Jump to content
springfieldxds

stun guns to become legal in NJ?

Recommended Posts

Well NJ has a record of ignoring the law. Heller and McDonald come to mind. Right to own firearms is a personal right and states must follow. Yet somehow in NJ, all firearms are illegal except .....

 

Funny how NJ can outlaw Constitional protected rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure they are legal per se (yet). Just remanded back to Mass to come up with another attempt at it. For example they could say they are only legal in ones home but not in public. It is a good step though as this was a per curiam opinion.

 

The response by Alito and Thomas was excellent:

 

"If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You all missed the BIGGEST odd thing there with an 8-0, the third reason that got thrown out, that it is not in use by the military .. 

 

Well, that was the entire reason behind the 1934 Miller decision that backed the NFA laws. I wonder that if without Scalia there to explain logic and weapons to them, they have mistakenly overthrown the NFA :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You all missed the BIGGEST odd thing there with an 8-0, the third reason that got thrown out, that it is not in use by the military .. 

 

Well, that was the entire reason behind the 1934 Miller decision that backed the NFA laws. I wonder that if without Scalia there to explain logic and weapons to them, they have mistakenly overthrown the NFA :)

this and remember she was convicted of carrying a stun gun concealed outside of her home, the supreme court just said not in so many words that the 2nd amendment protects outside carry 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the states contention-  "First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.”   LOL just like the internet wasnt around for the 1A and women and blacks couldnt vote back then either...nice how the state trys to pick and choose our rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone should apply for a NJ carry permit and in the "letter of need" cite this court's 8-0 decision and state you want to carry for all legal purposes including self defense. Quote Samuel Alito, "If the fundamental right of self defense does not protect Caetano, (i.e. carrying a stun gun on her person outside her home) then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities (i.e. NJ legislators) who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe,"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man that was the woodiest woodshed I have ever seen SCOTUS take a court behind and beat the shit out of them. 

 

I honestly expected it to conclude with this quote near the end (directed at the lower court). 

 

image.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man that was the woodiest woodshed I have ever seen SCOTUS take a court behind and beat the shit out of them.

 

I honestly expected it to conclude with this quote near the end (directed at the lower court).

 

image.png

Ok, that was funny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember this is not a real decision, it just sends the decision back to the lower court with a huge "oh no you didn't" 

 

At best it provides guidance to the lower courts, which is cool by itself. 

How is this not a real decision?

The order of the Massachusetts Supreme Court was vacated.

The Heller and McDonald decisions were upheld.

The case was remanded back to Massachusetts to be tried in compliance with the Heller and McDonald decisions. This implies strict scrutiny.

So, how is this not a "real decision"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I mean is that the SC overturned a decision but didn't actually rule on the case, it just told the lower court to do it again.  That is slightly different the the Supreme Court taking the case and hearing it directly and passing a ruling. Those carry a much higher weight. The Lower court could get another stab at the case and decide Heller still didn't apply because the taser ran on batteries charged by a nuclear reactor and that is clearly dangerous and unusual or some other stupid reason and go through this circus yet again. 

 

Don't get me wrong, it is unlikely to happen, this was a significant smack-down and it is good that was 8-0, but it doesn't quite carry the same weight as a full SC ruling.  It will however provide some avoidance on how to apply Heller, and that is good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vlad,

Not trying to be argumentative here, as I do not profess to be an expert on SCOTUS proceedings. My understanding of this decision is that all 8 justices found the ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court to be so flagrantly wrong no oral argument was required. Isn't that more of a smack down than even letting them argue their point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no expert either and I may very well be wrong, and yes it is a significant smack down, but my understanding is that when they rule on case based on arguments and hearings and the decisions are 100 pages worth of legal opinions, those decisions become the core of our legal system. There is no more arguing by the court bellow them on that case, no second chances. When they turn the case back like this it tends to be more of a "bad puppy, you screwed up, please try again" which is not quite as a definitive in the final outcome of the case. 

 

I do think this one though is a bit strange, it is so forceful and so clear that it may become precedent setting in how 2A cases get judged, so it may straddle the line. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In one opinion they granted cert and then issued a per curiam ruling.

 

"For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again,correct me If I am wrong,this case becomes monumental for New Jersey. SCOTUS has told Massachusetts, that the Second Amendment, Heller and McDonald decisions are to be applied with strict scrutiny. The Heller and McDonald decisions gives guidance on who can own, and carry 'arms" and where they can and cannot be carried. Massachusetts law, and New Jersey law, and 3 other states violate the Second Amendment, Heller and McDonald decisions. I think SCOTUS is telling the District Court, and individual Circuit Courts, to apply Heller and McDonald as reported.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if they mention strict scrutiny and this remains as an issue (Heller said an outright ban would not pass any level of scrutiny).

 

They also never specifically mentioned where arms can be carried beyond the home which is also an outstanding issue.

 

Ultimately this gets worked out but it can take a long time for the right cases to come and be accepted by the court. Obviously the types of justices is critical and with Scalia gone anything can happen.

 

The good thing here is that all of the justices thought that the Mass supremes got it very wrong so they at least view Heller as existing precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

 

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SUCH AS, those are examples not an exhaustive list. I think realistically you also must include every secured building, private property where the owners request it, etc, etc.

The point is the Supreme Court says we all have the right to carry unless were a prohibited person.

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...