Jump to content
ajpaul59

Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 Hudson, NC

Recommended Posts

That's a very negative view and not a very realistic one.

 

NJ could file a lawsuit. Anyone can file a lawsuit. It getting somewhere is another issue.

 

There are 22 Federal judges assigned to the District of NJ. There are also 2 vacancies. Those will be filled by Trump. There are 10 judges appointed by Carter, Clinton or Obama. The rest have been appointed by G.W. Bush and Reagan. There will be 2 by Trump. That will make 14 appointed by Republicans. The Chief Judge was appointed by G.W. Bush. AFAIK it's the Chief Judge who decides who gets what case. Odds are any case will be assigned to a Republican appointee.

 

There are already a variety of licenses issued by other states that are recognized in NJ.

 

Requesting an injunction to prevent implementation of the reciprocity probably won't go anywhere. The blood running in the streets argument won't work. Is the blood running in the streets in the other 49 states. Out of state active and retired LEOS have been carrying under LEOSA for some time. Ain't no blood in the streets.

 

Comparison to the overtime law isn't the same. There is no cost to anyone for a reciprocity law. The comity clause in the Constitution pretty much supports any reciprocity law.

I truly hope you are right.  But remember Judge Walls, the District Court Judge in the Drake case?  Remember the two 3rd circuit judges who wrote that truly horrible, nonsensical decision affirming Judge Walls?  Remember all the people on this forum who after Heller and McDonald kept repeating "just wait until the Supremes slap NJ down"?  How did that all work out?

 

 Yeah, things are going to get much better in the Federal judiciary as Trump appoints judges.  And yeah, we are all in a much, much better position than we were before the election.  And I am sure that things will improve overall on the 2A front.   But that will take time, and in the meantime there are plenty of judges -- including Republican appointees -- who seem all too eager to throw reason and precedent into the garbage when it comes to 2A issues.  So while you  are correct that there is no evidence whatsoever that lawful concealed carry endangers anyone (and plenty of evidence to the contrary), the fact that NJ prevailed on its public safety argument in upholding "justifiable need" in Drake just shows you how judges often ignore evidence and facts, buy into hysteria and illogic on gun issues.  I am pretty confident that there will be a state challenge of this law and that the possibility of some sort of injunction is not remote.  I really, really hope I am wrong.  But I just think its a wee bit too early to start planning on what holster to use to carry in NJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh there absolutely will be legal challenges. Remember the shitfit the legislature had when CC tried to add two simple words to our convoluted definition of justifiable need? The demorats that run this state take great pride in their anti agenda/crusade and will kick scratch and claw their way thru this whole process and drag it out for an eternity. Not to mention the administrative, logistical and monetary nightmare NJ will make us go thru if it should be rammed up their asses. I see a million lawsuits  intertwined between NJ vs the feds and citizens vs NJ and citizens vs towns.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NJ, NY, MD, and other states will argue that the CCW reciprocity law is unconstitutional, as it would violate the 10th Amendment.  A federal judge will grant an injunction, delaying implementation of the law.  It'll be years before we can carry in NJ with a non-resident CCW permit, if ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NJ, NY, MD, and other states will argue that the CCW reciprocity law is unconstitutional, as it would violate the 10th Amendment.  A federal judge will grant an injunction, delaying implementation of the law.  It'll be years before we can carry in NJ with a non-resident CCW permit, if ever.

 

i'd lay money you're wrong. ccw reciprocity intent is to in fact uphold the constitution. again, states cannot argue 10th amendment powers when seeking to restrict any of the previous 9, which is exactly what they're trying to do. btw, i was thinking about this last night. how many states have legit unrestricted concealed carry? 42? 43? we're talking about 7 or 8 states that would have issue with this, and i'd wager half of those would "go along to get along". i see 3-4 holdouts. if the majority of the nation is for this, those holdouts have little/no chance of success. we'll be carrying legally in nj by june by my estimation. the map explains the stark reality:

 

http://www.moccw.org/map.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'd lay money you're wrong. ccw reciprocity intent is to in fact uphold the constitution. again, states cannot argue 10th amendment powers when seeking to restrict any of the previous 9, which is exactly what they're trying to do. btw, i was thinking about this last night. how many states have legit unrestricted concealed carry? 42? 43? we're talking about 7 or 8 states that would have issue with this, and i'd wager half of those would "go along to get along". i see 3-4 holdouts. if the majority of the nation is for this, those holdouts have little/no chance of success. we'll be carrying legally in nj by june by my estimation. the map explains the stark reality:

 

http://www.moccw.org/map.html

I like you.

Don't forget constitutional carry states.

And toss some more salad. Reciprocity agreements.

Mix that in with new Justice and judges.

 

Wala, magic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'd lay money you're wrong. ccw reciprocity intent is to in fact uphold the constitution. again, states cannot argue 10th amendment powers when seeking to restrict any of the previous 9, which is exactly what they're trying to do. btw, i was thinking about this last night. how many states have legit unrestricted concealed carry? 42? 43? we're talking about 7 or 8 states that would have issue with this, and i'd wager half of those would "go along to get along". i see 3-4 holdouts. if the majority of the nation is for this, those holdouts have little/no chance of success. we'll be carrying legally in nj by june by my estimation. the map explains the stark reality:

 

http://www.moccw.org/map.html

 

1) How much?  I'll put $100K on it not happening by June.

 

2) There's really no reason to believe NJ, MD, or any other similar state would not invoke the 10A if this bill passes.  These states very clearly don't care what the rest of the states in the union are doing.  Frankly, I'm not sure where you get the idea that states can't invoke the 10A, because it's very common.  Furthermore, NJ and other states with lots of gun laws have for years been infringing upon the 2A, and by doing so, violating the 14A as well.  And yet, the courts don't particularly care.  Don't assume that the Dorito moving into the White House this month is going to magically change that.

 

Assuming this bill passes one day, somewhere a judge will grant an injunction that will last for months, if not years, as this is debated endlessly in court.  Ultimately, this is the kind of legislation that could end up in the SCOTUS, which also takes months or years.  I wouldn't put it past NJ to change state law and make itself into a "no issue" state, which would then exempt the state from honoring any CCW permits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) How much? I'll put $100K on it not happening by June.

 

2) There's really no reason to believe NJ, MD, or any other similar state would not invoke the 10A if this bill passes. These states very clearly don't care what the rest of the states in the union are doing. Frankly, I'm not sure where you get the idea that states can't invoke the 10A, because it's very common. Furthermore, NJ and other states with lots of gun laws have for years been infringing upon the 2A, and by doing so, violating the 14A as well. And yet, the courts don't particularly care. Don't assume that the Dorito moving into the White House this month is going to magically change that.

 

Assuming this bill passes one day, somewhere a judge will grant an injunction that will last for months, if not years, as this is debated endlessly in court. Ultimately, this is the kind of legislation that could end up in the SCOTUS, which also takes months or years. I wouldn't put it past NJ to change state law and make itself into a "no issue" state, which would then exempt the state from honoring any CCW permits.

When you move? How you gonna get there? Drive? With your State issued DL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is highly unlikely and should not be expected ..

 

But from a legal standpoint only...

 

Couldn't trump make an executive order for a constitutional carry?

Another wild card or trump. Even if it's not legal he could do it. 

 

Normally I'd be against an EO to overrule state law but this involves a constitutional right.

 

"No state may violate the plain language meaning of the 2nd Amendment, as already practiced by a majority of states, with respect to citizens not barred from bearing arms by Federal law. States may not impose licensing or training requirements more stringent than those already in effect."

 

Or simply an order declaring reciprocity. 

 

He wouldn't be inventing new law. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best solution to all of this is a clarification from SCOTUS regarding what Keep & Bear means.

 

You do realize it'll take many months or even years for that decision to finally arrive, right?  It'll be at least 6 months before the bill even gets passed (if it gets passed at all), and then the state challenges will come.  A judge will grant an injunction.  This will then be debated endlessly in court, until it ends up in the SCOTUS.  Assuming the SCOTUS doesn't then send it back down to a lower court because it doesn't feel like debating this (something it often does with 2A cases), then a Trump-appointed SCOTUS would most likely rule in favor of the 2A.  Most likely.  This process is akin to threading a needle from a thousand miles away.  I'm all in favor of optimism, but we also need to be realistic here.  A bill like this will not pass quickly and/or easily.  Don't forget, the Democrats will filibuster the shit out of this in the Senate.  They only removed the filibuster for judicial appointments; they can and will filibuster the CCW reciprocity bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another wild card or trump. Even if it's not legal he could do it.

 

Normally I'd be against an EO to overrule state law but this involves a constitutional right.

 

"No state may violate the plain language meaning of the 2nd Amendment, as already practiced by a majority of states, with respect to citizens not barred from bearing arms by Federal law. States may not impose licensing or training requirements more stringent than those already in effect."

 

Or simply an order declaring reciprocity.

 

He wouldn't be inventing new law.

I have a close friend and know some others that are against this because they believe it is outside the purview of the constitutionally specified powers of the federal government. I remind them that 95% or what the federal government does is unconstitutional and illegal, let one friggen thing go our way for once and then we'll get back to bitching. Heaven knows the courts won't protect us, they are the ones that created this mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NJ can't "legislate" around a Federal law. They could establish more no carry areas as I stated previously in this thread. It would be a Federal law and while a state may be more restrictive it can't be contrary to Federal law.

