Jump to content
Bklynracer

Supreme Court Takes First 2A Case in a Decade

Recommended Posts

On 6/28/2022 at 9:35 PM, 68chris said:

That is because it is not in the statutes. A FID is just for long guns or ammunition. You do not need a FID for a permit to purchase a handgun, nor for a permit to carry. Also, something most do not know, your purchase permit allows you to purchase ammo as well.

I listened to attorney Dan S. on the GFH podcast and he recommended waiting to apply for carry to see if the rules for applications change in the coming weeks. I am not sure that I agree with that thinking.

Thursdays US Supreme Court ruling was the greatest victory for residents in state like NJ and NY in the history of 2A. On Friday the NJ Attorney General removed the illegal justifiable need clause. 

What more do we need to wait for?

 

Many thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2022 at 8:33 PM, Downtownv said:

Easy boys and girls, let's take a breath instead of speculating, the dust will settle soon enough. Get what you can together and be patient. Courses will surely be available everywhere, after all they won't be free and they will be happy to tell you where to spend your money.

I agree.  My work schedule is full until late September.  By then, I think the steps to take to get a permit will be a bit clearer although the "system" will be bogged down with the number of applications submitted.  I figure I've waited this long................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scorpio64 said:

  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.

 

Isn't N.J. a "duty to retreat" state outside of your property or place of business? 

Share this post


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

Isn't N.J. a "duty to retreat" state outside of your property or place of business? 

it is even on your property. only within your dwelling(or i think your fixed place of business) do you not have a duty to retreat

Share this post


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

Isn't N.J. a "duty to retreat" state outside of your property or place of business? 

Yes.  It actually includes your property and home. Castle Doctrine in NJ is extremely limited.  Inside your home you cannot use deadly force to prevent a robbery, even if the intruder has a weapon.  If he is just stealing, you have to retreat and call police.  You can only use deadly force if the intruder is trying to kill you or inflict grave bodily harm.

On your property, you have a duty to retreat into your home.

 

If you kill an assailant, the court will look to the history of both the assailant and you.  If the assailant has a history of carjackings or break ins and has never harmed anyone, you are screwed.

 

If you have been posting on social media, like a gun forum, that you have the right to kill anyone who threatens you, well....good luck.

 

 

Share this post


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

Yes.  It actually includes your property and home. Castle Doctrine in NJ is extremely limited.  Inside your home you cannot use deadly force to prevent a robbery, even if the intruder has a weapon.  If he is just stealing, you have to retreat and call police.  You can only use deadly force if the intruder is trying to kill you or inflict grave bodily harm.

On your property, you have a duty to retreat into your home.

 

If you kill an assailant, the court will look to the history of both the assailant and you.  If the assailant has a history of carjackings or break ins and has never harmed anyone, you are screwed.

 

If you have been posting on social media, like a gun forum, that you have the right to kill anyone who threatens you, well....good luck.

 

 

(i)The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor; and

(ii)A public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed.

TITLE 2C - THE NEW JERSEY CODE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Section 2C:3
2C:3-4 - Use of force in self-protection

  • Informative 1

Share this post


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

(i)The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor; and

(ii)A public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed.

TITLE 2C - THE NEW JERSEY CODE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Section 2C:3
2C:3-4 - Use of force in self-protection

Correct.  You do not have to surrender your dwelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

(i)The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor; and

(ii)A public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed.

TITLE 2C - THE NEW JERSEY CODE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Section 2C:3
2C:3-4 - Use of force in self-protection

You'd think we never discussed use of force on this forum for home protection or something, lol.....  or use of force in general... 

Share this post


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

You'd think we never discussed use of force on this forum for home protection or something, lol.....  or use of force in general... 

yea i know. i don't even ever bother typing anything out about it anymore. i just go to the bookmark, and copy/paste it over.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 Inside your home you cannot use deadly force to prevent a robbery, even if the intruder has a weapon. 

Respectfully, I don't think this is accurate.

If someone breaks into your home and they have a gun, there is no law that states that you have to engage in some sort of dialogue with the criminal to determine whether he's there to simply take all your possessions or if he's also going to shoot you.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 124gr9mm said:

Respectfully, I don't think this is accurate.

If someone breaks into your home and they have a gun, there is no law that states that you have to engage in some sort of dialogue with the criminal to determine whether he's there to simply take all your possessions or if he's also going to shoot you.

 

I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, 124gr9mm said:

Respectfully, I don't think this is accurate.

If someone breaks into your home and they have a gun, there is no law that states that you have to engage in some sort of dialogue with the criminal to determine whether he's there to simply take all your possessions or if he's also going to shoot you.

 

 

Under NJ state constition: "All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness."

 

in conjunction with NJ state law, I view the issue as follows. 

You can't be the initial aggressor, clearly the person breaking into your home is. 

You have a right to forcefully remove the person from your property(dwelling)to protect it, and obtain safety. If that individual then shows a willingness and ability to harm you, self defense is warranted. 

This idea you have to sit and watch someone ransacked your home while the police make their way to you is nonsense. 

NJ is going to have one hell of time justifying duty to retreat with that paragraph being the first one in the NJ State Constitution, or at the very least an individual using force to protect their property. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

NJ is going to have one hell of time justifying duty to retreat with that paragraph being the first one in the NJ State Constitution, or at the very least an individual using force to protect their property. 

"They' won't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

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.

Your Bruen decision document must differ from the pdf version that I downloaded from the SCOTUS site. Page 80 of my pdf is (actual) page 2 of Kavanaugh's concurrence. That does mention objective licensing requirements, but the only potential objections mentionedafer that are "possession by felons and the mentally ill"; "sensitive places" (an exception already strictly delimited in Thomas' opinion), and "dangerous and unusual weapons", also amply limited by Thomas. Thomas' opinion itself is only 63 (actual) pages long. Regardless, under forseeable circumstances, the limitation of the right to carry to only the handgun used for qualification, would be the absolute removal of the right to carry for an indivdual until that circumstance was addressed, subjecting that individual to risks that could easily be avoided by modification or elimination of that restriction. This decision is about the right to carry for ordinary citizens, not only firearms wonks or rich people. Many of those citizens cannot be reasonably expected to own and qualify with multiple handguns, just so that New Jersey can exercise whatever legitimate interest (if any) that is has in that requirement. Satisfaction that the carry permit holder is sufficiently familiar with the carried handgun to not present a safety hazard to the general public could be achieved in any number of ways that do not place a similar burden on the permit holder. My expectation is that NJ really wants to use this as an additional firearms registry. 

"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."

It's comforting to know that we have someone on the forum in telepathic contact with the Justices :) Sorry for the snark, but there could have been l a lot of other reasons for Thomas' brevity, including that this session was evidently quite heavy.

"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."

Evidently they remanded the magazine capacity limitation case (if that is the one you meant) to lower court with instructions to reevaluate or rehear it in light of Bruen.

Share this post


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

Evidently they remanded the magazine capacity limitation case (if that is the one you meant) to lower court with instructions to reevaluate or rehear it in light of Bruen.

I want a 33 rounder for my Glock!!!

Share this post


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

I want a 33 rounder for my Glock!!!

Not sure if you're serious but... Wouldn't one of those protrude from the bottom of the grip, and wouldn't it be difficult to avoid "printing" if carried?

Share this post


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

Not sure if you're serious but... Wouldn't one of those protrude from the bottom of the grip, and wouldn't it be difficult to avoid "printing" if carried?

Yes and yes.  It would be purely a range item, not for carry or home defense.

UTG GL933 33 Round Polymer Glock 9mm Magazine | UTG Fun Stick (at3tactical.com)

Share this post


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

Evidently they remanded the magazine capacity limitation case (if that is the one you meant) to lower court with instructions to reevaluate or rehear it in light of Bruen.

I believe this is an extremely good sign for you guys, for mag capacity ban, as well as AWB. 
 

Patience. This will come. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Not sure if you're serious but... Wouldn't one of those protrude from the bottom of the grip, and wouldn't it be difficult to avoid "printing" if carried?

The 33 rounder is for the mag change.   Otherwise carry it IWB at 12 o'clock and enjoy all the attention it attracts.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Displaced Texan said:

I believe this is an extremely good sign for you guys, for mag capacity ban, as well as AWB. 
 

Patience. This will come. 

I would really, really enjoy seeing the mag ban overturned, more so than the CCW ruling. 

That would be a kick right in Bucky's horse teeth.

  • Agree 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Your Bruen decision document must differ from the pdf version that I downloaded from the SCOTUS site. Page 80 of my pdf is (actual) page 2 of Kavanaugh's concurrence. That does mention objective licensing requirements, but the only potential objections mentionedafer that are "possession by felons and the mentally ill"; "sensitive places" (an exception already strictly delimited in Thomas' opinion), and "dangerous and unusual weapons", also amply limited by Thomas. Thomas' opinion itself is only 63 (actual) pages long. Regardless, under forseeable circumstances, the limitation of the right to carry to only the handgun used for qualification, would be the absolute removal of the right to carry for an indivdual until that circumstance was addressed, subjecting that individual to risks that could easily be avoided by modification or elimination of that restriction. This decision is about the right to carry for ordinary citizens, not only firearms wonks or rich people. Many of those citizens cannot be reasonably expected to own and qualify with multiple handguns, just so that New Jersey can exercise whatever legitimate interest (if any) that is has in that requirement. Satisfaction that the carry permit holder is sufficiently familiar with the carried handgun to not present a safety hazard to the general public could be achieved in any number of ways that do not place a similar burden on the permit holder. My expectation is that NJ really wants to use this as an additional firearms registry. 

"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."

It's comforting to know that we have someone on the forum in telepathic contact with the Justices :) Sorry for the snark, but there could have been l a lot of other reasons for Thomas' brevity, including that this session was evidently quite heavy.

"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."

Evidently they remanded the magazine capacity limitation case (if that is the one you meant) to lower court with instructions to reevaluate or rehear it in light of Bruen.

No offense, but is this the first SCOTUS opinion you've dug into? 

The scope of Judicial review is a very deliberate thing... to suggest they/he left things out due to a heavy work load is not even seriously considered. 

Remanding to the lower courts is a pass off for now, again they decided not to hear the cases, when they could have and given a direct opinion Seperate of Bruen. If lower courts reverse, that's only good news for the circuit it happens in. 

NJ doesn't need to use it as a registry, they literally already have one. 

If you can't afford multiple firearms? How is this even an issue now?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

No offense, but is this the first SCOTUS opinion you've dug into? 

The scope of Judicial review is a very deliberate thing... to suggest they/he left things out due to a heavy work load is not even seriously considered. 

Remanding to the lower courts is a pass off for now, again they decided not to hear the cases, when they could have and given a direct opinion Seperate of Bruen. If lower courts reverse, that's only good news for the circuit it happens in. 

NJ doesn't need to use it as a registry, they literally already have one. 

If you can't afford multiple firearms? How is this even an issue now?

 

Pending enaction of some legislation currently in process, I'm pretty sure that some firearms (e.g. inherited from a deceased parent) are not required to be registered to the current owner in NJ This would remove that limitation for NJ's registry if the heir wanted to carry. 

Afford, or not, it is an unreasonable limitation on the right to bear arms, period. Bruen was very heavy in the syllabus and the general fraoming of the decision on the general principle that there were only a few, specific, restrictions on RTKBA that are Consitutional. Those were if a person is clearly a menace to society by virtue of criminal history, or insanity; if the restriction is analogous to those that widely existed in 1791 or 1867; or if the weapon is so unusual as to be an "affray", and cause panic by its very appearance (which imo directly relates to whether it appears similar to common currently used weapons) To the best of my knowledge, New Jersey's requirement to qualify with every specific firearm (not even an identical weapon with a different serial number would be allowed according to the current wording) that might be carried meets none of those tests.. The affirmation of states' rights to regulate that you cited was stated in terms of what is done in the current "shall issue" states. To the best of my knowledge, no other state or territory has, or has ever had, such a requirement. What protected interest could NJ have in this practice that is unique from every other state? I would think that consideration could be a decisive point against the practice if this ever was an actual court case. I also haven't seen (or at least I don't recall it) any cite of a NJ statute that penalizes or criminalizes carry by a permit holder of a weapon other than that used to qualiy. Does the permit itself have the handgun make, model & serial number on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that jersey's 'mag ban' was just remanded back to the 3rd Circuit court yesterday along with the 9th, 4th, etc. To be redone using TEXT. HISTORY. TRADITION. No "interest balancing," no "2nd tier", no more intermediate scrutiny. 

 

What if the 3rd and especially the 9th, refuse to comply with the SCOTUS, yet again??

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, quikz said:

Now that jersey's 'mag ban' was just remanded back to the 3rd Circuit court yesterday along with the 9th, 4th, etc. To be redone using TEXT. HISTORY. TRADITION. No "interest balancing," no "2nd tier", no more intermediate scrutiny. 

 

What if the 3rd and especially the 9th, refuse to comply with the SCOTUS, yet again??

 

IT can still be appealed to SCOTUS, and they can lay the smack down again. 

Share this post


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

Pending enaction of some legislation currently in process, I'm pretty sure that some firearms (e.g. inherited from a deceased parent) are not required to be registered to the current owner in NJ This would remove that limitation for NJ's registry if the heir wanted to carry. 

Afford, or not, it is an unreasonable limitation on the right to bear arms, period. Bruen was very heavy in the syllabus and the general fraoming of the decision on the general principle that there were only a few, specific, restrictions on RTKBA that are Consitutional. Those were if a person is clearly a menace to society by virtue of criminal history, or insanity; if the restriction is analogous to those that widely existed in 1791 or 1867; or if the weapon is so unusual as to be an "affray", and cause panic by its very appearance (which imo directly relates to whether it appears similar to common currently used weapons) To the best of my knowledge, New Jersey's requirement to qualify with every specific firearm (not even an identical weapon with a different serial number would be allowed according to the current wording) that might be carried meets none of those tests.. The affirmation of states' rights to regulate that you cited was stated in terms of what is done in the current "shall issue" states. To the best of my knowledge, no other state or territory has, or has ever had, such a requirement. What protected interest could NJ have in this practice that is unique from every other state? I would think that consideration could be a decisive point against the practice if this ever was an actual court case. I also haven't seen (or at least I don't recall it) any cite of a NJ statute that penalizes or criminalizes carry by a permit holder of a weapon other than that used to qualiy. Does the permit itself have the handgun make, model & serial number on it?

There are no formative "tests" established in the opinion, unfortunately.  What you're seeing is general criteria outlined in the opinion. There is nothing as specific such as the "lemon test" which specifies exactly what must be considered in order for a law to be constitutional. 

The restrictions you note, are for the outright denial of the right. In fact, the licensing requirements in NY which also requires registering the firearm to be carried was left in place. 

I'm not disagreeing with you sentiments, it's ridiculous. 

NJ will argue every one has the right carry a firearm who isn't prohibited, and can do so with the firearm of their choosing after completing the "objective" licensing requirements. 

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...