Supreme Court Reschedules Concealed Carry Case. Again...

[Zeke 5,504]

44 minutes ago, diamondd817 said:

Historically, if a case has been rescheduled 2 times or more, the chances of it being heard by the SC is significantly reduced.

Going on 8

With a new Justice....

[diamondd817 827]

4 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Going on 8

With a new Justice....

I know. At great odds at this point. On the flip side, there is a chance the liberal Judges might want to hear it before they die off and get replaced by Trump. But who knows, it could go 5-4 either way.

[Zeke 5,504]

Just now, diamondd817 said:

I know. At great odds at this point. On the flip side, there is a chance the liberal Judges might want to hear it before they die off and get replaced by Trump. But who knows, it could go 5-4 either way.

Nope, it's happening 

[tiresmoke 8]

been watching for months.. they sure are dramatic on this one.  After like 8 reschedules they better hear the damn thing!!

[Sota 1,191]

it could be telling if there were statistics with regards to the number of times a case has been rescheduled after a judicial vacancy for over a year.  what is the protocol for getting a new justice spooled up? what cases is he allowed to weigh in on?  there was just a ruling this week that was 8-0... Gorsuch didn't give an opinion, so is there a delay with regards to what cases he can hear?  finally, are there any other cases that have been rescheduled a number of times recently, specifically since Gorsuch was sworn in?

[Bklynracer 1,265]

Wild thought. Maybe their waiting till someone else retires this summer (we hope) Summers not that far off. 

[tiresmoke 8]

maybe they are gonna wait until all the right wing justices die and get replaced with commies 

reacheduled... indefinitely

[Ray Ray 3,566]

Can someone PM me when we can this is finished and I can apply with no reservations? 

Thanks

[NJGF 375]

It only takes 4 justices to issue a cert so it is difficult to read the tea leaves as to what is happening.

[ChrisJM981 924]

2 hours ago, Ray Ray said:

Can someone PM me when we can this is finished and I can apply with no reservations? 

Thanks

If they take the case, and if they rule that carrying is covered, then NJ will pass a law requiring an expensive burdensome training course that is only given during the week. 

[Cereza 106]

1 hour ago, ChrisJM981 said:

If they take the case, and if they rule that carrying is covered, then NJ will pass a law requiring an expensive burdensome training course that is only given during the week. 

I'm not saying that wouldn't happen, but how long could it withstand a legal challenge?  Isn't one of the arguments behind not requiring ID to vote that it disproportionately burdens the poor because of the fees involved in obtaining state ID? The left can't shouldn't argue that $40 violates the 15th, 19th and 26th, but that {insert ridiculous cost of CC training course here} is no impediment to the 2nd.  

[tiresmoke 8]

Having the ability to actually carry a concealed weapon is the goal.  Having to take a class or pay some fee would suck, but IMHO that's two steps forward and only one step back.

[PDM 91]

One step at a time.  Even if Peruta is heard by the Court and we win, I have no doubt that NJ will push the envelope to make it as difficult as possible to obtain a permit and may not even comply at all without another lawsuit.  Best case, even with a win, this will take years.

[Zack 17]

4 hours ago, PDM said:

One step at a time.  Even if Peruta is heard by the Court and we win, I have no doubt that NJ will push the envelope to make it as difficult as possible to obtain a permit and may not even comply at all without another lawsuit.  Best case, even with a win, this will take years.

This is exactly what I was thinking.  NJ will throw up road block after road block, tie it up in court for years and then come up with more road blocks and on and on.  Look at Chicago that's been their play book so far.

[NJGF 375]

If we get CCW in just a few years I will be doing my happy dance for sure (no there will not be any pictures).

[Zeke 5,504]

When has freedom never been up hill both ways?

[Rob0115 1,105]

On 5/23/2017 at 8:29 AM, ChrisJM981 said:

If they take the case, and if they rule that carrying is covered, then NJ will pass a law requiring an expensive burdensome training course that is only given during the week. 

