Jump to content
M1152

NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

Recommended Posts

On 12/25/2022 at 10:55 AM, Walkinguf61 said:

Just keep some faith that it will be straightened out in court in a few months . Whatever gets set in case law becomes the bottom of how far down they can push gun control down our throats . They went “ full retard” on this one and are going to lose big because of it . 

Agreed.  The more off the wall the law they pass is the better the chance of beating it in court. I'm 58 years old and never thought I would ever see CC in NJ  let alone be directed by and anti 2nd amendment governor like Murphy. The Bruen decision gave us a new decision to use in cases. It will take time.   Unfortunately in March I have to return to the Peoples Republic of NJ for another season of work.  I'm  bringing my Glock 42 back with me.  I plan to beg the Kings pardon for a CC Permit. Hopefully this madness is all worked out by than.  January 3rd might be an interesting day.  

 

 

Share this post


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

The insurance requirement isn't effect yet. It really doesn't burden anyone at this time.  It will burden people come July. We have plenty of time. The sensitive places restriction is more immediate.

so then this begs the question........will permits applied for on or after dec22 be issued even though there'[s no proof of insurance and it says ya need insurance?

Share this post


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

so then this begs the question........will permits applied for on or after dec22 be issued even though there'[s no proof of insurance and it says ya need insurance?

The directive says they'll be issued by the PD. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, b47356 said:

You are overlooking how quickly the left bows to the SC when it rules in a way the left approves of. Bruen is definitely not the same thing.

Heller said the same thing.. years ago.. How many "wins" have there been in the meantime? Not including the temp ones, which happened in the 9th circuit.

If you follow things like the Nichols (open carry) case in CA, you will see how courts will deal with Bruen - Throw the cases back to the beginning in district court, and make sure they have no progress for a couple more years.

Nichols was a crazy case from the land of fruits and nuts. There, I said it. 

Heller gave us quite a few wins nationwide. Look at the bigger picture - DC and Chicago went from no guns allowed to full on concealed carry. It laid the foundation for Bruen which gave us carry here. San Francisco tried to ban guns in public housing. They folded. We even got stun guns and tasers, and it laid the foundation for Bruen, which gave us concealed carry.

And yes, NJ decided to fight back against us, but they will lose. Trust me, they will lose and lose pretty hard. 

Share this post


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

Nichols was a crazy case from the land of fruits and nuts. There, I said it. 

Heller gave us quite a few wins nationwide. Look at the bigger picture - DC and Chicago went from no guns allowed to full on concealed carry. It laid the foundation for Bruen which gave us carry here. San Francisco tried to ban guns in public housing. They folded. We even got stun guns and tasers, and it laid the foundation for Bruen, which gave us concealed carry.

And yes, NJ decided to fight back against us, but they will lose. Trust me, they will lose and lose pretty hard. 

Agree. Murphy is gonna get it broken off in his ass. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mr.Stu said:

Encouraging news from NY - SCOTUS has ordered NY to submit a brief/position paper to explain why the 2nd Circuit's stay of the temporary injunction should stand. Don't forget, this is Sotomayor's region.

 

 

January 5 is the preliminary hearing date for NJ ‘s law. The judge gave them (NJ) until Dec 30 to submit their brief.

 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


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

Yet, the defendants entire original argument is no longer allowed. 

You honestly think the 9th circuit (or any circuit) can't come up with the same ruling that they have been dropping since Heller?

Heller was pretty clear, yet since then we have had insane rulings coming out of multiple circuits, all "following Heller"..

See the MD AWB ruling in Kolbe v Hogan as an example.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, RadioGunner said:

Nichols was a crazy case from the land of fruits and nuts. There, I said it. 

Yet the 9th sat on a ruling for 4 years, and now tossed it back to district court.

I guess they just needed more time to figure out how to rule against him. Or they are just hoping that he dies.

16 hours ago, RadioGunner said:

And yes, NJ decided to fight back against us, but they will lose. Trust me, they will lose and lose pretty hard.

After 20+ years of reading about the latest "sure thing" NJ gun case, I'll believe it when I can actually see a positive ruling.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, b47356 said:

You honestly think the 9th circuit (or any circuit) can't come up with the same ruling that they have been dropping since Heller?

Heller was pretty clear, yet since then we have had insane rulings coming out of multiple circuits, all "following Heller"..

See the MD AWB ruling in Kolbe v Hogan as an example.

 

What was Heller "pretty clear" about?

  • FacePalm 1

Share this post


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

What was Heller "pretty clear" about?

Have you read Macdonald, Heller, or Bruen?  Here is a quote from the 2nd page (syllabus) of Bruen.


"Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny."

Here we are, 14 years later, and SCOTUS just got around to saying "that isn't what we said"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, b47356 said:

Have you read Macdonald, Heller, or Bruen?  Here is a quote from the 2nd page (syllabus) of Bruen.


"Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny."

