Firearm found in Penske Rental tonight

[GRIZ 3,369]

2 hours ago, capt14k said:

 

This is true that the court must rule to make it official, but if a law is never argued Unconstitutional, the court will never rule it to be Unconstitutional.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

All of which has no bearing on the OP.

[capt14k 2,052]

All of which has no bearing on the OP.

Actually the entire sidebar had no bearing on OP other than NJ Law is Unconstitutional.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GRIZ 3,369]

1 hour ago, capt14k said:

 

Actually the entire sidebar had no bearing on OP other than NJ Law is Unconstitutional.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

We've been around this block before.  Calling something unconstitutional is meaningless without a court making it "official".

[capt14k 2,052]

We've been around this block before.  Calling something unconstitutional is meaningless without a court making it "official".

Ok the 7th Circuit ruled a similar law in Illinois was Unconstitutional

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[GRIZ 3,369]

9 minutes ago, capt14k said:

Ok the 7th Circuit ruled a similar law in Illinois was Unconstitutional

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

Doesn't apply in this case.

[capt14k 2,052]

Doesn't apply in this case.

It does if NJ was in the 7th Circuit. Regardless how NJ law is written it is practiced in such a way that everyone is denied a CCW unless former LEO or elite. Making it all the more Unconstitutional.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Handyman 5,682]

On 6/11/2018 at 11:14 AM, ChrisJM981 said:

Personally I would call the customer to make him aware that some illegal property was left in the glove box, it was turned over to the police, he should expect a call or visit from the police, and that he should contact an attorney before answering any questions.

I'd still call him, tell him to haul ass back to Texas, and hope they won't extradite him back to this commie state.

[70gto 142]

On 6/5/2018 at 10:45 PM, Regular Guy said:

If I had access to his info, I would have done the guy a solid and called him directly to come back to get his piece and let him know its not kosher to conceal carry or transport a firearm in that manner in the PRNJ.       

this

[GRIZ 3,369]

13 hours ago, capt14k said:

It does if NJ was in the 7th Circuit. Regardless how NJ law is written it is practiced in such a way that everyone is denied a CCW unless former LEO or elite. Making it all the more Unconstitutional.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

7th Circuit ruling would have no application in this case. IF it happened in there. Carrying a loaded gun in a car without a permit is illegal everywhere in the 7th Circuit.

[capt14k 2,052]

7th Circuit ruling would have no application in this case. IF it happened in there. Carrying a loaded gun in a car without a permit is illegal everywhere in the 7th Circuit.

That is the part you are missing. Assuming the guy isn't former LEO or an elite he doesn't have a permit because it is not possible in NJ and that was the ruling in the 7th Circuit Illinois was no issue and that is unconstitutional. NJ being may issue for a select only is even more Unconstitutional.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[GRIZ 3,369]

40 minutes ago, capt14k said:

That is the part you are missing. Assuming the guy isn't former LEO or an elite he doesn't have a permit because it is not possible in NJ and that was the ruling in the 7th Circuit Illinois was no issue and that is unconstitutional. NJ being may issue for a select only is even more Unconstitutional.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

Not missing anything.  You are trying to apply law where it is not applicable.  Get a similar 3rd Circuit ruling and that would apply.

I would think you know this.  Why do you keep arguing a point that has no bearing on the issue here?

If you were arguing this to the most conservative judge ever he or she would tell you the same.

[PeteF 1,044]

18 hours ago, GRIZ said:

Doesn't apply in this case.

How about the "the right to own a firearm is a personal right"  applies across all US states and territories, but yet we still have to ask permission to exercise that right.  

Nj does not follow the law PERIOD.

[capt14k 2,052]

Not missing anything.  You are trying to apply law where it is not applicable.  Get a similar 3rd Circuit ruling and that would apply.
I would think you know this.  Why do you keep arguing a point that has no bearing on the issue here?
If you were arguing this to the most conservative judge ever he or she would tell you the same.

Because IMO you are wrong to say NJ law is not Unconstitutional. There is a circuit spilt currently, and NJ has always backed down and given plaintiffs their CCW to end standing and thus end the case so NJ Law isn't ruled on. If NJ Law was Constitutional there would be no case to argue. When Kennedy retires and SCOTUS finally takes 2A case NJ Law will be overturned and ruled Unconstitutional.

No a 7th Circuit Ruling does not apply in a 3rd Circuit State, however lawyers from NJ will have circuit split info in their brief to SCOTUS.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GRIZ 3,369]

27 minutes ago, PeteF said:

How about the "the right to own a firearm is a personal right"  applies across all US states and territories, but yet we still have to ask permission to exercise that right.  

Nj does not follow the law PERIOD.

