 

Share this post


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

Am I to understand that you have can only carry the gun you qualify with?

what if i want to swap between my revolver and semi-auto?

 

Don't get greedy now! :lol: You will carry that snubby and like it mister! LOL. On a serious note that is a good question and I'm sure we will find out when the AG shoots that email over to the state police. I hope we can swap, but we'll have to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, oldguysrule649 said:

I totally agree.  It sounded, today at least, they they will be trying to hit a grandslam with respect to defining sensitive places. Such an overreach could be in clear conflict with Scotus's wording with respect to sensitive places.  I imagine that when an actual  bill is written and goes thru the committee process, it could be watered down to conform with the new reality.

Obviously we all need to remain vigilant and keep fighting.  While most of the posts over the last day have focused on NJ's now defunct justifiable need requirement and the concealed carry application process; SCOTUS's revised guidance on the standards (i.e. text, history, and tradition only) that courts must use going forward to judge 2A laws is a huge gamechanger for the entire country and for us.  Laws restricting magazine sizes,  "assault" weapons, and so on will now be subject to being overturned based on the new guidance.  Stay tuned in  the coming week to see what SCOTUS does with t he cases they have had on hold pending yesterday's decision.  Our elected officials better have Advil on hand as I believe more headaches are coming their way.

 

Oh I'm very keen on the AWB and mag limits going away.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Oh I'm very keen on the AWB and mag limits going away.

The way I read the text of the Bruen decision, I think the ‘weapons in common use’ would invalidate an AWB. And since standard capacity magazines are also in ‘common use’, I believe it would also apply to them. 
 

I do not think that NJ will lay down very easily on that…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Displaced Texan said:

The way I read the text of the Bruen decision, I think the ‘weapons in common use’ would invalidate an AWB. And since standard capacity magazines are also in ‘common use’, I believe it would also apply to them. 
 

I do not think that NJ will lay down very easily on that…

I'm sure they will need it explained to them. 

Share this post


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

Am I to understand that you have can only carry the gun you qualify with?

what if i want to swap between my revolver and semi-auto?

 

Sort of.  When I submit a renewal, I list quals with 2 sidearms that I am likely to carry.  If I pick up a new handgun, I don't carry it until I qualify with it.

There is no current requirement to list sidearms on the permit, but I make sure that I can back up my proficiency with a particular sidearm by having a documented qualification. 

Share this post


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

The way I read the text of the Bruen decision, I think the ‘weapons in common use’ would invalidate an AWB. And since standard capacity magazines are also in ‘common use’, I believe it would also apply to them. 
 

I do not think that NJ will lay down very easily on that…

Honestly I’m more excited about mag and AW bans being thrown out than I am CCW.   Let me have normal mags, stocks and unpinned barrels!

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lawnmower2021 said:

Can a pinned barrel be unpinned? :shok:

Yes they can. One of the first orders of business when I moved to Texas was to unpin, and get rid of the ‘muzzle brakes’ I had for NJ compliance, and replace them with a proper flash hider. It was a piece of cake. 
 

I prefer an A2 in most cases…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here i go jumping the gun.

 

 so....with the wording of this, and mention of the 14th, could that not also strike down nj's registration scheme(the p2p)? and nj's so-called assault weapon ban?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

here i go jumping the gun.

 

 so....with the wording of this, and mention of the 14th, could that not also strike down nj's registration scheme(the p2p)? and nj's so-called assault weapon ban?

 

 

There is a lot "what if's" being asked and lots of speculation. We should take a moment or two to bask in what we have accomplished. We have done what many thought was impossible. My home, our republic has been changed in the most fundamental sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is it!

 

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down a New York law requiring people to demonstrate a particular need in order to get a permit to carry a handgun in public, Acting Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin today announced a directive clarifying requirements for carrying firearms in New Jersey.

Attorney General Directive No. 2022-07 clarifies that while the Supreme Court decision prevents New Jersey from continuing to require a demonstration of justifiable need in order to carry a handgun, it does not eliminate the enforcement of other permitting requirements under State law.

“I want to make it perfectly clear that carrying a handgun without a permit is still illegal in New Jersey and applicants must satisfy all other statutory and regulatory requirements – including a thorough background check – before obtaining a permit to carry here,” said Acting Attorney General Platkin. “New Jersey is leading the way by taking commonsense action to protect our residents and law enforcement officers from the daily threat of gun violence ­– and the Supreme Court decision will not change that.”

The Directive clarifies that in reviewing an individual’s application to carry, law enforcement agencies must continue to ensure that the applicant satisfies all requirements under the law, except that the applicant need not submit a written certification of justifiable need to carry a handgun.

Before issuing a carry permit, law enforcement agencies must continue to:

  • ensure that an applicant is not subject to any of the disabilities that by law would  prevent them from obtaining a permit to purchase a handgun or firearms purchaser identification card;
  • conduct a background check to confirm that the applicant is qualified to carry a handgun, including by ensuring that the application is, among other things, endorsed by three reputable people who have known the applicant for at least three years and can verify that the applicant is a person of good moral character and behavior; and
  • ensure that an applicant has demonstrated that they are  thoroughly familiar with the safe handling and use of handguns.
  • Informative 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...