Update on Right to Carry appeals case, Almeida Vs. Sussex Co.

[ryan_j 0]

Last time I looked the judicial and legislative branches are separate. If what you say is true, the Supremes would have heard Drake and upheld NJ's insane laws. That would have established near-total regulation of a constitutional right, and provided every subsequent gun-grabbing jurisdiction with something to point to for the next 240 years. 

 

By not hearing the case they essentially say it's up to us, the people. Which it is. 

 

 

No, by denying certiorari they're saying that the lower court ruling stands, which says that prohibiting the right to bear arms by fiat because it is a "longstanding, presumptively lawful regulation" is A-OK. 

[ryan_j 0]

47 other states allow CCW.  48 allow their citizens to pump their own gas.  The madnesss has to stop.

 

It does, but we have to vote the right people in. The fact that the legislature remained almost completely unchanged after the last election is extremely troubling. 

[DeerSlayer 241]

I'm actually kind of happy not pumping my own gas. That is one law I really don't mind too much. Rain, snow, bitter cold I stay in the truck warm and dry. I don't see any reason to change that. What other state has the no pump law? Washington State?

[raidenii 0]

I'm actually kind of happy not pumping my own gas. That is one law I really don't mind too much. Rain, snow, bitter cold I stay in the truck warm and dry. I don't see any reason to change that. What other state has the no pump law? Washington State?

 

Oregon I believe.

[Newtonian 453]

No, by denying certiorari they're saying that the lower court ruling stands, which says that prohibiting the right to bear arms by fiat because it is a "longstanding, presumptively lawful regulation" is A-OK. 

Not sure how your comment and mine differ.

 

And technically, constitutionally, this is how it's supposed to work. For the last 100 years public concealed carry was not considered to derive directly from the 2nd amendment. Like it or not, that's how courts ruled. 

 

Three or four states have constitutional carry, another 40 are shall-issue; four or so additional states are restrictive, selective, but still issue (NY, CA, MA; despite its recent craziness CT is de facto shall-issue), and three states don't allow carry outside your property. Plain reading of the 2nd amendment aside, that's about the distribution you'd expect for a right that has traditionally been highly regulated. For a long time the 2nd Amendment was believed, through some sort of legal fiction, not to apply to the states.

 

Clearly -- at the risk of beating a dead horse -- many, many states have loosened their criteria for allowing citizens to bear arms in everyday life, and the overwhelming majority have achieved this through their legislatures. Again, like it or not, this is how 2nd Amendment rights are dispensed in the U.S.A. 

 

The Supreme Court hearing Drake and ruling favorably would have been highly unusual but a joyous thing nonetheless. But as they've done hundreds of times in the past, they passed on establishing a clear 2nd Amendment precedent. Maybe the "northeast Italian" factor I've mentioned before came into play, or maybe Kennedy found his federalist mojo. Or Maybe Roberts sensed that hearing the case would turn out bad for gun owners and voted with the minority liberals so the court would NOT hear the case. We'll never know.

 

NJ will never get CC as long as the majority of activists believe in a deus ex machina in the form of a favorable court ruling. Keep dreaming. The only way we get it is by voting out those who obstruct its legislative passage.

 

I do not understand why this clear, unassailable fact -- supported by history and experience in dozens of other states -- is lost on so many intelligent people in these forums.

[ryan_j 0]

Oregon repealed it's law.

[ryan_j 0]

Not sure how your comment and mine differ.

 

And technically, constitutionally, this is how it's supposed to work. For the last 100 years public concealed carry was not considered to derive directly from the 2nd amendment. Like it or not, that's how courts ruled.

 

Three or four states have constitutional carry, another 40 are shall-issue; four or so additional states are restrictive, selective, but still issue (NY, CA, MA; despite its recent craziness CT is de facto shall-issue), and three states don't allow carry outside your property. Plain reading of the 2nd amendment aside, that's about the distribution you'd expect for a right that has traditionally been highly regulated. For a long time the 2nd Amendment was believed, through some sort of legal fiction, not to apply to the states.

 

Clearly -- at the risk of beating a dead horse -- many, many states have loosened their criteria for allowing citizens to bear arms in everyday life, and the overwhelming majority have achieved this through their legislatures. Again, like it or not, this is how 2nd Amendment rights are dispensed in the U.S.A.

 

The Supreme Court hearing Drake and ruling favorably would have been highly unusual but a joyous thing nonetheless. But as they've done hundreds of times in the past, they passed on establishing a clear 2nd Amendment precedent. Maybe the "northeast Italian" factor I've mentioned before came into play, or maybe Kennedy found his federalist mojo. Or Maybe Roberts sensed that hearing the case would turn out bad for gun owners and voted with the minority liberals so the court would NOT hear the case. We'll never know.

 

NJ will never get CC as long as the majority of activists believe in a deus ex machina in the form of a favorable court ruling. Keep dreaming. The only way we get it is by voting out those who obstruct its legislative passage.

 

I do not understand why this clear, unassailable fact -- supported by history and experience in dozens of other states -- is lost on so many intelligent people in these forums.

 

I'm merely calling out the fallacy that SCOTUS has to render a bad ruling for us to lose our rights and for there to be anti gun precedent. That is not true. By denying certiorari they've done the same thing. So even if SCOTUS ducks case after case, there is nothing stopping an anti gun state like NJ from denying the right to bear arms under the guise of regulating it. There is also nothing stopping a state from passing right to carry laws either.

 

But by SCOTUS not ruling definitively, may-issue is the law of the land unless a state decides to go shall- issue.

[Newtonian 453]

But by SCOTUS not ruling definitively, may-issue is the law of the land unless a state decides to go shall- issue.

Despite the 2nd Amendment's clear wording there is no letter-by-letter law of the land. The Feds have traditionally allowed the states to regulate this right as vigorously or leniently as they like. I don't know what is so difficult to understand about that.

 

It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. It is up to the legislatures. 

[ryan_j 0]

Despite the 2nd Amendment's clear wording there is no letter-by-letter law of the land. The Feds have traditionally allowed the states to regulate this right as vigorously or leniently as they like. I don't know what is so difficult to understand about that.

 

It is up to the legislatures. 

 

Fundamental rights should NEVER be up to the legislatures. Is your right to free speech up to the legislatures? How about asking the legislature to pass a law to go to church on Sunday? 

 

"A well regulated militia, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." 

 

It may surprise you but in states that allow open carry, this is the only "law" that allows it. 

 

It's time to start treating the 2nd amendment like a right, and not a privilege. Too many in NJ have been conditioned to think it is a privilege. To see our future, look at NYC where they do in fact, call it a privilege.

 

Anyway, it is clear that you don't want to support litigation, that is fine. We will press on, and you can enjoy the benefits when we prevail. 

[ryan_j 0]

Three or four states have constitutional carry, another 40 are shall-issue; four or so additional states are restrictive, selective, but still issue (NY, CA, MA; despite its recent craziness CT is de facto shall-issue), and three states don't allow carry outside your property. Plain reading of the 2nd amendment aside, that's about the distribution you'd expect for a right that has traditionally been highly regulated. For a long time the 2nd Amendment was believed, through some sort of legal fiction, not to apply to the states.

 

CA is going to be shall-issue real soon when Peruta is settled. CT has the right to bear arms in its state constitution.

 

Anyway, if you think that the legislature is going to give us shall-issue before a court precedent, by all means start a movement to lobby them. We had our chance in the last election, and we failed, quite miserably. 

[NJPatriot 0]

Fundamental rights should NEVER be up to the legislatures. Is your right to free speech up to the legislatures? How about asking the legislature to pass a law to go to church on Sunday? 

 

"A well regulated militia, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." 

 

It may surprise you but in states that allow open carry, this is the only "law" that allows it. 

 

It's time to start treating the 2nd amendment like a right, and not a privilege. Too many in NJ have been conditioned to think it is a privilege. To see our future, look at NYC where they do in fact, call it a privilege.

 

Anyway, it is clear that you don't want to support litigation, that is fine. We will press on, and you can enjoy the benefits when we prevail. 

+1

[Newtonian 453]

CA is going to be shall-issue real soon when Peruta is settled. CT has the right to bear arms in its state constitution.

 

Anyway, if you think that the legislature is going to give us shall-issue before a court precedent, by all means start a movement to lobby them. We had our chance in the last election, and we failed, quite miserably. 

Let me try this again: We have the numbers to vote a significant number of vulnerable senate and assembly dinosaurs out of office. I have presented the numbers in excruciating detail, more than once. My posts on this subject are based on fact, on hard numbers, with some very liberal assumptions to accommodate the uncertainty. I even assumed the number of gun owners in this state, estimated at 1 million, was high by 20%. Every time I present those numbers the argument becomes stronger and more statistically rigorous.

 

The reaction from this forum? Next to nothing.

