Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi Everyone

I just Read the article in the Political report in Shooting Illustrated about The July ruling By the US Court Of Appeals that found DC's "good reason" to be granted a CCW unconstitutional. Wouldn't the conflicting rulings between the DC Federal Court and the Jersey District Federal court force the SCOUS to a hearing to resolve the conflict? This is old news from back in July I'm just hearing about now. If its already been discussed  please direct me to the thread.

Thanks

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Some are saying.

"good reason" is dead in a week in D.C. 

That's the result of the ruling. No en banc means the original ruling stands and they have a week to adhere (or request a delay).  If they decide to challenge to SCOTUS they will also probably ask for an injunction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, voyager9 said:

That's the result of the ruling. No en banc means the original ruling stands and they have a week to adhere (or request a delay).  If they decide to challenge to SCOTUS they will also probably ask for an injunction. 

I know 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's the result of the ruling. No en banc means the original ruling stands and they have a week to adhere (or request a delay).  If they decide to challenge to SCOTUS they will also probably ask for an injunction. 
So they can either not challenge and have the reasonable need to carry abolished, or ask for an injunction from the Supreme Court?

Are there any other scenarios?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, deni said:

So they can either not challenge and have the reasonable need to carry abolished, or ask for an injunction from the Supreme Court?

Are there any other scenarios?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
 

Ask for an injunction from district court pending SCOTUS...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Washington, D.C., said it is deciding whether or not to appeal the case to the Supreme Court but has advised the Metropolitan Police Department to continue enforcing the "good reason" clause until the appeals court orders otherwise.

 just wondering if the above statement by Washington D.C. about continuing to enforce this good reason clause would amount to contempt of court and could those "enforcing" it can they be charged accordingly as well as adding the appropriate civil rights violations on as well.

 This should be of interest to us in NJ and the other few states that deny rights as if national reciprocity or the SAPPA case or any pending cases become wins for America our communist politicians will certainly "advise" our state to continue to require justifiable need. 

 Any legal scholars able to answer this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, revenger said:

 just wondering if the above statement by Washington D.C. about continuing to enforce this good reason clause would amount to contempt of court and could those "enforcing" it can they be charged accordingly as well as adding the appropriate civil rights violations on as well.

 This should be of interest to us in NJ and the other few states that deny rights as if national reciprocity or the SAPPA case or any pending cases become wins for America our communist politicians will certainly "advise" our state to continue to require justifiable need. 

 Any legal scholars able to answer this.

 

 

Only after the court mandates otherwise.

Remember a few years ago when D.C. Was constitutional carry for like a weekend or sumtin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2017 at 8:25 PM, 1LtCAP said:

isn't dc one of the highest violent crime rates in the country? how can they justify not letting people carry proper self defense tools in light of that?

Liberal minds are incapable of reasoning, logic or any type rational thought.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Huge gun rights victory

D.C. Declines to Take Wrenn CCW Case to SCOTUS

Apparently fearing a devastating loss that could crush arbitrary concealed carry laws in a handful of states, the District of Columbia has declined to appeal its loss of a concealed carry case that struck down its “needs based” permit requirement, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) learned today.

The SAF case is Wrenn v. District of Columbia. A three-judge panel on the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down the city’s “good cause” requirement as unconstitutional in July. The court declined a request for an en banc panel review last month.

“We believe the city was under intense pressure to take the hit and not appeal the ruling by the U.S. District Court of Appeals,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “If the District had lost the case before the high court, it would have dealt a fatal blow to similar requirements in California, New Jersey, Maryland and New York, for example, and that prospect had anti-gun politicians in those states quaking in their shoes.”

Gottlieb recalled that the District’s loss in 2008 when the Supreme Court struck down its handgun ban as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment opened a floodgate for legal challenges to state laws. That led to SAF’s 2010 victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago, which not only nullified the Windy City’s handgun ban but more importantly incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment.

“Let’s face it,” Gottlieb said, “anti-gunners are determined to cling to their dogma of public disarmament rather than admit that their resistance to common sense concealed carry reform amounts to nothing more than stubborn denial. These people simply do not want to enter the 21st Century. They refuse to accept the Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects and affirms an individual right to not only keep arms, but to bear them as the Founders understood.

“However,” he added, “this decision opens the gate farther to an inevitable high court confrontation because there are now conflicting opinions on concealed carry from the different circuit courts. Common sense says that the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause will not allow that conflict to continue.”


Donate Now and Win Back Firearms Freedom One Lawsuit at a Time


The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control pyright © 2017 Second Amendment Foundation, All rights reserved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

And SCOTUS can't address the circuit split without a case that challenges it, right?  So we're still F'd for 5-10 years

Its always a long game, the other side always plays and we should too. It does however make it a lot more likely that SCOTUS will have to take the next case that comes to them. That doesn't guarantee a win btw.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Oakridgefirearms said:

"We" need to keep challenging NJ's carry laws, eventually NJ will lose. If that happens at the appellate level we win even if the case doen't make it to SCOTUS.

Easy to say. Harder to do. Are you going to sacrifice yourself and family to be the test case?   Look a SAPPA. Hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of time.  Meanwhile you're a felon and career could be in jeopardy. 

The law is owned by the rich. 

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.



  • NJGunForums Web Banner Ad october 2020[40397].jpg

  • V1-Odin-mini-Rifle-300x2501.jpg

    Use Promo Code "NJGF10" for 10% Off Regular Items

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Similar Content

    • By ChrisJM981
      Watch for progress on the Rogers & ANJRPC CCW case vs NJ AG, et al. 
      This was listed in another thread, but I thought it will need it's own space to avoid hijacking Rosey's CNJFO thread. 
       
      https://certpool.com/dockets/18-824?fbclid=IwAR2GBSTRnMnR15m914PMdkd7IYl3vrwjPPAXmw-Mt2Pgz1todMU5Gcc17cY
       
      What are your thoughts? I think we're going to Washington!
    • By stuckinNJ
      https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171201/us-house-of-representatives-to-vote-on-hr-38-the-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-next-week
       
      please take 60 seconds to call your reps, BOTH Republicans and Dems, urging their support. It seriously takes seconds. 
      No excuses
    • By CJ Broz
      Can anyone help me find the stats on how many people in NJ apply for CCLs, and how many of those applications get rejected?  
      I'm having an online argument on a military forum (I'm a retired Marine).  Some guy thinks concealed-carry-restrictive states such as New Jersey and California are not violating the 2nd Amendment since they have a process for getting a permit, my response is it is a de facto ban if the vast majority of permit applicants are denied, but it's hard to make that argument without stats to back it up. 
       
    • By GAPP
      GAPP has another CCW class coming up. This one will be held at Shooters Sporting Center in Little Egg Harbor Township.... so all of you South Jersey shooters interested in CCW should consider coming to the class. Florida and Utah are the most sought after permits in the nation because they are among the most widely recognized. We provide all services necessary to get a concealed carry permit in both UT and FL including the applications, envelopes, passport photos, finger prints, notary seal, and UT CFP instructor seal... pretty much one stop shopping to get your CCW in multiple states. We also help you fill in the application so it wont be returned for being completed improperly. For a full course description, registration information, and other class dates, go to www.gappnj.com.
    • By oldguysrule649
      Just learned that I will be going to Dallas-Fort Worth area of Texas next week for 10 days for work.  I plan to get my Texas License to Carry while there (formerly known as a CHL).
      I have today submitted my non-resident application online at the Texas Dept of Safety website and am in the process of scheduling an appointment with Identogo/MorphoTrust(in Texas).
       
      My question is has anyone here done this in the DFW area and have any recommendations for a training facility.  I did find several thru a Google search but wanted to check here for any recommendations.
      Once I complete this process I will post a full write-up.
       
      Thanks
       
       
       
       
  • Posts

×
×
  • Create New...