Jump to content
Bklynracer

Supreme Court Takes First 2A Case in a Decade

Recommended Posts

One point I haven't seen anyone discuss.  Many have talked about wanting to carry hollowpoints, carry normal capacity magazines  and other issues.

A better argument is for national reciprocity.  I'd rather carry a 10 rd magazine  without hollowpoints in another state.

The fact is most states have no magazine or hollowpoint laws.  If the 2A applies outside your home it should apply if you travel outside your state.  National reciprocity, using the 14th Amendment should be the next argument.

Murphy, who has no clue, is waiting to see what Hochel gets away with.  As it is just about all the reasons to go to NYC are gun free zones.

I expect a lot of that to be changed.

National reciprocity is the most important fight IMO.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, GRIZ said:

National reciprocity, using the 14th Amendment should be the next argument.

I’m not sure the constitutional strategy for NR.  I think it would be a stretch legally.  Also given the recent state’s scope aspect of the recent scotus decisions I'm not sure it would be successful.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

I’m not sure the constitutional strategy for NR.  I think it would be a stretch legally.  Also given the recent state’s scope aspect of the recent scotus decisions I'm not sure it would be successful.  

I mean at the easy to see level is equal protection. You could also try to dredge up the privileges and immunities clause. 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2022 at 11:21 PM, KurtC said:

Appendix A on page 35 has a typical New Jersey qualification course of fire.

https://nj.gov/lps/dcj/pdfs/dcj-firearms.pdf

While the course of fire is described using a semi-auto, you can easily meet the same time requirements using a revolver.  I've done it many times.

Thanks Kurt for giving me something to look forward to. Too bad they don't accomodate single action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2022 at 5:25 PM, DirtyDigz said:

Holy crap, the lawyers who argued for NYSRPA in Bruen are effectively pushed out of their firm:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/23/lawyers-gun-rights-supreme-court-00041909

 

 

They started their own firm and are now representing the NSSF:

https://www.nssf.org/articles/nssf-hires-clement-murphy-pllc/

 

Quote

NEWTOWN, Conn. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, is announcing it has retained Paul Clement and Erin Murphy of Clement & Murphy, PLLC, to represent NSSF in its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in its lawsuit, NSSF et al v. James. The lawsuit challenges New York State’s unlawful public nuisance statute, which is designed to impose New York-style gun control on the lawful sale of firearms and ammunition products by permitting lawsuits against members of the industry for the criminal misuse of firearms that find their way into New York even when the sale occurred wholly outside the State of New York and in compliance with all applicable federal and the state laws where it took place.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2022 at 2:43 PM, raz-0 said:

I mean at the easy to see level is equal protection. You could also try to dredge up the privileges and immunities clause. 

 

Doesn't what Thomas wrote in his opinion about allowing states to preserve reasonable restrictions on carrying mitigate against NR that stems from a SCOTUS decision (imo there is zero chance of that happening via Federal legislation)? I know those are two different issues, but to me, it did make him seem open to the idea of preserving some degree of States' Rights under 2 A and 14A  It also seems to me it would take at least one more 2A case to tie him down on the boundaries of that latitude, and it is possible we might not like the results. 

Share this post


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

...Too bad they don't accomodate single action.

Yeah. I have a Bond derringer that I have for backup (elsewhere) that would only ever get used at arms length or closer. I wouldn't even ask an instructor about attempting to qualify with that, given the prevailing predjudice attitude regarding that kind of gun in some quarters... I also have a New Blackhawk, but it doesn't easily lend itself to concealment.

Share this post


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

Doesn't what Thomas wrote in his opinion about allowing states to preserve reasonable restrictions on carrying mitigate against NR that stems from a SCOTUS decision (imo there is zero chance of that happening via Federal legislation)? I know those are two different issues, but to me, it did make him seem open to the idea of preserving some degree of States' Rights under 2 A and 14A  It also seems to me it would take at least one more 2A case to tie him down on the boundaries of that latitude, and it is possible we might not like the results. 

