9th circuit rules "good cause" for handgun permits impermissibly burdens the 2nd amendment

[ryan_j 0]

I actually think SCOTUS got that one right.  That doesn't mean that I agree that the law is a good idea.  Their job isn't to make sure whether the law is a good idea, their job is to make sure it's legal.

 

The ACA trial was a question as to whether the government had the power to force someone to buy something with no prerequisite.  If you own a car, the government can force you to buy car insurance.  If you live in an area prone to floods, you have to get flood insurance.  But the prerequisite to the ACA was being born.  You can't choose not to be born.

 

Basically SCOTUS said that no, the government couldn't force you to buy health insurance, but the government does have the power to tax.  And what is the penalty but a tax?

 

This is similar to what I tell people about Obamacare and the Supreme Court. The court never really said the penalty was a tax. They said that it could survive as a tax. So I guess they went ahead and changed it to a tax to comply with the court ruling. That's how they should have done it to fully comply with the court ruling. But I suspect that it was a tax from the start anyway, and like the other Obama lies, he tells you what you want to hear for you to feel good.

[ryan_j 0]

They even smack the Drake decision around a bit. It is a very solid read, and I wonder if the Kali democrats just got a heart attack.

 

Kamala Harris is probably crying in her soup tonight.

[ryan_j 0]

I would be happier then a pig in you know what if we get CCW here. I think its totally nuts that i can drive a little over an hour from where i live pull over take my pistol out of the trunk and put in my holster and no one says anything. 

 

Hell, I live in sussex county, PA is a trip to the grocery store for me.

[ryan_j 0]

Remember guys, this was remanded to the lower court. That doesn't mean people get to carry in Kali just yet. It also doesn't mean they won't appeal for en-banc and the 9th en-banc will likely return a different verdict.

 

It is good news, but don't pop the champagne just yet, not even that California champagne.

 

It was reversed and remanded. Make no mistake, "good cause" is dead, at least until it gets re-heard en banc, if it does get re-heard en banc. With the makeup of CA9 it is possible, but the timing of this is perfect for Drake and Pantano.

 

In fact, the San Diego Sheriff has already put up a notice on its webpage saying they are reviewing the decision. They can't just sit around and let status quo reign, because status quo is unconstitutional.

[ryan_j 0]

Before people start buying Holsters, and asking when to apply, Everyone needs to start their NJ CCW purchase fund account.

This is NJ A CCW will probably cost $500.00 plus what ever stipulations would be added to apply for A permit. Still always A lot of ways to put major kinks in things.

Just Sayin!

 

That's what kwong v Bloomberg is about.

[ryan_j 0]

If the NJ legislature is paying attention and had half a brain they'd revise the NJ statute now to eliminate justifiable need to avoid the risk of a S Ct ruling.  Of course they will never do that. 

 

I would actually prefer if they didn't do that. If they enact a law, they moot the case and we start all over again, and they can change it back when the coast is clear. But if we get a court decision, it stands, and it stays forever, unless the US Supreme Court rules otherwise in a future case or we repeal the 2nd Amendment.

 

Besides, Sweeney tweeted today that he would never support CCW.

[falcone 89]

I wouldn't get too excited with this ruling just yet. The liberals got to John Roberts and flipped him in favor of 0bamacare. They can and will try to do it again if a carry case goes before the high court. With that said, this ruling does improve the chance a carry case goes to the SC. We have nothing to lose if the SC hears Drake or any other case. Worst we can expect is we're stuck with No Issue and some other states may lose CCW which I couldn't care less about.

[gleninjersey 2,139]

WOW....tomorrow looks a little brighter. 

[Vini 0]

Great news. 

Gives some hope. 

 

Now I feel stupid for buying P226 instead of P229 (same logic: who needs small gun in PRNJ?) 

Time to start saving for P239 I guess. 

[n4p226r 105]

Great news.

Gives some hope.

 

Now I feel stupid for buying P226 instead of P229 (same logic: who needs small gun in PRNJ?)

Time to start saving for P239 I guess.

That's my kinda thinking. I have a 226 and 229 but would love a 239

[matty 810]

Well, this sort of thin is why I think pushing the CCW buttons for NJ is a good idea. It gives us a victory and is a good counteroffensive with lots of momentum around the country in the right direction and years of evidence that there is no bloodbath in the streets. Would rather teh AWB go away or FPID/P2P be fixed or eliminated, but must start somewhere

[jrfly3006 42]

I clipped this piece but well said....it is mindset and NJ just doesn't have it.....that is why I feel the only choice is to leave the state, at some time.

or fight with everything we have..the whole "I'm leaving" crowd isnt lending anything to change and is just making these politician's jobs easier..thats what they want ultimately..replace citizens that think with those that wont..there hasnt been a bigger window for change then now..

[mipafox 438]

I wouldn't get too excited with this ruling just yet. The liberals got to John Roberts and flipped him in favor of 0bamacare. They can and will try to do it again if a carry case goes before the high court. With that said, this ruling does improve the chance a carry case goes to the SC. We have nothing to lose if the SC hears Drake or any other case. Worst we can expect is we're stuck with No Issue and some other states may lose CCW which I couldn't care less about.

I hope US Supreme Court shoots down justifiable need nationwide except for YOU, who must demonstrate it everywhere, everytime.

 

That's a pretty shitty attitude.

[n4p226r 105]

or fight with everything we have..the whole "I'm leaving" crowd isnt lending anything to change and is just making these politician's jobs easier..thats what they want ultimately..replace citizens that think with those that wont..there hasnt been a bigger window for change then now..

 

the problem is, NJ could turn around tomorrow and become pro-gun and i'd still leave.  the fact that it won't ever happen that way just solidifies the deal .  those of us in the "I'm leaving" crowd aren't only doing it to unpin the stocks on our AR-15.  but good gun laws are on my list of needs when finding a new place

[mipafox 438]

I believe NJ will turn around to some extent.

 

Pulling numbers out of my butt, right now we probably have 30% of NJ that believes guns are evil. The other 70%, including the 14% of gun owners, mostly believe that guns are rare, ownership is uncommon, people carry guns in Texas, you need permits, and you don't talk about it. Now, the media and the libs may succeed in bringing the number of people in Jersey to 40% that believe guns are evil. But the problem they are facing is that guns are becoming way more mainstream and there is much more open communication and information about them. They won't be able to keep the remaining 60% in the dark thinking that guns are uncommon, ownership is rare, and people only carry in Texas. Hell, there are news stories coming out of Philly and NY TV stations every day about people that have a "concealed weapons permit." We didn't see those stories on the TV when I was a kid. It will eventually become pretty obvious to everyone in NJ that everybody in all states (except perhaps NJ/MD) can carry and gun ownership is common, it's common among women, women concealed carry guns, etc.

 

I've always said it's not the hatred of guns that kills it for us in Jersey. You can find that in many states. It's the ignorance among the rest of the population that kills it for us in Jersey. They think everybody else is like us. Except Texas. They think something bad would happen if people owned or carried guns in Jersey, even though there are 47 out of 50 examples of nothing bad happening and guns being relatively normal (well maybe not 47).

[falcone 89]

I hope US Supreme Court shoots down justifiable need nationwide except for YOU, who must demonstrate it everywhere, everytime.

That's a pretty shitty attitude.

Thank you very much

[leahcim 679]

Article from today's WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304703804579381363263471806?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_news

 

James Chapin, deputy county counsel for San Diego, defended the policy, saying that "when you're in a county near the border, with gangs and violence, your gun policies tend to be more restrictive." He said that San Diego County Sheriff William Gore "would follow what the legislature and courts ordered."

 

Typical gun-control BS--Like the gang-bangers and illegal immigrants are going to curtail their carrying due to legal restrictions?