You have the right to own a firearm in every state.  States regulate how you can carry that firearm.  Are NJ gun laws stupid?  Sure they are.  But until they are deemed so by a higher authority everyone in NJ is screwed.

[GRIZ 3,369]

1 hour ago, capt14k said:

 

Because IMO you are wrong to say NJ law is not Unconstitutional. There is a circuit spilt currently, and NJ has always backed down and given plaintiffs their CCW to end standing and thus end the case so NJ Law isn't ruled on. If NJ Law was Constitutional there would be no case to argue. When Kennedy retires and SCOTUS finally takes 2A case NJ Law will be overturned and ruled Unconstitutional.

No a 7th Circuit Ruling does not apply in a 3rd Circuit State, however lawyers from NJ will have circuit split info in their brief to SCOTUS.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

You are entitled to your opinion and I mine.  However my opinion in this matter is based on fact.  I can think most gun laws are unconstitutional or wrong as I have already stated.  The fact is those laws have not been properly challenged.   The fact is my opinion, yours, or anyone else's can't be used as a defense until those laws are, to use your word, "officially" deemed unconstitutional.  That's a fact not just an opinion.

I had to deal with law on a daily basis for over 30 years.  I couldn't base my actions on how I felt about something.  I had to deal with what is the law not what my opinion was.  I had to deal with what was the law whether it gave me liberties or constrained me.  I did so sucessfully.

The problem with the NJ CCW cases is they were based on "I" or "this small group".  NJ CCW cases to date have been rather limited in scope to have much effect.  Makes it easy for the state to just issue the permits and end the case.  

A better strategy is get say 5,000 NJ gun owners to sign on to a case.  That's one the state wouldn't be able to back out of.

I have no doubt when there is a rock solid conservative majority on SCOTUS there will be many gun laws ruled unconstitutional.  All gun laws? Never.

An attorney from either side that doesn't include a circuit split in their brief should be disbarred for failing to represent their client. 

We are all entitled to opinions on laws.  None of them are "officially" unconstitutional until a court says so.  That's in the COTUS.  You have to buy the whole document not just the parts you want.

 

[Zeke 5,504]

Unfortunately guys.. @GRIZ Is well informed in circuit splits. And I know he agrees it sucks. But his 3 feet are firmly planted in the reality of where he currently resides. 

 

American citizens rights should be protected by the constitution. States rights be dammed!

[PeteF 1,044]

1 hour ago, GRIZ said:

You have the right to own a firearm in every state.  States regulate how you can carry that firearm.  Are NJ gun laws stupid?  Sure they are.  But until they are deemed so by a higher authority everyone in NJ is screwed.

Well i guess my definition of a right is different than yours.  When you have to ask permission to exercise a right, or can be denied on a whim,  it is not a right, it is a priviledge.  NJ has no problem turning an SCOTUS CONFIRMED RIGHT into a priviledge.  Ie ignore law when "inconvienient".   Also applies to immigration, and drug use.  

[Zeke 5,504]

2 minutes ago, PeteF said:

Well i guess my definition of a right is different than yours.  When you have to ask permission to exercise a right, or can be denied on a whim,  it is not a right, it is a priviledge.  NJ has no problem turning an SCOTUS CONFIRMED RIGHT into a priviledge.  Ie ignore law when "inconvienient".   Also applies to immigration, and drug use.  

Ain’t @GRIZ holding ya down bud. It’s the non voters, the legislature, and the governor.

basicly.... it’s da man

[capt14k 2,052]

You are entitled to your opinion and I mine.  However my opinion in this matter is based on fact.  I can think most gun laws are unconstitutional or wrong as I have already stated.  The fact is those laws have not been properly challenged.   The fact is my opinion, yours, or anyone else's can't be used as a defense until those laws are, to use your word, "officially" deemed unconstitutional.  That's a fact not just an opinion.
I had to deal with law on a daily basis for over 30 years.  I couldn't base my actions on how I felt about something.  I had to deal with what is the law not what my opinion was.  I had to deal with what was the law whether it gave me liberties or constrained me.  I did so sucessfully.
The problem with the NJ CCW cases is they were based on "I" or "this small group".  NJ CCW cases to date have been rather limited in scope to have much effect.  Makes it easy for the state to just issue the permits and end the case.  
A better strategy is get say 5,000 NJ gun owners to sign on to a case.  That's one the state wouldn't be able to back out of.
I have no doubt when there is a rock solid conservative majority on SCOTUS there will be many gun laws ruled unconstitutional.  All gun laws? Never.
An attorney from either side that doesn't include a circuit split in their brief should be disbarred for failing to represent their client. 
We are all entitled to opinions on laws.  None of them are "officially" unconstitutional until a court says so.  That's in the COTUS.  You have to buy the whole document not just the parts you want.
 