I don’t think it is clear, and likely depends on what you consider national reciprocity.  I don’t think we could get to the final answer in one case  

Fundamental to the ruling is that the typical citizen has the right to both own and carry arms. You don’t cease having 1a rights when you cross a border. It is also not the case that constitutional rights are tiered. It would not shock me to see a future case establish that carrying cannot be more burdened than purchasing. 

I also see it as 100% that every state would need to offer permits to out of staters. Not doing so by reciprocity could very feasible be found to be burdensome. 
 

I suspect the federal government could create a law setting a standard due to the disparity causing issues with interstate commerce. But that wouldn’t be crafted whole by the court, nor should it be  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering who these instructors are and what course of fire and what training are they qualifying you under? I have yet to hear what training course is being accepted by the judge that is expected to sign off on the permit.  I read that the training needs to be equivalent to the PTC course which is much more involved than some NRA basic safety course or a hunter ed.... Please advise

Share this post


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

I don’t think it is clear, and likely depends on what you consider national reciprocity.  I don’t think we could get to the final answer in one case  

Fundamental to the ruling is that the typical citizen has the right to both own and carry arms. You don’t cease having 1a rights when you cross a border. It is also not the case that constitutional rights are tiered. It would not shock me to see a future case establish that carrying cannot be more burdened than purchasing. 

I also see it as 100% that every state would need to offer permits to out of staters. Not doing so by reciprocity could very feasible be found to be burdensome. 
 

I suspect the federal government could create a law setting a standard due to the disparity causing issues with interstate commerce. But that wouldn’t be crafted whole by the court, nor should it be  

Makes sense. Hopefully isn't a reason that it won't happen. Thanks.

Share this post


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

Just wondering who these instructors are and what course of fire and what training are they qualifying you under? I have yet to hear what training course is being accepted by the judge that is expected to sign off on the permit.  I read that the training needs to be equivalent to the PTC course which is much more involved than some NRA basic safety course or a hunter ed.... Please advise

I went to Woodbine NJSP station this afternoon and was given what I was told was the very latest instructions for SP642. Those instructions no longer contain the qualification information that conflicts with what is specified in NJAC, so that appears to be a little bit of progress. Here is what is in the document I picked up today:

** THE REQUIRED WRITTEN FIREARMS QUALIFICATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.4(B), CAN BE OBTAINED AT MOST FIREARM RANGES THROUGH OUT THE STATE. A LIST IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE, WWW.NJSP.ORG > PUBLIC INFORMATION > FIREARMS INFORMATION > NEW JERSEY SHOOTING RANGES FOR RPO QUALIFICATION.

BTW, if you aren't already aware, there is now a topic specific to users' experiences with the NJ SP640 application process that you might find informative:

NJ CCW Permit Application Experience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2022 at 5:54 PM, drjjpdc said:

Thanks Kurt for giving me something to look forward to. Too bad they don't accomodate single action.

 

13 hours ago, samiam said:

Yeah. I have a Bond derringer that I have for backup (elsewhere) that would only ever get used at arms length or closer. I wouldn't even ask an instructor about attempting to qualify with that, given the prevailing predjudice attitude regarding that kind of gun in some quarters... I also have a New Blackhawk, but it doesn't easily lend itself to concealment.

Whilst there are people who can shoot a SA revolver as fast as a DA it all falls apart if you need a reload. Not likely but something one needs to plan for.

I would not feel unarmed with a SA revolver but I'd rather have something else. A small 380 would serve better as a backup gun than any derringer..

JMO, WTF do I know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SO.

In jersey we now have potentially THREE separate "carry" standards for the same, on paper, CCW permit now? 

 

Standard #1:

I have had a jersey "restricted" "carry" permit for 10 years now. I can carry in jersey, pretty much anywhere (and beyond) at work. 

 

Standard #2:

Retired law enforcement. Can carry pretty much anywhere in jersey, I believe as well. And very similar renewals etc, like my current/active permit.

 

Standard #3:

"Civilian" CCW (under Murph's Alinsky style Rules for Radicals definitions) maybe OFF LIMITS in certain arbitrary "gun free zones", retail establishmemts, restaurants, movie theaters, 'buffer zones', "public safety" 'zones', 'sensitive areas', parks, 'crowded' areas, and etc, etc, etc... and etc....

