SAF v NJ (MULLER et al v. MAENZA et al)

[galapoola 102]

It's her. She neeyeds to be on this case and they neeyed to grant cert. 

wow, I truly hope they keep her on this for orals in the Fall, it would be epic. Maybe she can get a reality show out of it, "Clueless Civil Servants of Trenton" or "Valley Girls of the Attorney General's Office"

[ryan_j 0]

Let's hope they grant cert. The outcome is important but I definitely would want tickets to that horror show!

[maintenanceguy 510]

I hope it gets heard too but I'm nervous at the same time.  The court is pretty evenly divided and there is a reason they haven't wanted to rule on right to carry for 20 years.   This could bring right to carry to NJ or could shut it down for the rest of the country.

 

The white house will not want the right to carry to be recognized by SCOTUS and they apparently have a lot of influence over at least one justice.

[Vlad G 345]

I don't see them applying pressure on this. Whenever the left touched guns they've gotten burned badly and there are increasing calls from the left to stop touching it, including for the fact that gun ownership is rising on the left as well everywhere else.

 

With various elections tight everywhere, bringing up gun control again would be a bad plan all around.

[maintenanceguy 510]

I don't think the white house will apply pressure that we'll ever see.  I think that whatever they were able to use to turn Roberts on obamacare might turn him again on gun control.

[Vlad G 345]

My point is that it would be counterproductive. It will make the next couple of elections all about guns because people will want laws passed that change the court decision, possibly constitutionally.

[njpilot 671]

My point is that it would be counterproductive. It will make the next couple of elections all about guns because people will want laws passed that change the court decision, possibly constitutionally.

Let's hope this is the case anyway.

[intercooler 41]

the Free states will not accept a constitutional change on the second amendment

[njpilot 671]

the Free states will not accept a constitutional change on the second amendment

I took Vlad's comment to mean a positive change.

[Vlad G 345]

Yep, thats how I meant it. 

[tmpnj 0]

I hope they hear it.  I would think if anybody could get this done it would be Gura.  The court is going to have to address one of these cases sooner or later.  My fear is that if one of them doesn't get heard and Obama gets the opportunity in the next 3 years to put a SC justice in, we are certainly going to lose so lets do it now while we at least have a chance. 

[galapoola 102]

We still have the 5 who ruled favorably in 2008 & 2010. Kennedy is the so called "swing vote" on many cases that split left/right. He had said he was considering retirement but would not do so during an Obama presidency or if he got re-elected. Everyone knows what happens when any of the 5 gets replaced, a 5-4 liberal majority and an end to conservative wins in SCOTUS. Even if Ginsberg retires or leaves due to her poor health in the next three years, it is not good. That means a fresh liberal who will hold the seat for a long time.

[ryan_j 0]

Even if Ginsberg retires or leaves due to her poor health in the next three years, it is not good. That means a fresh liberal who will hold the seat for a long time.

 

I have a feeling she will retire before the end of the Obama Presidency. People are saying shrillery is inevitable but I don't think so. 

[revenger 473]

If the SCOTUS decides to hear one of the several "bear" arms cases this month and if they decide what we already know  that bear arms means just what it says wouldn't that effectively make "justifiable need" unconstitutional.  

[Vlad G 345]

Yes but never guess what the scotus will do.

[ryan_j 0]

Yes but never guess what the scotus will do.

 

Even if they refuse to strike down justifiable need, all we end up with is status quo. I doubt, Florida, Utah, Texas, Georgia and the other free states will ban CCW as a result of the court. 

[Vlad G 345]

They can also find the that there is not right to carry outside the home, which means eventually every state will fall, slowly but surely. 

[TR20 47]

Yes but never guess what the scotus will do.

Vlad,

 

I agree, there have been some astonishing decisions from SCOTUS over the past 30 or so years.  We saw one such example when the Obamacare decision came down.  Neither side predicted the court would center their focus on the interstate commerce act, yet they did. 

 

I hope that at least one of the 2A related cases pending provides enough latitude for the court to better define the term "bear arms" in a truly constitutional context.  Until we get a clear definition of what these two words mean at the federal level, we have no hope of looking for relief outside of the constitutional context down to the state level. 

 

NJ liberal lawmakers have mastered the art of using the "grey area" between defined terms and the connotation they convey.  Any definition (weak or strong) of "bear arms" provided by SCOTUS will become the metric used going forward as each state addresses gun laws.  They will not have the ability to fabricate, misrepresent or change the definition provided by the court and that in itself will be a good thing.   

 

Let's hope the collective wisdom of the court will guide their discussion to the absolute clear interpretation of "bear arms" without creating exceptions that do not yet exist in the constitution.   

[n4p226r 105]

They can also find the that there is not right to carry outside the home, which means eventually every state will fall, slowly but surely. 

do you really see that happening?  I'm not so sure i see some states giving up gun rights even if federally right to carry is shot down as a right.  i mean some states are pushing to nullify federal gun laws

[ryan_j 0]

They can also find the that there is not right to carry outside the home, which means eventually every state will fall, slowly but surely. 

 

If we reach that point, then the country is completely f-ed. I mean much worse than now. 

 

I doubt we will see a state like Utah for example outlawing CCW. 

[Fawkesguy 57]

If we reach that point, then the country is completely f-ed. I mean much worse than now. 

 

I doubt we will see a state like Utah for example outlawing CCW. 

 

I don't see states like Utah doing that either.  What I can imagine is Bloomberg and Soros funded organizations filing lawsuits against states, claiming CCW laws are unconstitutional.  If SCOTUS rules that "bear" does not mean carry outside of the home, those lawsuits will not only carry some serious weight, but it's likely any decisions against us would never get appealed all the way to SCOTUS.  Our enemies have both limitless financial resources and the media on their side.  If we get a bad SCOTUS ruling, it's all over.  Not right away, but over time.

[Vlad G 345]

I think if that happens we might see a constitutional convention. And don't think that would be all good either. 

[Fawkesguy 57]

I think if that happens we might see a constitutional convention. And don't think that would be all good either. 

 

That would be a nightmare almost beyond imagining.

[ryan_j 0]

I think if that happens we might see a constitutional convention. And don't think that would be all good either. 

 

Some are pushing for that already. Read Mark Levin's "the liberty amendments." I think a CC would be a good thing to have. At least it lets us hash it out instead of preparing. And then we can decide what to do afterwards. 

[ryan_j 0]

Amicus brief from CATO. I can't believe they are actually serious. Did they seriously use Comic Sans?

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/206565379/Drake-Brief

[TR20 47]

Amicus brief from CATO. I can't believe they are actually serious. Did they seriously use Comic Sans?

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/206565379/Drake-Brief

Ryan,

 

I am sorry but I don't understand what you mean by "Comic Sans".  Can you explain?

[ryan_j 0]

Ryan,

 

I am sorry but I don't understand what you mean by "Comic Sans".  Can you explain?

 

 

Comic sans is a font.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_Sans_MS

[Fawkesguy 57]

Amicus brief from CATO. I can't believe they are actually serious. Did they seriously use Comic Sans?

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/206565379/Drake-Brief

 

I'm only seeing that on a small portion of the 1st page. 

[intercooler 41]

They make a good argument in our favor

[olderguy 0]

Not going to touch that

 

 

 

(Supreme Court in comic sans)