Newtonian 453 Posted April 12, 2017 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. A nice little plague would do the trick as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alex V 99 Posted April 12, 2017 SCOTUS is the most impotent branch of government; The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. - The Federalist 78 Regardless of what they decide, it will have no bearing on NJ unless Trump puts the screws to the State. Brown v. Board of Ed was in 1954, it wasn't until 1957 and the us of the National Guard that the first black students were able to attend a white school. Even if this case goes our way, don't expect anything to change. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Malsua 1,422 Posted April 12, 2017 Regardless of what they decide, it will have no bearing on NJ unless Trump puts the screws to the State. Brown v. Board of Ed was in 1954, it wasn't until 1957 and the us of the National Guard that the first black students were able to attend a white school. Even if this case goes our way, don't expect anything to change. The real irony of that is that black students these days are demanding segregation. They want a black space, free of white influence. As to the topic, Goresuch will vote based on law, not on emotion. Roberts...meh, whatever will make him most popular at DC parties. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alex V 99 Posted April 12, 2017 The real irony of that is that black students these days are demanding segregation. They want a black space, free of white influence. As to the topic, Goresuch will vote based on law, not on emotion. Roberts...meh, whatever will make him most popular at DC parties. Roberts and Kennedy are the toss up. I think the rest are safe to assume on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PDM 91 Posted April 13, 2017 Looks like this has been rescheduled again. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/peruta-v-california/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJM981 924 Posted April 14, 2017 A nice little plague would do the trick as well. Catestrophic gas leak in Trenton? One can dream. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,778 Posted April 14, 2017 A nice summary for those that need a memory jog: "The Supreme Court's next big gun case could determine whether you have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public" http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-carrying-concealed-weapons-in-public-supreme-court-2017-4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted April 14, 2017 A nice summary for those that need a memory jog: "The Supreme Court's next big gun case could determine whether you have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public" http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-carrying-concealed-weapons-in-public-supreme-court-2017-4 Tremendous article. Must-read for anyone interested in this case. But here's where NJ legislators go nuts: A decision in favor of Peruta wouldn’t necessarily mean that states could no longer place any restrictions on concealed gun carry, however. “The question is not the absolute one of whether states are going to allow public carry,” Blocher said. Because, in practice, every state already does. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ricky_Bobby 130 Posted April 14, 2017 Redacted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted April 14, 2017 Fixed for you - Hey Mr. Editor I wish you'd stop doing that. When you do that you're misquoting me. I'm serious. Quote the original and make any edits or comments you like under your own posting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ricky_Bobby 130 Posted April 14, 2017 Look at it again is that better Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,434 Posted April 14, 2017 A decision in favor of Peruta wouldn’t necessarily mean that states could no longer place any restrictions on concealed gun carry, however. “The question is not the absolute one of whether states are going to allow public carry,” Blocher said. It wouldn't mean states can't put some restrictions on CCW but it would prohibit using "just cause" or "serious threat"-type restrictions. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted April 14, 2017 Look at it again is that better No it isn't. Two can play this game. Unless you want a fucking posting war do me a favor and either quote my posts according to accepted standards or do not quote them at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weekend_junkie 129 Posted April 15, 2017 No it isn't. Two can play this game. Unless you want a fucking posting war do me a favor and either quote my posts according to accepted standards or do not quote them at all. Seems you're an originalist. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ricky_Bobby 130 Posted April 15, 2017 No it isn't. Two can play this game. Unless you want a fucking posting war do me a favor and either quote my posts according to accepted standards or do not quote them at all. Jesus Christ man calm the fuck down for someone who is usually a very dry sense of humor on these boards you sure are me fucking dead serious. Take a fucking pill and put away the copyright infringement papers Jesus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted April 15, 2017 I think he has his " visitor" Jus sayen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted April 15, 2017 Jesus Christ man calm the fuck down for someone who is usually a very dry sense of humor on these boards you sure are me fucking dead serious. Take a fucking pill and put away the copyright infringement papers Jesus. I'm a professional writer. I publish about 70,000 words a year under my name and as a ghost writer. I also look around me and see how the law, science, and "journalism" have degenerated into what their practitioners believe should be, not what actually is. It disturbs me. You wouldn't want anyone changing your posts would you? How'd you like it if I quoted a post of yours, "For some reason I feel like the rape rates at Liberty are going to drop next year" to "For some reason I feel like the rape rates at Liberty are going to drop next year because they kicked all the niggers out of the school." There, fixed it for you. I don't know who's reading these forums, what they know about us, or what they plan to do with this information. Probably nothing. But I do know that there is almost no such thing any more as an innocent, non-incriminating statement. I post enough stupid, inflammatory shit without having you or anyone else add fuel to the fire by changing my text. There's an acceptable way to do what you were trying to do and there's an unacceptable way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted April 15, 2017 If you are full of shit, does 70,0000 make it better shit? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
67gtonut 847 Posted April 15, 2017 Back to topic...... Right away...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muzzelloader69 9 Posted April 15, 2017 anybody no why the case was rescheduled? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darrenf 422 Posted April 16, 2017 anybody no why the case was rescheduled? Where did you hear it was "rescheduled". Where did you even see it was "scheduled". The Justices only met on Thursday to conference on what cases they were going to hear and I haven't seen anything about it since. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,434 Posted April 16, 2017 Where did you hear it was "rescheduled". Where did you even see it was "scheduled". The Justices only met on Thursday to conference on what cases they were going to hear and I haven't seen anything about it since. See the link in post #35: Apr 10 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017. Apr 12 2017 Rescheduled. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,434 Posted April 16, 2017 anybody know why the case was rescheduled? Ftfy 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darrenf 422 Posted April 16, 2017 See the link in post #35: Thanks. Honestly I'm a bit relieved. I'd like us to get one of the liberal justices replaced before this case gets heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,434 Posted April 16, 2017 Thanks. Honestly I'm a bit relieved. I'd like us to get one of the liberal justices replaced before this case gets heard. I don't thinking will be that long... weeks.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darrenf 422 Posted April 16, 2017 I don't thinking will be that long... weeks..Maybe that will be long enough. Fingers crossed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,434 Posted April 16, 2017 Maybe that will be long enough. Fingers crossed. What are the chances another Justice has a life-long, undiagnosed, heart problem? Now, I could see them agreeing to hear the case and then something happening before it comes up on the docket.. that could take a while. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darrenf 422 Posted April 16, 2017 What are the chances another Justice has a life-long, undiagnosed, heart problem? Now, I could see them agreeing to hear the case and then something happening before it comes up on the docket.. that could take a while. Agreed. I'm not saying a justice is going to retire or expire soon. Just fingers crossed for a retirement soon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PDM 91 Posted April 16, 2017 anybody no why the case was rescheduled?There is no way to know. Drake was rescheduled two or three times and cert was ultimately denied. It could be thw juustices are debating whether ro hear it. It could be that gorsuch wants time to consider it. Or it could be purely administrative. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,434 Posted April 16, 2017 This article is now saying April 25th. Not sure how accurate it is. https://www.crushthestreet.com/articles/breaking-news/gorsuch-influence-california-gun-case Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites