JohnnyB 4,289 Posted April 9, 2017 From the LA times today. "Gun-rights advocates are challenging a California law that requires gun owners to show “good cause” before they are issued a permit to carry a concealed gun in public. County sheriffs enforce this policy, and in San Diego, Los Angeles and other urban counties, permits are rarely granted. In San Diego, for example, officials have taken the position that simply fearing for one’s personal safety is not enough to demonstrate “good cause.” Gun-rights lawyers have sued, contending this policy violates the 2nd Amendment and its implied “right to self-defense.” But last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld San Diego’s refusal to grant concealed carry permits and ruled “the 2nd Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.” In January, Paul Clement, the former U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush, filed an appeal in Peruta vs. California, arguing that “millions of … ordinary law-abiding citizens” are being denied their rights to carry guns for self-defense. The justices are set to reconsider that appeal on Thursday. It takes four votes to grant an appeal and decide the case. This “could be the most important 2nd Amendment case since D.C. vs. Heller,” said UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, referring to the 2008 ruling that for the first time upheld an individual’s right to have a handgun. Since then, “the court has not said the right extends beyond the home and out into the public,” he said." This is really BIG! To be decided whether they take the case this Thursday. Gorsuch will be there and we only need 4 to say yes! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gunnz 49 Posted April 9, 2017 And if the Supreme Court takes this case, and rules in 2A favor this might negate "justifiable need"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darrenf 422 Posted April 9, 2017 And if the Supreme Court takes this case, and rules in 2A favor this might negate "justifiable need"? As good cause and justifiable need are basically the same thing, there is an excellent chance if this is ruled correctly it would finally bury justifiable need and restore our rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mrs. Peel 7,148 Posted April 9, 2017 I'm no lawyer... but logically, that does sound like a potentially YUGE development! IF they hear the case... and IF they strike that down... sounds like it would pull the rug right out from under NJ's justifiable need. That's the only way NJ is ever going to change IMO.... if there are S.C. findings making clear the unconstitutionality of these silly ass rules... and giving people strong grounds on which to file lawsuits. It won't be fast though - at least I don't think so. I think it will still have to wind it's way through the courts through individual lawsuits... or am I wrong? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,417 Posted April 10, 2017 That's the only way NJ is ever going to change IMO.... Not true. Everything south of 195 could be ceded to PA... Half the state would immediately improve. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyB 4,289 Posted April 10, 2017 IMHO, a ruling that good cause or justifiable need is unconstitutional would end the requirement immediately! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gunnz 49 Posted April 10, 2017 Would we find out Thursday if they take the case or will they be presented the option on Thursday? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
njpilot 671 Posted April 10, 2017 Try not to get too excited. Gorsuch is replacing Scalia. Scalia was there for the last couple 2A cases and they couldn't get the votes to take any of them. If he were replacing Kennedy or one of the 4 libs I'd say I'd have more hope of them taking the case. 6 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
revenger 472 Posted April 10, 2017 I agree with JohnnyB, Just keep in mind the enemy that we are engaged with. As we plan our next move if victorious they too are planning theirs if lost. They will create endless hurdles and hoops for us to jump through, I won't name any as I don't want to aid the enemy in any way but you can all guess what they will be. But a victory on this combined with federal reciprocity and there wont be much they can really do legally. When we do eventually get CCW it is going to be so anti-climatic all concerned will wonder why it took so long. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bully 749 Posted April 10, 2017 When we do eventually get CCW it is going to be so anti-climatic all concerned will wonder why it took so long. Exactly how I feel on the issue. I also think that most folks will pay the price for CCW once or twice and then just let it fade. Then maybe someone on that side will see that we're just normal folks willing to actually DO something for ourselves and not ruthless outlaws... HAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAHHH!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zuko94 14 Posted April 10, 2017 When we do eventually get CCW it is going to be so anti-climatic all concerned will wonder why it took so long. All the more reason to savor the flavor of victory if/when it does happen. All the states that make the legal gun owners live under the peoples republic ruling, hopefully get to live a truly free state. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