 

One guy wanted to use absentee ballots as the basis for "get out the vote." If you are infirm that's ok, but if you simply can't be bothered to get off your ass and go to the polls then you deserve what you get. As Churchill said, people get the government they deserve.

 

And, as I've written before, if the legislature is faced with some miraculous judicial fiat, they can drag the process out for as long as they like. They can mandate a two-week boot camp-like training course, a $4,000 licensing fee due every six months, etc. They will be just as spiteful as they are now. Every one of those restrictions will be fought in the courts. It will take years if not decades. 

[Newtonian 453]

Fundamental rights should NEVER be up to the legislatures. Is your right to free speech up to the legislatures? How about asking the legislature to pass a law to go to church on Sunday? 

 

"A well regulated militia, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." 

 

It may surprise you but in states that allow open carry, this is the only "law" that allows it. 

 

It's time to start treating the 2nd amendment like a right, and not a privilege. Too many in NJ have been conditioned to think it is a privilege. To see our future, look at NYC where they do in fact, call it a privilege.

 

Anyway, it is clear that you don't want to support litigation, that is fine. We will press on, and you can enjoy the benefits when we prevail. 

You are not living in the real world. Look around you, see how other states have done it. See how everything in the Constitution is regulated to one degree or the other. Isn't 225 years of history and legal practice enough evidence? The Supreme Court has heard exactly seven 2nd Amendment cases in all that time. 

 

Don't lecture on what to support or not support. I donate generously to pro-gun causes, and pay my dues to three organizations, including NJ2AS, basically -- so far -- in return for membership cards. From your post it would appear that you don a robe and powdered wig and actually litigate these cases. Through dues and donations I support litigation as much as you do. Probably more. 

 

My position is simply that the courts are a dead end. They have not worked in NJ, and rarely elsewhere. The degree to which NJ Gun Forum members believe in this approach is inconsistent with reality. 

 

The only way to get reasonable gun laws in this state is to remove legislators that oppose them. 

[ryan_j 0]

Let me try this again: We have the numbers to vote a significant number of vulnerable senate and assembly dinosaurs out of office. I have presented the numbers in excruciating detail, more than once. My posts on this subject are based on fact, on hard numbers, with some very liberal assumptions to accommodate the uncertainty. I even assumed the number of gun owners in this state, estimated at 1 million, was high by 20%. Every time I present those numbers the argument becomes stronger and more statistically rigorous.

 

The reaction from this forum? Next to nothing.

 

One guy wanted to use absentee ballots as the basis for "get out the vote." If you are infirm that's ok, but if you simply can't be bothered to get off your ass and go to the polls then you deserve what you get. As Churchill said, people get the government they deserve.

 

And, as I've written before, if the legislature is faced with some miraculous judicial fiat, they can drag the process out for as long as they like. They can mandate a two-week boot camp-like training course, a $4,000 licensing fee due every six months, etc. They will be just as spiteful as they are now. Every one of those restrictions will be fought in the courts. It will take years if not decades. 

 

 

The NRA lobbyist who was on Gun For Hire Radio last week seems to disagree about the numbers. He seems to think that we do not have the numbers. 

 

Or maybe I'm misreading him. Listen to last week's show. It's very informative. 

[ryan_j 0]

You are not living in the real world. Look around you, see how other states have done it. See how everything in the Constitution is regulated to one degree or the other. Isn't 225 years of history and legal practice enough evidence? The Supreme Court has heard exactly seven 2nd Amendment cases in all that time. 

 

Don't lecture on what to support or not support. I donate generously to pro-gun causes, and pay my dues to three organizations, including NJ2AS, basically -- so far -- in return for membership cards. From your post it would appear that you don a robe and powdered wig and actually litigate these cases. Through dues and donations I support litigation as much as you do. Probably more. 

 

My position is simply that the courts are a dead end. They have not worked in NJ, and rarely elsewhere. The degree to which NJ Gun Forum members believe in this approach is inconsistent with reality. 

 

The only way to get reasonable gun laws in this state is to remove legislators that oppose them. 

 

 

You're telling me that you plan to get back our rights by overcoming the collective vote of the inner cities who blindly vote for candidates who will keep the free stuff flowing, or based on identity politics... or who think all gun owners are like George Zimmerman just looking to kill the next person they come in contact with... and you're telling me I'm not living in the real world? 

 

The courts are absolutely not a dead end. In fact we have recently been winning in the courts - McGovern and Perez are two recent decisions that stick out.

 

If the courts were a sure shot for the antis, they would have heard Pantano and ruled against it. But instead Stu Rabner took the coward's way out because he knows that NJ's law would not stand in a post Heller world. 

[jackandjill 683]

Strong union mentality, no 2A state constitution makes it virtually impossible to win in this state with a single strategy. We need BOTH political action and legal remedies to bring meaningful 2A rights to this state. It may never happen, but giving up only creates opportunities for this disease to spread.

[Ramup422 18]

Hello all, thank you so much for the support and please don't forget to head on over to the SAF site and express your support and gratitude that the national organizations have not given up on us in NJ.

 

I've been reading the comments on this thread and thank you for keeping it on topic.

 

There have been a few back and forth going on and I understand both sides. But I have to lean towards the views of Ryan. We will and we must press forward. Why? Because we can't let them win forever.

 

I was told a few years back by a now disgraced assemblyman, that had written a few gun control bills, that we in NJ will never win. Why? Because he (and they in Trenton) are not afraid of us, we are not serious about our cause and disorganized and they know this, therfore they don't take us serious and don't care.

 

Should we allow this to continue? Should we remain laying down while they pee on us and kick us in the teeth?

 

Or should we shut down our business, change jobs or move out of NJ Because they told us to?

 

Or should we attack them back with MULTIPLE fronts?

 

Litigation, voting, training and education, outreach and yes, let's try an have a discussion with the leadership in Trenton and talk, maybe meet in the middle. We won't get everything we demand or wish for, but by not trying and just letting them walk all over us, will get us no place.

 

Stop being complacent in NJ, stop loosing hope, get out and vote and drag your friends out to do the same.

 

Join us in this movement or get out of our way and don't be a wheel chock. ..that's my attitude. I'm fighting for us all in NJ, please join us.

 

Thank you, Albert

[Newtonian 453]

The NRA lobbyist who was on Gun For Hire Radio last week seems to disagree about the numbers. He seems to think that we do not have the numbers. 

 

Or maybe I'm misreading him. Listen to last week's show. It's very informative. 

GFH Radio does not work in Google Chrome, at least not on my Win8 computer. 

 

Everybody, please find fault with this analysis and post your own conclusions:

 

1. "1 million gun owners". Assume that's off by 20%, assume 10% are invalids. = 700,000 gun owners

2. Assume 15% have like-minded significant others = 800,000 potential votes

2. 16% participation rate in last election. Let's assume it's already a whopping 30% among gun owners = 540,000 non-voting gun owners + partners

3. Assume half of them already live in Republican districts so their votes don't matter = 270,000 non-voting gun owners + spouses

4. I forget the exact numbers and don't feel like looking them up again. But assume 12 vulnerable districts where the margin of victory was 8,000 votes or less. This is a fantasy because many districts were lost by very low thousands, and one as I recall by a few hundred. But let's just assume. = 100,000 total votes decided those 12 races. Let's add a fudge factor of 50%, = 150,000 total votes decided those races

 

Any math geniuses here? Please perform this operation: 270,000 - 150,000. What do you get? You get fukcing landslides in all those races. 

 

And I'm making a LOT of adverse assumptions here. The numbers in the last calculation are probably more like 400,000 - 150,000.

 

 

The only weakness of this analysis is I'm assuming 100% voter participation. But even 50% (200,000 - 150,000) would have won at least a few districts and perhaps frightened a few of those individuals.

[ryan_j 0]

Didn't "gun owners" elect Chris Christie in 2009? What good has that gotten us? Besides helping us play defense that is. 

[Newtonian 453]

Strong union mentality, no 2A state constitution makes it virtually impossible to win in this state with a single strategy. We need BOTH political action and legal remedies to bring meaningful 2A rights to this state. It may never happen, but giving up only creates opportunities for this disease to spread.

We've already shot our wad with legal remedies. 225 yrs/7 cases heard = 32 years on average between cases. I don't have 32 years, or if I do this will be the furthest thing from my mind, if I indeed still have a mind at age 92.

[Newtonian 453]

Didn't "gun owners" elect Chris Christie in 2009? What good has that gotten us? Besides helping us play defense that is. 

CC ran against a carpetbagging wall street thief. 

[djg0770 481]

The only weakness in the voting analysis is simply this. People do not get out and vote. When 3% of the registered voters actually vote, what does that tell you exactly????

[boo 6]

Does anyone know how many NRA members are in NJ? I'm curious what the turnout rate is for members. While I'd expect it to be higher than average, I bet there's plenty of room for improvement. I've been casually doing searches on improving voter turnout, and I noticed some studies show an increase by just calling people and asking if they're going to vote. Maybe this is something that can be organized through NJ2AS or other organizations for future elections.

[ryan_j 0]

NRA membership numbers and breakdown are top secret, supposedly. Why would they reveal them to give the antis any hope?

[jackandjill 683]

GFH Radio does not work in Google Chrome, at least not on my Win8 computer. 

 

Everybody, please find fault with this analysis and post your own conclusions:

 

1. "1 million gun owners". Assume that's off by 20%, assume 10% are invalids. = 700,000 gun owners

2. Assume 15% have like-minded significant others = 800,000 potential votes

2. 16% participation rate in last election. Let's assume it's already a whopping 30% among gun owners = 540,000 non-voting gun owners + partners

3. Assume half of them already live in Republican districts so their votes don't matter = 270,000 non-voting gun owners + spouses

4. I forget the exact numbers and don't feel like looking them up again. But assume 12 vulnerable districts where the margin of victory was 8,000 votes or less. This is a fantasy because many districts were lost by very low thousands, and one as I recall by a few hundred. But let's just assume. = 100,000 total votes decided those 12 races. Let's add a fudge factor of 50%, = 150,000 total votes decided those races

 

Any math geniuses here? Please perform this operation: 270,000 - 150,000. What do you get? You get fukcing landslides in all those races. 

 

And I'm making a LOT of adverse assumptions here. The numbers in the last calculation are probably more like 400,000 - 150,000.

 

 

The only weakness of this analysis is I'm assuming 100% voter participation. But even 50% (200,000 - 150,000) would have won at least a few districts and perhaps frightened a few of those individuals.

All those numbers are dandy, but the reality is far from it.  Good percentage of that final number is simply NOT 2A proponents. They are firearm owners for the convenience of hunting, hate concealed carry, hate "assault weapons",  like to "save children from the carnage". 

 

Last I checked, the OP donation page gathered total of about $1400.  I will challenge everyone again,  forget 150,000, get 10000 people to donate $10 each to the cause and I will match that contribution.   That will show how deeply NJ gun owners care about their rights. Enough to donate $10 to OP cause ?

[Newtonian 453]

All those numbers are dandy, but the reality is far from it.  Good percentage of that final number is simply NOT 2A proponents. They are firearm owners for the convenience of hunting, hate concealed carry, hate "assault weapons",  like to "save children from the carnage". 

 

Last I checked, the OP donation page gathered total of about $1400.  I will challenge everyone again,  forget 150,000, get 10000 people to donate $10 each to the cause and I will match that contribution.   That will show how deeply NJ gun owners care about their rights. Enough to donate $10 to OP cause ?

I just donated $75. Thanks for the reminder. I believe that was my second contribution, but I don't remember. The OP was so long ago.

 

I don't know how you know that a "good percentage" are not 2A proponents. Don't you think my assumptions -- reducing the number of owners by 200,000, assuming a 30% (vs.16%) voter participation rate, assuming half live in Republican districts, assuming that only 30% of their spouses are like-minded -- all those fudge factors might just take care of all those gun-hating gun owners?

 

If I conceded that some gun owners/hunters may not favor concealed carry, will you concede that an equal number would vote republican anyway? My 88 year old father HATES guns. "Only cops and soldiers..." has been his philosophy his whole life. (Thus the basis of my "northeast Italian" comment regarding Scalia and Alito).

 

The only time Pappy pulled the lever for a democrat was in the presidential election of 1964.

[chris327 30]

GFH Radio does not work in Google Chrome, at least not on my Win8 computer. 

 

Everybody, please find fault with this analysis and post your own conclusions:

 

1. "1 million gun owners". Assume that's off by 20%, assume 10% are invalids. = 700,000 gun owners

2. Assume 15% have like-minded significant others = 800,000 potential votes

2. 16% participation rate in last election. Let's assume it's already a whopping 30% among gun owners = 540,000 non-voting gun owners + partners

3. Assume half of them already live in Republican districts so their votes don't matter = 270,000 non-voting gun owners + spouses

4. I forget the exact numbers and don't feel like looking them up again. But assume 12 vulnerable districts where the margin of victory was 8,000 votes or less. This is a fantasy because many districts were lost by very low thousands, and one as I recall by a few hundred. But let's just assume. = 100,000 total votes decided those 12 races. Let's add a fudge factor of 50%, = 150,000 total votes decided those races

 

Any math geniuses here? Please perform this operation: 270,000 - 150,000. What do you get? You get fukcing landslides in all those races. 

 

And I'm making a LOT of adverse assumptions here. The numbers in the last calculation are probably more like 400,000 - 150,000.

 

 

The only weakness of this analysis is I'm assuming 100% voter participation. But even 50% (200,000 - 150,000) would have won at least a few districts and perhaps frightened a few of those individuals.

 what about the gun owners who

1. dont care

2 have 1 gun and aren't into it that much.

3 are democrats and vote democrat always

 

Lets face it not everyone that owns guns in nj is on this forum, not everyone thinks about whats my next gun going to be. Many of nj gun owners got fids and all bought 1 gun to keep in the closet in case and never shoot it, dont go to the range, and dont care enough to vote. While i do agree with the we need to do better and win the elections for change. We cant give up on the legislative fight.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

NJ will never get CC as long as the majority of activists believe in a deus ex machina in the form of a favorable court ruling. Keep dreaming. The only way we get it is by voting out those who obstruct its legislative passage.

 

 

I totally agree.  Problem is, I just can't picture that ever happening.

[Newtonian 453]

 what about the gun owners who

1. dont care

2 have 1 gun and aren't into it that much.

3 are democrats and vote democrat always

 

Lets face it not everyone that owns guns in nj is on this forum, not everyone thinks about whats my next gun going to be. Many of nj gun owners got fids and all bought 1 gun to keep in the closet in case and never shoot it, dont go to the range, and dont care enough to vote. While i do agree with the we need to do better and win the elections for change. We cant give up on the legislative fight.

I provided for uncertainty at every step, to cover just about every contingency. I did not say 100% of the 1 million owners and 100% of their spouses. I know fully half the votes don't matter. By the end I was down to 250,000 total unused votes. I essentially threw 1 million putative votes into the garbage and my scenario still turned out great. 

 

What about non-gun owners who vote republican? Like my father has for the last 67 years. 

 

What I gather from your responses is that enough angry people never make a difference at the polls. That elections are bullshit, and that we will prevail if we only keep spending millions of dollars lecturing liberal judges about constitutional law, god-given rights, etc. Yesseree, that has worked great up to now.

 

May I introduce you to (soon to be former) Rep. Eric Cantor? He recently lost a primary challenge from a more conservative challenger, despite being way down in the polls and outspending his opponent 10:1. Enough angry people went to the polls and Cantor got trounced.

[ryan_j 0]

Not sure how your comment and mine differ.

 

And technically, constitutionally, this is how it's supposed to work. For the last 100 years public concealed carry was not considered to derive directly from the 2nd amendment. Like it or not, that's how courts ruled.

 

Three or four states have constitutional carry, another 40 are shall-issue; four or so additional states are restrictive, selective, but still issue (NY, CA, MA; despite its recent craziness CT is de facto shall-issue), and three states don't allow carry outside your property. Plain reading of the 2nd amendment aside, that's about the distribution you'd expect for a right that has traditionally been highly regulated. For a long time the 2nd Amendment was believed, through some sort of legal fiction, not to apply to the states.

 

Clearly -- at the risk of beating a dead horse -- many, many states have loosened their criteria for allowing citizens to bear arms in everyday life, and the overwhelming majority have achieved this through their legislatures. Again, like it or not, this is how 2nd Amendment rights are dispensed in the U.S.A.

 

The Supreme Court hearing Drake and ruling favorably would have been highly unusual but a joyous thing nonetheless. But as they've done hundreds of times in the past, they passed on establishing a clear 2nd Amendment precedent. Maybe the "northeast Italian" factor I've mentioned before came into play, or maybe Kennedy found his federalist mojo. Or Maybe Roberts sensed that hearing the case would turn out bad for gun owners and voted with the minority liberals so the court would NOT hear the case. We'll never know.

 

NJ will never get CC as long as the majority of activists believe in a deus ex machina in the form of a favorable court ruling. Keep dreaming. The only way we get it is by voting out those who obstruct its legislative passage.

 

I do not understand why this clear, unassailable fact -- supported by history and experience in dozens of other states -- is lost on so many intelligent people in these forums.

 

I'm merely calling out the fallacy that SCOTUS has to render a bad ruling for us to lose our rights and for there to be anti gun precedent. That is not true. By denying certiorari they've done the same thing. So even if SCOTUS ducks case after case, there is nothing stopping an anti gun state like NJ from denying the right to bear arms under the guise of regulating it. There is also nothing stopping a state from passing right to carry laws either.

 

But by SCOTUS not ruling definitively, may-issue is the law of the land unless a state decides to go shall- issue.