So now you agree NJ law is Unconstitutional.

It being Unconstitutional alone will not get you out of the charges.

However the Unconstitutionality of it is what the basis is for the defense that would have to be decided by the courts.

Since we have a Split Circuit SCOTUS will have to take a case eventually.

I am glad I could change your opinion.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[GRIZ 3,369]

3 hours ago, capt14k said:

So now you agree NJ law is Unconstitutional.

It being Unconstitutional alone will not get you out of the charges.

However the Unconstitutionality of it is what the basis is for the defense that would have to be decided by the courts.

Since we have a Split Circuit SCOTUS will have to take a case eventually.

I am glad I could change your opinion.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

You didn't change my opinion.  You just stated what I have been all along.

I recognized long ago my opinion on whether a law is constitutional or not is meaningless in court.  It's the judge's opinion that counts.

 

1 hour ago, PeteF said:

Well i guess my definition of a right is different than yours.  When you have to ask permission to exercise a right, or can be denied on a whim,  it is not a right, it is a priviledge.  NJ has no problem turning an SCOTUS CONFIRMED RIGHT into a priviledge.  Ie ignore law when "inconvienient".   Also applies to immigration, and drug use.  

How did you get that out of what I said?

Rights can be regulated. SCOTUS has upheld regulations on rights numerous times.

[PeteF 1,044]

4 hours ago, GRIZ said:

You didn't change my opinion.  You just stated what I have been all along.

I recognized long ago my opinion on whether a law is constitutional or not is meaningless in court.  It's the judge's opinion that counts.

 

How did you get that out of what I said?

Rights can be regulated. SCOTUS has upheld regulations on rights numerous times.

No they can't.    The result of the exercise of a right can be regulated.  Not the right itself.  Rights can be restricted on a case by case basis, AFTER due process.  That is it. Broad restriction on Constitutionally protected rights, is by definition unconstitutional.

So the judges opinion is what counts?  So the 5 SC judges that decide for MacDonald opinions just don't matter in NJ I guess?

[capt14k 2,052]

No they can't.    The result of the exercise of a right can be regulated.  Not the right itself.  Rights can be restricted on a case by case basis, AFTER due process.  That is it. Broad restriction on Constitutionally protected rights, is by definition unconstitutional.
So the judges opinion is what counts?  So the 5 SC judges that decide for MacDonald opinions just don't matter in NJ I guess?

I concur


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GRIZ 3,369]

1 hour ago, PeteF said:

No they can't.    The result of the exercise of a right can be regulated.  Not the right itself.  Rights can be restricted on a case by case basis, AFTER due process.  That is it. Broad restriction on Constitutionally protected rights, is by definition unconstitutional.

So the judges opinion is what counts?  So the 5 SC judges that decide for MacDonald opinions just don't matter in NJ I guess?

Read all of Heller and McDonald not just the parts you want to hear.  Be sure to read Scalia in Heller.

Don't act like I'm stupid.  Of course SCOTUS over rules any judge in NJ. However, until it gets to a higher court that judge's opinion in NJ is what counts.

You're displaying little knowledge of the court system.

 

48 minutes ago, capt14k said:

 

I concur


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Which is meaningless just as my opinion on a gun forum is.

[PeteF 1,044]

8 hours ago, GRIZ said:

Read all of Heller and McDonald not just the parts you want to hear.  Be sure to read Scalia in Heller.

Don't act like I'm stupid.  Of course SCOTUS over rules any judge in NJ. However, until it gets to a higher court that judge's opinion in NJ is what counts.

You're displaying little knowledge of the court system.

 

Which is meaningless just as my opinion on a gun forum is.

You mean the part where he says restriction in very SPECIFIC locations are fine?   So as to make the restricted locations the EXCEPTION, not the RULE.

Whereas NJ has the exact opposite.   All firearms are illegal EXCEPT.

Do you agree MacDonald held that owning a firearm is a personal right?

Do you agree that thus decision was incorporated against tbe states?

Do you acknowledge that NJ is subject to SCOTUS decisions?

So which part of NJs gun law that underlying premiss is to outlaw possession of a firearm EXCEPT.. ...  is Constitutional?

I've read the decision, maybe you should reread it.

The court system is a joke.  Some appointee makes a decision based on wether he got some the night before, and it is "settled law".  Or just plain ignores the law "must be complete in 30 days".  Yeah have to respect that.

 

[GRIZ 3,369]

12 minutes ago, PeteF said:

 

The court system is a joke.

 

If that's your opinion of the court system it's pointless to discuss decisions with you.  Based on your statement all court decisions, even those you agree with, are a joke.