Jump to content
Downtownv

NJ Gov Talks Tough On Guns, But SCOTUS May Have The Last Word

Recommended Posts

NJ Gov Talks Tough On Guns, But SCOTUS May Have The Last Word

 
By Cam Edwards | Sep 13, 2021 9:30 AM ET
 
Governor Dooooshe Bag⬇︎⬇︎⇩
0cb79212-9943-4714-a0ad-ddbaebab0e23-860x475.jpg Chris Pedota/The Record via AP, Pool

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy is bolstering his gun control bona fides ahead of Election Day in November, but no matter how much he sings the praises of the state’s draconian gun laws, the Supreme Court is getting ready to deal with several cases that could have a huge impact on the Second Amendment rights of residents.

 
 

Murphy recently held campaign appearance in which the issues of gun control and the privilege of owning and carrying a gun (don’t dare call it a right in New Jersey) were front and center.

About 200 or so people were in the audience and the governor was joined on the podium by, among others,  Reps. Donald Payne Jr. and Mikie Sherrill, Assemblyman Lou Greenwald, who trekked up from south Jersey, and Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter was killed in the Parkland, Fla. mass shooting in 2018.

More than an outing to show support for gun laws, this was a time to slam Republican candidate Jack Ciattarelli, who has questioned some of the state’s gun regulations.

“We don’t want to go backward on this issue,” said Greenwald. contending that when it comes to guns, Ciattarelli may turn the state into Florida or South Dakota.

Those states are not normally mentioned in the same breath, but both have outspoken Republican governors.

Those following this campaign know that Republicans often criticize Murphy for allegedly wanting to turn New Jersey into California. Now Democrats have their own states to play with.

Murphy joined in on the criticism, saying that Ciattarelli wants to make it easier for people in certain professions to carry concealed weapons. One of those professions is Realtor.

“You would have to tell me what the heck that means,” Murphy said.

 

Murphy can ask the Republican candidate himself when the pair meet for a debate two weeks from now, but I’ll take a stab at it. New Jersey is one of the handful of states around the country that still have a “may issue” carry law in place, which means that the average citizen can’t obtain a permit to carry regardless of their circumstances. It sounds to me like Ciattarelli believes that working in certain professions that carry an increase risk of violent assault should be seen as “good cause” to receive a permit.

While Ciattarelli isn’t calling for the adoption of a “shall issue” system, the Supreme Court might not leave it up to the next governor or the New Jersey legislature to decide on any changes to the permitting process. The Court will hear oral arguments in a case dealing with New York’s “may issue” laws in November, and when the nine justices gather for their first conference of the fall term on September 27th, they’re set to consider accepting a number of other 2A-related cases, including two lawsuits challenging New Jersey’s carry laws and its ban on so-called large capacity magazines.

In Russell v. New Jersey, attorney Evan Nappen and plaintiff Reb Russell II are asking the Court to decide the following questions:

 

1. Whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry arms outside of the home for self-defense.

2. Whether the government may deny lawabiding citizens their exercise of the right to carry a handgun outside of their homes by conditioning the exercise of the right on showings of need.

Russell is substantially similar to the New York case already accepted by SCOTUS, so it’s possible that the Court will keep ahold of this case until the justices have issued their decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which is expected to come down next May or June.

The second case, known as Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Bruck, takes on New Jersey’s mag ban, which not only made it illegal to purchase a new magazine that can hold more than ten rounds, but made it a crime for those who lawfully purchased a magazine to continue to possess it. Attorney Paul Clement, who’s also representing the NYSPRA in its upcoming Supreme Court fight, is the attorney of record in the ANJRPC litigation, says the case provides SCOTUS with the opportunity to address two serious questions about the New Jersey ban.

1. Whether a blanket, retrospective, and confiscatory law prohibiting ordinary law-abiding citizens from possessing magazines in common use violates the Second Amendment.

2. Whether a law dispossessing citizens without compensation of property that was lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the Takings Clause.

 

So, while Phil Murphy may be running against Jack Ciattarelli, the biggest threat to the governor’s anti-gun agenda is actually the Supreme Court and not the Republican gubernatorial candidate, who is promising moderate reforms like including a grandfather clause in any new gun control legislation and the aforementioned improved access to carry permits for those in some dangerous professions. Actually, I suppose the biggest threat to Murphy’s agenda is the Constitution itself, especially if the Court grants cert to either of the New Jersey cases its set to consider in just a few weeks.

 

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2021/09/13/nj-gov-talks-tough-on-guns-but-scotus-may-have-the-last-word-n49865

  • Informative 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DirtyDigz said:

I almost wish Murphy would get re-elected so he'd be in office when SCOTUS lays the smackdown NJ so richly deserves.

Almost...

Sadly, This jackass will will handily.

So this could be something that makes you feel both Happy and Sad.

 

 

 

 

Happy_Sad.jpg

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

I almost wish Murphy would get re-elected so he'd be in office when SCOTUS lays the smackdown NJ so richly deserves.

Almost...

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/amy-coney-barrett-scotus-perception/2021/09/13/id/1036104/

 

This article kind of concerns me when a SC justice publicly announces that she is concerned about the public perception of the court.

Kind of scary if you ask me,  does this mean she will take "public perception" into account when making a decision based on the constitution?        

The public perception is that 40+ states allow right to carry and many of them constitutional carry.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in the short time i've been on this forum i have seen too many times when we all "KNEW" the scotus was gonna smack down nj's illegal scheme.

 accordingly, i'm not really overly excited. i'll believe it when i see it.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3

Share this post


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

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/amy-coney-barrett-scotus-perception/2021/09/13/id/1036104/

 

This article kind of concerns me when a SC justice publicly announces that she is concerned about the public perception of the court.

Kind of scary if you ask me,  does this mean she will take "public perception" into account when making a decision based on the constitution?        

The public perception is that 40+ states allow right to carry and many of them constitutional carry.  

Well this contradicts your article:

After Democrats Go After The Supreme Court – Amy Coney Barrett Turns The Tables On Them
By Adam Casalino|September 13, 2021
After Democrats Go After The Supreme Court – Amy Coney Barrett Turns The Tables On Them
Share
 
 

What’s Happening:

Democrats had a total meltdown after the Supreme Court refused to block a Texas pro-life law. Since that time, they have renewed calls to pack the Supreme Court. They can’t stand that the court sometimes rules against their agenda.

So, their only “solution” is to poison the court’s authority through court packing, so it will only give them verdicts they like. So much for democracy, huh?

But they just got a rude awakening by one top justice. Democrats whine and complain that the court is pushing politics. But Amy Coney Barrett just blasted them, saying “No… you do that.”

From Fox News:

“My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks,” Barrett said, according to the Louisville Courier Journal.

“The media, along with hot takes on Twitter, report the results and decisions… That makes the decision seem results-oriented,” Barrett added, according to the Courier Journal. “And here’s the thing: Sometimes, I don’t like the results of my decisions. But it’s not my job to decide cases based on the outcome I want.”

ACB humiliated Democrats when she revealed that the Supreme Court is not made up of “partisan hacks.” Their decisions are not swayed by what might happen. Instead, they rule based on the law and Constitution.

This might be upsetting news to Democrats, who seem to think conservative judges are as political as many liberal judges. But a good justice, regardless of political leaning, does not focus on partisan motives when deciding cases.

They make decisions based on what the law says and whether or not a case has any merit. Barrett explained they are not trying to figure out what the results would be outside the court. She even admitted she doesn’t always agree with the outcomes.

But that doesn’t matter. What matters is the law and the Constitution.

Democrats seem to think they can bend our laws any way they like. All to get the results they want. Their desire to pack the court is proof of that. They don’t get the outcome they like, so they try to cram the court to have their way.

But if what Coney says is true, even court-packing won’t satisfy Democrats. Even good liberal justices should rule based on the law, not results or outcomes. Democrats might ram the court with 20 justices, but that doesn’t mean they’ll get their way.

Then what will they do? Rip up the Constitution? Oh, wait, they’ve tried to do that many times before.

Key Takeaways:

  • Amy Coney Barret blasted Democrats, saying justices are not “partisan hacks.”
  • She claimed the SCOTUS justices rule on “judicial philosophy” not on possible outcomes.
  • This comes as Democrats renew calls to pack the Supreme Court.

 

https://thepatriotjournal.com/supreme-court-dems-acb/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=pjnewsletter

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2021 at 11:34 AM, Downtownv said:

"ACB humiliated Democrats when she revealed that the Supreme Court is not made up of “partisan hacks.” Their decisions are not swayed by what might happen. Instead, they rule based on the law and Constitution".

"They make decisions based on what the law says and whether or not a case has any merit. Barrett explained they are not trying to figure out what the results would be outside the court".

That may be true on some cases just to keep up appearances. 

But when it comes to the big ones like the 2020 presidential election voter fraud the SC is definitely swayed by what might happen outside the court.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, Ciattarelli would be happy to have "shall issue" in NJ.  His talk about permits for "certain professions" is something that he will try to push through a Democrat controlled legislature as a "foot-in-the-door" along with repeal of the magazine limits.  He has said, very clearly, many times, that a Republican legislature puts everything on the table.

Share this post


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

IN reality, do we really have a chance of turning the legislature red? or even getting rid of murphy?

Sadly, No. There are lots of people that think his tryanny kept them safe. The Unions are in his hip pocket. He's one ugly basturd that insults the NJSP by wearing their gear daily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2021 at 5:34 PM, njJoniGuy said:

FPM aka Governor Gopher, the first governor of the Glorious Peoples Republik of New Jerseystan (PRNJ) who is able to chew through a chain link fence.

You'd think that with all the money he made on Wall Street that he'd have had his teeth fixed years ago.

I'm pretty sure he already did.   However, the plastic surgeon messed everything up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Downtownv said:

Sadly, No. There are lots of people that think his tryanny kept them safe. The Unions are in his hip pocket. He's one ugly basturd that insults the NJSP by wearing their gear daily.

You mean like Callahan?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2021 at 4:53 PM, Downtownv said:

Sadly, No. There are lots of people that think his tryanny kept them safe. The Unions are in his hip pocket. 

Open borders immigration is what turned N.J. California, etc, into one party democrat controlled states. 

Thats why the Left fights tooth and nail to import third worlders by the millions.  

The less white a state becomes the bluer it gets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On September 14, 2021 at 11:34 AM, Downtownv said:

"ACB humiliated Democrats when she revealed that the Supreme Court is not made up of “partisan hacks.” Their decisions are not swayed by what might happen. Instead, they rule based on the law and Constitution".

Oh please. Who wrote this garbage? ACB didn't humiliated anybody.

Every time the court is accused of being made up of partisan hacks, which they are, btw, a member of the opposing side that's making the accusations comes out denying them. it's SOP.

and, a second BTW, ACB and Kavannaugh were horrible picks that will turn out to be worse than Souter. The only difference between them and Souter is that will take them lesser time to be relaible leftwing votes. 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thoughts after drinking some Sam Adams, much better than Port. 

When will Murphy take responsibilty for all the nursing home deaths?

ACB... She and the rest will just let the American people down.

It is ALL like a jumbled movie script with compromsing and colluding actors... The SCOTUS is part of it.  Think of the Good Cop/Bad Cop Scenario, or perhaps a  Hollywood Western.  The show must go on!  Some play the oppressors (Obama/Soros) and some play those that pretend to act up against the oppressors (ACB).  No white hats and lots of black hats, but many are gray.  Some play both (little Lindsey Grahamcrapper comes to mind.)  It is all a cinematic distraction to appease and entertain the opposing sides as high noon beckons while they plan and perform the real train heist for power and against liberty and personal freedom in the shadows of their movie set.   And those actors that don't want to follow the script will, lets just say... be fired, like toasted marshmellows and Big Tech and the media will stoke the flames as Fauci and the rest of the loyal cast, giggling, eat BLM smores.  And the directors, yes who are they?, well they won't ALLOW any actors on the national stage that cannot be kontrolled.  ACB, just as Roberts, or perhaps that Moron munchkin from Kentucky, Mitchbag, well they will all play their roles just as the Wicked Witch of the West eats elitist ice cream by the fire, the flying monkey Schumerhead, or perhaps he's Shere Kahn lurking about in the shadows... those actors practice their lines around the raging fire urging on those like kompromised Roberts, all burning our nation and its Constitution down while sitting around the ANTIFA bonfire singing COVID campfire songs, Fahrenheit 451 be damned, and the brains, hearts and courage of the American people are broken and divided and there is no more Kansas to get back to and the scripts and plots, jumbled, play on... "top down, bottom up, and inside out".    Woody walks on checking his empty holster as sheeple bing watch, engrossed perhaps, bored perhaps, disheartened perhaps munching their CRT popcorn and sipping their woke Coke in a theatre that's being forced to close due to unconstutional mandates.  

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...