 

The depths of the feel good STUPIDITY of this state's utter non-sense is beyond any and all human comprehension. PLENTY of low hanging fruit and material for EASY immediate future open-and-shut lawsuits and Class Actions for any good ambitious attorney(s) to devour and make a name for themselves.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are treating retired officers. Aka plain old citizens. Differently than the rest of the plain old citizens, that’s probably not going to end well in court. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter (to them) that all these challenges end up  in courts. Its well established that anti-2A NJ, NY etc DO NOT CARE.  There are no real consequences to keep pushing ridiculous laws. They  just have to keep making them faster than courts (which NJ is notorious for dragging their feet and siding with liberals) are willing to handle.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MikeL417 said:

May be an image of text that says 'NJSP DATE: 7/6/22 RAISED issued notaries stamp is sufficient carry any handgun HANDGUN OWNED permit handgun is card once COMPLETE PACKET items listed sheets submitted applicant NJSP day submitted begins COMPLETE PACKET. investigation ythat selt- answered references is an down. then so. necessary the there s no excuse that references references additional to certificate and return back complete LEOPTC firearms roiciency send packet the carry permit pick Judge the permit your CCW UPDATE slow S process down requiring applicants appear the he judge Carry Permits are issued for'Not sure of legitimacy but a LEO friend shared this. 

That was also posted to the thread on NJ carry permit application experiences in the NJ law section. While some of the content is plausible, overall, it seems to be very questionable as to authenticity. If this was an official communication from Callahan or somewhere else in the NJSP upper echelons, wouldn't you expect it to be on official letterhead? Also, since the directive to remove justifiable need from the requirements came from the AG, wouldn't you expect his office to at least have some involvement in announcing further major changes? Not requiring all carry guns to be listed on the qualification cert and not limiting carry to only those guns listed is one such change announced in this letter. The idea that the permit now allows open carry is an even bigger departure from past practice. Whether or not the applicable statutes actually limit permit holders to concealed carry, I think that Charon's ferry would be icebound before NJSP and or the AG acknowledged that and encouraged the practice. I would very much like to think this is authentic, but I have serious doubts. Possibly it was someone's unfunny practical joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MikeL417 said:

May be an image of text that says 'NJSP DATE: 7/6/22 RAISED issued notaries stamp is sufficient carry any handgun HANDGUN OWNED permit handgun is card once COMPLETE PACKET items listed sheets submitted applicant NJSP day submitted begins COMPLETE PACKET. investigation ythat selt- answered references is an down. then so. necessary the there s no excuse that references references additional to certificate and return back complete LEOPTC firearms roiciency send packet the carry permit pick Judge the permit your CCW UPDATE slow S process down requiring applicants appear the he judge Carry Permits are issued for'Not sure of legitimacy but a LEO friend shared this. 

A believe this to be a fake! Someone is toying with us....If it was real it would come from the NJ AG office and would not include numerous grammar and sentence structure discrepancies. It's bullshit!

Share this post


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

A believe this to be a fake! Someone is toying with us....If it was real it would come from the NJ AG office and would not include numerous grammar and sentence structure discrepancies. It's bullshit!

Correct. The State Police do not delegate policy or procedure to municipalities. 

As mentioned, official internal memos/directives are conducted with a letter head, and also must include a recipient/s. Not to mention it can't be "from" the entirety of the NJSP... its from whomever( the actual person) wrote it. 

It's not even a question if that's fake. Who ever did that is a complete moron. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2022 at 9:43 PM, bennj said:

Yep, looks like it was done on a Smith Corona typewriter. Also info is contrary to what is posted on NJSP website. What a shame, since it's closer to how it should be (although still too restrictive).

Right. When I saw that image I immediately thought of the Bush/Dan Rather memo fiasco that should have been in Courier typeface.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone use Courier in a word processor. And who the hell still has a typewriter laying around?

(Oops! Mrs. 45Doll still has my mother's L.C. Smith from the 1940's in her office as a paperweight. But I didn't type that letter!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2022 at 2:43 PM, raz-0 said:

I mean at the easy to see level is equal protection. You could also try to dredge up the privileges and immunities clause. 

 

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. 

 

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...