I agree. LEOSA is an example.  NJ was told by the FEDS after it passed they had to except it.  Before LEOSA even retired police had a problem here in NJ. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Newtonian said pass executive order, but one that also clarifies the Second Amendment. Something that states no state may outright ban the concealed or open carrying of firearms as to keep and bear means to own and carry. This will cause an immediate challenge which will fast track the issue to SCOTUS. Of course EO must come after new justice is confirmed. Once SCOTUS has EO case they can in their ruling clarify the meaning of the Second Amendment for states like NJ.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a close friend and know some others that are against this because they believe it is outside the purview of the constitutionally specified powers of the federal government. I remind them that 95% or what the federal government does is unconstitutional and illegal, let one friggen thing go our way for once and then we'll get back to bitching. Heaven knows the courts won't protect us, they are the ones that created this mess.

This 10th Amendment argument is popular among libertarians, a political philosophy that knows "the price of everything and the value of nothing." Never mind 240 years of states mostly trivializing and outright ignoring the 2nd Amendment. Until quite recently NJ-style gun control was the overwhelming norm, not the exception, in the 50 states. The left will lean heavily on this idea as well in the coming months.

 

If there's a silver lining to all this it's that liberals are finally coming around, in the most cynical, hypocritical, and self-contradictory manner. We've seen recently that they've:

  • finally found a religion they can live with (Islam)
  • hold a profound respect for legislative intent and originalism (Stop Trump via the electoral college flexing is constitutional muscle)
  • become staunch federalists (keep the Feds out of local legislation, i.e. gun laws)
  • come to hate all things Russian (now that they're no longer commie)
  • embrace Adam Smith (on free trade and immigration no less)
  • become sexual prudes (with regard to a normal alpha male talking about pussy)
  • never met a foreign intervention they didn't like (as long as its aim is to install a worse government than the one that exists) 

And so much more. I can hear the dead 1960s liberals screaming from hell, "NO NO NO NO!!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the 10th amendment argument is popular among liberals for 2A restrictions only. Because, you see, when a state tries to exercise their 10th amendment rights for things such as mandating that men and women must use bathrooms associated with their biological gender or in restricting access to abortion, well then the 10th amendment doesn't apply. simply can't have it both ways

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no no. i have permission slips to own mine from the state in the form of handgun permits. so nice of them. i'm grateful

There's a Nappen interview on GFH radio, and a chapter in his book where he dissects the law. And points out even legal possession is illegal, the law contradicts itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the 10th amendment argument is popular among liberals for 2A restrictions only. Because, you see, when a state tries to exercise their 10th amendment rights for things such as mandating that men and women must use bathrooms associated with their biological gender or in restricting access to abortion, well then the 10th amendment doesn't apply. simply can't have it both ways

You left out marriage licenses... that court interpretation alone, should open up a case for a challenge on permit reciprocity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to be a stick in the mud, but no, this bill won't necessarily solve all this.  There is the 10th amendment/state's right constitutional issue that certain states will most likely litigate -- see my post above.  The only way to definitively put the outside the home issue to rest in NJ is 1) a sea change in voting demographics such that Republicans take control of the NJ legislature (not gonna happen) or 2) a Supreme Ct case affirming right to carry outside the home.  But yes, we are moving in the right direction and very lucky that Trump won, at least on the gun issue.

I agree but with the 10 Amendment argument with this caveat, they'd have to explain why they are misusing "state rights" with their tortured explanation of the 2nd Amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a Nappen interview on GFH radio, and a chapter in his book where he dissects the law. And points out even legal possession is illegal, the law contradicts itself.

If I remember correctly the premise is that possession of a firearm is illegal unless you have been issued a permit (FPID for long guns or carry permit for handguns). You may call upon the exemptions in the law as an affirmative defense. The onus is on you to prove you are innocent via the exemption. If you fail to prove that you are within an exemption the fact that you had a gun in your possession makes you guilty.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2017 at 1:23 PM, Mr.Stu said:

If I remember correctly the premise is that possession of a firearm is illegal unless you have been issued a permit (FPID for long guns or carry permit for handguns). You may call upon the exemptions in the law as an affirmative defense. The onus is on you to prove you are innocent via the exemption. If you fail to prove that you are within an exemption the fact that you had a gun in your possession makes you guilty.

nm

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh I'd love to see them arrest someone for legal possession of a firearm with a corresponding permit. It's fun to say at parties, but legally it has no standing. I predict a great many wonderful things will be happening in NJ soon regarding 2a rights, whether the goddamn legislature wants them or not. All of these laws are plainly unconstitutional and I suspect the time to mount outright challenges is fast approaching in CA, NY and NJ

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P

 

Its a permit to purchase, not to possess.  Your possession of handguns is only lawful by way of exemption, unless you have a license to carry.  If you think it can't happen, you don't remember Keith Pantaleon.  He was arrested for possessing firearms in his own home.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, any one else start looking at what gun they want for CC in NJ?

 

Not so much what to carry ( M&P 9 Shield ) , just being able to transport would be my biggest benefit.  No more of the Can I do this or that, stop here or there on the way to or from the range.

  • Like 2

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...