Jump to content
JohnnyB

SCOTUS with Gorsuch to decide important CA 2A case.

Recommended Posts

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!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

       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!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

      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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 
Stand Up for Gun Safety!
 
Bergen County Brady Chapter
1a2a51fe-2c6b-4ea8-97ed-a64cef22b708.jpg
Protest Concealed Carry Reciprocity in Morristown

Wednesdays, 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.
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.
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
TeaneckNJ 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.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 
Stand Up for Gun Safety!
 
Bergen County Brady Chapter
1a2a51fe-2c6b-4ea8-97ed-a64cef22b708.jpg
Protest Concealed Carry Reciprocity in Morristown

Wednesdays, 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.
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.
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
TeaneckNJ 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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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...