Here we are, 14 years later, and SCOTUS just got around to saying "that isn't what we said"

 

Yes, but the court did shift that fundamental test. Now, it’s just enforcement of their ruling rather than true interpretation. It won’t be that long especially if the argument now is over a stay put in place until the actual case is played out the court system . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, b47356 said:

Have you read Macdonald, Heller, or Bruen?  Here is a quote from the 2nd page (syllabus) of Bruen.


"Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny."

Here we are, 14 years later, and SCOTUS just got around to saying "that isn't what we said"

 

So Heller wasn't "pretty clear"? 

  • FacePalm 1

Share this post


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

So Heller wasn't "pretty clear"? 

Feel free to believe what you wish. The fact that "Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history." was ignored for 14 years.

Yet Bruen is going to result in all of our wishes coming true?

3 hours ago, Walkinguf61 said:

Now, it’s just enforcement of their ruling rather than true interpretation.

I find it amazing that people who nominally pay attention to firearm cases seem to believe that leftist circuit court judges will be unable to come up with an "interpretation" of Bruen that fits whatever they want it to.  All the court has to do in the "historic analysis" is believe a historian like Saul Cornell as opposed to a pro-2a one. After all, there are plenty of anti-gun historians out there.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, b47356 said:

Feel free to believe what you wish. The fact that "Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history." was ignored for 14 years.

Yet Bruen is going to result in all of our wishes coming true?

I find it amazing that people who nominally pay attention to firearm cases seem to believe that leftist circuit court judges will be unable to come up with an "interpretation" of Bruen that fits whatever they want it to.  All the court has to do in the "historic analysis" is believe a historian like Saul Cornell as opposed to a pro-2a one. After all, there are plenty of anti-gun historians out there.

It’s not about the interpretation of Bruen yet. It’s about the stay on appeal . The district judge made the ruling and the appeals court hasn’t heard it yet. After they hear the case they can come up with something but remember, they know it will be appealed to SCOTUS. They will want influence on how that decision will be shaped instead of being rejected out of hand even if the majority of their anti-gun position is deemed null and void . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, b47356 said:

Feel free to believe what you wish. The fact that "Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history." was ignored for 14 years.

Yet Bruen is going to result in all of our wishes coming true?

I find it amazing that people who nominally pay attention to firearm cases seem to believe that leftist circuit court judges will be unable to come up with an "interpretation" of Bruen that fits whatever they want it to.  All the court has to do in the "historic analysis" is believe a historian like Saul Cornell as opposed to a pro-2a one. After all, there are plenty of anti-gun historians out there.

Sure, they can get a historian to fit something but it’s going to SCOTUS anyway. We just need some small victories like the private property assumption, social media search, gun insurance and take off some things off the sensitive places list. They will set the “bottom “

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, b47356 said:

Feel free to believe what you wish. The fact that "Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history." was ignored for 14 years.

Yet Bruen is going to result in all of our wishes coming true?

Yes, Bruen is different. Thanks to Trump, we now have a solid pro 2A majority. We did not have that before. We had 5-4 which was really 4-4 with a swing vote (Kennedy). Now we have 6-3 which could be 5-4 in some cases. 

5 hours ago, Mike77 said:

soooooooo.......

 

Tomorrow is the 30th.....if the state doesn't provide the courts with their reasoning for the state safe places........what happens?

They will either do it at the last minute or ask for an extension. 

Share this post


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

without the Kavanuagh comments, none of this would have gone this far........omo.

No, that is very shallow thinking. Murphy, who is really just a proxy for Bloomberg is openly defying the Supreme Court. He and the legislature aren't really shy about it either. No matter what any decision said, they would still have made this brazen attempt to defy the decision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, b47356 said:

I find it amazing that people who nominally pay attention to firearm cases seem to believe that leftist circuit court judges will be unable to come up with an "interpretation" of Bruen that fits whatever they want it to.  All the court has to do in the "historic analysis" is believe a historian like Saul Cornell as opposed to a pro-2a one. After all, there are plenty of anti-gun historians out there.

Sure, they will. And then it will get appealed to the third circuit. There is a very good chance we will get a pro 2A judge to rule in our favor.

But the state is desperately asking for consolidation, because they want this case in front of Williams, who is a Biden appointee. They may get the TRO denied but that victory will be short lived for them.

WE are seeing the worst case play out in NY right now. NY has appealed to the supreme court. Their justice is Sotomayor. She can say no and they can just move to the next one. One of the 6 will grant the TRO and it's all over. It may take a few months, but it will happen.

Share this post


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

Irreguardless..........it's the truth... Kavanaugh should have not included those thoughtless remarks...omo.

I really don't see a problem with Kavanaugh's comments. I think that in NJ and similar states that permitless carry is a pipe dream. Background checks and reasonable training aren't really a high bar. 

  • Disagree 1

Share this post


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

 Background checks and reasonable training aren't really a high bar. 

Really....well that's your opinion.....show me where these requirements that you say "aren't really a high bar" are stated in the 2A of The Bill of Rights..........all this concocted crap is in violation of our 2A .......guess you feel it's not......suppose you love the insurance requirement also. IMO, your a prime example why we're in the shape we are here....Liberal Gun Owners....if you even own one.....omo.

  • Agree 3
  • Thanks 1

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...