 

On 5/23/2017 at 9:37 AM, Cereza said:

I'm not saying that wouldn't happen, but how long could it withstand a legal challenge?  Isn't one of the arguments behind not requiring ID to vote that it disproportionately burdens the poor because of the fees involved in obtaining state ID? The left can't shouldn't argue that $40 violates the 15th, 19th and 26th, but that {insert ridiculous cost of CC training course here} is no impediment to the 2nd.  

Having a proficiency requirement wouldn't be odd at all as many states who issue require it.  However, to your point. NJ's will be more than NRA basic pistol, armed service or a hunting license.   Thus, if they do something whacky it may be hard to challenge as long as they are issuing permits.  

[Zeke 5,504]

1 hour ago, Rob0115 said:

 

Having a proficiency requirement wouldn't be odd at all as many states who issue require it.  However, to your point. NJ's will be more than NRA basic pistol, armed service or a hunting license.   Thus, if they do something whacky it may be hard to challenge as long as they are issuing permits.  

I can't see it being more stringent than what is in existence. The LE union lobby, and any change would have be across the board.

[Rob0115 1,105]

3 minutes ago, Zeke said:

I can't see it being more stringent than what is in existence. The LE union lobby, and any change would have be across the board.

I think LEO would be expempt based on their continuous qualifications during their career.   I'm not defending the merits of that stance   

[Zeke 5,504]

58 minutes ago, Rob0115 said:

I think LEO would be expempt based on their continuous qualifications during their career.   I'm not defending the merits of that stance   

I could see that.

But judges, politicians and the connected?

[Rob0115 1,105]

21 minutes ago, Zeke said:

I could see that.

But judges, politicians and the connected?

Well the connected get whatever.  They're getting carry permits now.  

[Zeke 5,504]

31 minutes ago, Rob0115 said:

Well the connected get whatever.  They're getting carry permits now.  

But they still have to meet same qualifications as retired LE , security, etc

[Rob0115 1,105]

15 minutes ago, Zeke said:

But they still have to meet same qualifications as retired LE , security, etc

I don't think they'll be put off if the cost is expensive to meet the requirement that the every man has to meet. 

[Zeke 5,504]

1 minute ago, Rob0115 said:

I don't think they'll be put off if the cost is expensive to meet the requirement that the every man has to meet. 

I agree. It will be " hardship " or " burden " case. With non active or retired LE security being the exception.

How big is the armed guard lobby?

[Rob0115 1,105]

9 minutes ago, Zeke said:

I agree. It will be " hardship " or " burden " case. With non active or retired LE security being the exception.

How big is the armed guard lobby?

Yeah I don't know.  

[Zeke 5,504]

1 minute ago, Rob0115 said:

Yeah I don't know.  

Makes national ccw more important.

[PDM 91]

Aaaaaaaand .... once again, not action on Peruta at last conference,  Results of last conference announced this morning and no mention of Peruta.  Or Masterpiece Cakeshop by the way, another interesting case and one that anyone who cares about the 1st amendment should care very deeply about.

[NJGF 375]

May 30 2017

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 1, 2017.

[Alex V 99]

Even if the court takes this case and rules in favor of the Constitution, the court has no means to enforce their ruling.  They are impotent.  NJ will ignore it wholesale, even if there is a case against NJ directly stemming from a positive decision on Peruta, NJ will ignore that at all.  They have no reason not to.  What's SCOTUS going to do?  Send in the NG?

[Darrenf 422]

Even if the court takes this case and rules in favor of the Constitution, the court has no means to enforce their ruling.  They are impotent.  NJ will ignore it wholesale, even if there is a case against NJ directly stemming from a positive decision on Peruta, NJ will ignore that at all.  They have no reason not to.  What's SCOTUS going to do?  Send in the NG?

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with what happened in Illinois just a few years ago.