[bravozulu14 0]

It would be nice but you have to remember that we are in the minority - only about 14% of NJ Jersey residents own guns.  Why would a legislator stick his neck out for 14% of the people and risk being branded as "in the pocket" of the NRA?

 

the same thing was said for freeing slaves... it's all about how you frame the conversation.

[Wojo 98]

What is going to be funny is when and if you are allowed to get a CCW, is when the Liberals are going to opine that you shouldn't have to produce and ID or prove US citizenship to get one.

[bhunted 887]

'Good Cause' is not good enough. There should be no need for 'cause'....

If NJ decides to go this way, you'll still need to prove you need one. Wording is everything.

 

 

Sent from my iPad 2 using T2 Pro

[chris327 30]

'Good Cause' is not good enough. There should be no need for 'cause'....

If NJ decides to go this way, you'll still need to prove you need one. Wording is everything.

 

 

Sent from my iPad 2 using T2 Pro

john maybe i just read it fast but i thought they ruled against CA's good cause rule.

[bhunted 887]

john maybe i just read it fast but i thought they ruled against CA's good cause rule.

Think you are right. The topic mislead me. Proves I shouldn't type to much when I have a massive headache. Sorry folks!

 

 

Sent from my iPad 2 using T2 Pro

[chris327 30]

Think you are right. The topic mislead me. Proves I shouldn't type to much when I have a massive headache. Sorry folks!

 

 

Sent from my iPad 2 using T2 Pro

dont worry we all have those moments

[Norseman 2]

Let's start campaigning against Sweeney now. Let's start compiling a list of reasons a person might not vote for him - not just about guns. And as his campaign cranks up we will already start debunking it before it gets off the ground. And there's a million gun owners in NJ that don't participate on this gun forum so we need to get the information to them however we can ...at gun clubs ...hunting clubs ...any social event where like-minded individuals congregate. We've got plenty of time to start this now. When he sees that his anti-gun campaign lost him an election that should've been his by a landslide, he and the other politicians will start to come around.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Michael2013 56]

It would be nice but you have to remember that we are in the minority - only about 14% of NJ Jersey residents own guns.  Why would a legislator stick his neck out for 14% of the people and risk being branded as "in the pocket" of the NRA?

I think the critical number is not the 14% of gun owners, but the number of voters who support the Bill of Rights in its entirety.  I don't know the number but I hope it is significant enough for legislators to stick his neck out.

[Handyman 5,682]

Let's start campaigning against Sweeney now. Let's start compiling a list of reasons a person might not vote for him - not just about guns...

 

 

We should all chip in and hire a private investigator to follow him around for a month. I bet he has more skeletons in his closets than the Smithsonian Institution.

[mipafox 438]

We should all chip in and hire a private investigator to follow him around for a month. I bet he has more skeletons in his closets than the Smithsonian Institution.

Problem is too many of them are still breathing and will do whatever he says.

[Handyman 5,682]

Problem is too many of them are still breathing and will do whatever he says.

 

The other issue is that he could drive drunk through a schoolyard with his pants around his ankles waving a gun around and the zombies in his district would still vote for him.

[mipafox 438]

The other issue is that he could drive drunk through a schoolyard with his pants around his ankles waving a gun around and the zombies in his district would still vote for him.

I always use a stolen car for that kind of fun.

[lake393 0]

Could someone who waded through the 120+ pages please post a brief summary?

I read this article today, which has a great summary: Ninth Circuit Peruta ruling reveals faults with other circuit opinions

 

It analyses yesterday's 9th Circuit CoA victory in Peruta v. San Diego, in which Judge O’Scannlain's ruling and majority opinion contradicted and flat-out shamed three previous CoA rulings (Drake in CoA 2, Wollard in CoA 3, & Kachalsky in CoA 4), and really thew down the gauntlet for the SCOTUS to take-up Drake v. Jerejian.

 

Good news methinks.