W2MC 1,699 Posted April 10, 2017 Not true. Everything south of 195 could be ceded to PA... Half the state would immediately improve. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Not to Pennsylvania....as the sovereign state of South Jersey! http://www.app.com/story/news/history/erik-larsen/2016/03/05/south-jersey-votes-secede-nj/81323914/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maintenanceguy 509 Posted April 10, 2017 Even if this gets to SCOTUS and is a win, I'm not sure it will help us. Even though "justifiable need" and "good cause" are the same thing, NJ will simply claim that it doesn't apply here. If the 2nd amendment doesn't apply here and Heller and McDonald don't apply here, why would a new SCOTUS ruling apply here? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnGalt 9 Posted April 10, 2017 Even if this gets to SCOTUS and is a win, I'm not sure it will help us. Even though "justifiable need" and "good cause" are the same thing, NJ will simply claim that it doesn't apply here. If the 2nd amendment doesn't apply here and Heller and McDonald don't apply here, why would a new SCOTUS ruling apply here? I would imagine it all boils down to enforcement. If the federal government actively enforces the new ruling vs passively then things may change sooner then later. If they do it passively then it'll take a court challenge to ensure total compliance. Sadly, I see PRNJ going all "10th amendment" on it tho and digging their heals in. This of course is assuming that the conservative justices don't rule against it for the very same 10th amendment reason. It's a tricky case to be sure. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vlad G 345 Posted April 10, 2017 Try not to get too excited. Gorsuch is replacing Scalia. Scalia was there for the last couple 2A cases and they couldn't get the votes to take any of them. If he were replacing Kennedy or one of the 4 libs I'd say I'd have more hope of them taking the case. This. Don't assume there are 5 justices ready for you to be armed. Probably 3 for sure. Roberts and Kennedy are big question marks. I'll bet if Scalia could have have had carry language in Heller he would have. The fact that he didnt is telling. I would preferred this was delayed until there was another judge replaced. 4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
antimatter 139 Posted April 10, 2017 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/everytown-for-gun-safety-mike-bloomberg-concealed-carry-237056 so with all the CC talk this pops up today...maybe there is more going on and they are a little nervous??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted April 10, 2017 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/everytown-for-gun-safety-mike-bloomberg-concealed-carry-237056 so with all the CC talk this pops up today...maybe there is more going on and they are a little nervous??? That's a good sign. 187 co sponsors. And Bloomberg is nervous Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PDM 91 Posted April 10, 2017 This. Don't assume there are 5 justices ready for you to be armed. Probably 3 for sure. Roberts and Kennedy are big question marks. I'll bet if Scalia could have have had carry language in Heller he would have. The fact that he didnt is telling. I would preferred this was delayed until there was another judge replaced. Exactly, Hard to see why there would be a different result now as the composition of the Court has been restored to where it was but not improved. We need one or more of Ginsberg (84) Breyer (79) and Kennedy (81) to head out to pasture in the next two years, and would be nice if Thomas (69) would retire so that a younger conservative judge could take his place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Glock guy 1,125 Posted April 10, 2017 Stand Up for Gun Safety! Bergen County Brady Chapter Protest Concealed Carry Reciprocity in MorristownWednesdays, April 12 & 26, Noon to 1 PM Morristown Green - map corner of North Park Place and West Park Place Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen is in town on recess. Let's let him know that we expect him to oppose Concealed Carry, even though he voted for it in 2011. Signs should focus on the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, H.R. 38. Be creative but get the message across that it will get more New Jerseyans killed. WhoBergen County Brady Chapter Brady Sussex County Action Together Sussex County NJ 11th for Change Gays Against Guns NJ Because Life Is Sacred Goals Create awareness about the dangerous CCR bill. Let Frelinghuysen know that concern is growing. We will assemble on the Morristown Green and then walk over to Frelinghuysen's office to talk with him. follow on Twitter | like us on Facebook | forward to a friend Copyright © 2017 Bergen County Brady Chapter, All rights reserved. You received this message because you signed up to receive emails at the "Stand Up for Gun Sanity Rally", at one of our other events, via our website or signed our petition. Our mailing address is: Bergen County Brady Chapter 492-C Cedar Lane # 316 Teaneck, NJ 07666 Coincidentally, received this message today. I think they are getting a little nervous about national CCW. (I registered with the Bergen County Brady Chapter so I could keep up on events like these.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted April 10, 2017 Must be getting close to getting out of judicial sub committee Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jtd771 18 Posted April 11, 2017 Let's say SCOTUS takes the case and strikes down "good cause". No problem in the eyes of our legislators. We have "justifiable need". We are like McDowell's to California's McDonalds in their minds. Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,256 Posted April 11, 2017 Let's say SCOTUS takes the case and strikes down "good cause". No problem in the eyes of our legislators. We have "justifiable need". We are like McDowell's to California's McDonalds in their minds. Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk They are legally the same. In most circuits that wouldn't stand up a bit. Ours is kind of stupid, but it'd still be the fast track to scotus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fred2 367 Posted April 11, 2017 Stand Up for Gun Safety! Bergen County Brady Chapter Protest Concealed Carry Reciprocity in MorristownWednesdays, April 12 & 26, Noon to 1 PM Morristown Green - map corner of North Park Place and West Park Place Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen is in town on recess. Let's let him know that we expect him to oppose Concealed Carry, even though he voted for it in 2011. Signs should focus on the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, H.R. 38. Be creative but get the message across that it will get more New Jerseyans killed. WhoBergen County Brady Chapter Brady Sussex County Action Together Sussex County NJ 11th for Change Gays Against Guns NJ Because Life Is Sacred Goals Create awareness about the dangerous CCR bill. Let Frelinghuysen know that concern is growing. We will assemble on the Morristown Green and then walk over to Frelinghuysen's office to talk with him. follow on Twitter | like us on Facebook | forward to a friend Copyright © 2017 Bergen County Brady Chapter, All rights reserved. You received this message because you signed up to receive emails at the "Stand Up for Gun Sanity Rally", at one of our other events, via our website or signed our petition. Our mailing address is: Bergen County Brady Chapter 492-C Cedar Lane # 316 Teaneck, NJ 07666 Coincidentally, received this message today. I think they are getting a little nervous about national CCW. (I registered with the Bergen County Brady Chapter so I could keep up on events like these.) I stopped by the R headquarters today (next to his office) , just to give them an "Atta Boy", and don't let the protestors weary you down. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
siderman 1,131 Posted April 12, 2017 If only 4 decide to even hear it I will consider this case lost before it is even started. If any other Supreme was on the fence they would at least want to hear it. Unless they vote to hear it once they get 4 votes and stop voting at 4 before all 9 vote. Anyone know if all 9 vote or just till 4 agree? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyB 4,289 Posted April 12, 2017 It only takes 4 to agree to hear the case but 5 are needed to decide the case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJM981 924 Posted April 12, 2017 I stopped by the R headquarters today (next to his office) , just to give them an "Atta Boy", and don't let the protestors weary you down. I'm back on afternoons. I might show up for the protest and stir the pot armed with facts. We know how much they hate those. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
siderman 1,131 Posted April 12, 2017 It only takes 4 to agree to hear the case but 5 are needed to decide the case.I know, but do all 9 cast votes to hear or just up till 4...... Edit: the more I think about it its probly privledged inside info anyway, they just announce either they have the 4 or no regardless of the actual number. And no mention of who voted which way as it may imply a lean on the ruling. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted April 12, 2017 Try not to get too excited. Gorsuch is replacing Scalia. Scalia was there for the last couple 2A cases and they couldn't get the votes to take any of them. If he were replacing Kennedy or one of the 4 libs I'd say I'd have more hope of them taking the case. That was my first reaction but in fact we don't know Scalia's position on those specific cases. Unlike the liberals on the court Antonin Scalia felt bound by the constitution and precedent. If through some mumbo jumbo this case unhinges those concerns for Gorsuch we may have something. OTOH I read somewhere that Gorsuch is much more of a centrist than Scalia was. On a scale of -10 (most liberal) to +10 (most conservative) John Derbyshire rated Sotomayor at -27, Scalia at only +5, and Gorsuch at a measly +1. Still, really folks, could you not see another 10-year court battle over Loretta & company's $5,000 annual CC fee, 430 hours of training, and prohibition in every major city, on every major highway, in casinos, shopping centers, parking lots, gatherings of 3 or more persons, etc.? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
siderman 1,131 Posted April 12, 2017 That was my first reaction but in fact we don't know Scalia's position on those specific cases. Unlike the liberals on the court Antonin Scalia felt bound by the constitution and precedent. If through some mumbo jumbo this case unhinges those concerns for Gorsuch we may have something. OTOH I read somewhere that Gorsuch is much more of a centrist than Scalia was. On a scale of -10 (most liberal) to +10 (most conservative) John Derbyshire rated Sotomayor at -27, Scalia at only +5, and Gorsuch at a measly +1. Still, really folks, could you not see another 10-year court battle over Loretta & company's $5,000 annual CC fee, 430 hours of training, and prohibition in every major city, on every major highway, in casinos, shopping centers, parking lots, gatherings of 3 or more persons, etc.? An absolute never ending battle. Even by some miracle a Fed law bulls its way into NJ this state will make it so incredably impracticle to afford and maintain a ccw it will still be un-obtainable for all intents. And thats AFTER a lifetime of court battles just to reach that point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ricky_Bobby 130 Posted April 12, 2017 Still, really folks, could you not see another 10-year court battle over Loretta & company's $5,000 annual CC fee, 430 hours of training, and prohibition in every major city, on every major highway, in casinos, shopping centers, parking lots, gatherings of 3 or more persons, etc.? This is 100% accurate and why NJ will never see its carry rights restored outside the home unless Alex Jones himself sucks all the demons out of the legislature in Trenton and absorbs their bloodsucking souls. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites