Jump to content
StephenS1973

Are there any probable short/long term implications of Kavanaugh’s confirmation

Recommended Posts

Just an opinion, I think it is unlikely, unfortunately, that the Supreme's will get involved with the 10R limit...I do think there is a very good chance as it is an even bigger violation of 2A that they will take the Shall-Issue Carry suite. Their decision to take it or not, but I can't see how they can flat-out ignore it, and we should win now with +Justice K., albeit several-years away before any decision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2018 at 10:14 PM, capt14k said:

Cert is granted most often when there is opposing decisions from Appeals Courts. Meet have this in regards to 2A. Also granted when it is a crucial Constitutional issue. We have that with 2A. Cert was not granted because there was the fear of the Liberal Wing writing the majority opinion. It only takes 4 to grant cert. I think Thomas, Alito, and now Gorsuch are fed up with all the denials of Cert. If Cert is not granted for 2A cases going forward it is because Kavanaugh didn't vote for it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I was going to say this, but you said it better than I could have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 6:44 AM, BobA said:

THIS APPOINTMENT MAKES MIDTERM VOTER TURNOUT MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER!

 

The other side will be lined up around the block and we need to be there in force to strengthen the republican side. 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

what he said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, JohnnyB said:

Oh ye of little faith! The tide is changing......The Democrat's rage proves it!

Been literally hearing people say exactly what you are for ten years.

And what's changed? Oh yeah, the magazines got smaller, private sales are mostly over, and next year we probably won't be able to mail order ammo anymore.

So yeah, there's a tide coming all right. Just not the one you think.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2018 at 1:57 PM, mossburger said:

Been literally hearing people say exactly what you are for ten years.

And what's changed? Oh yeah, the magazines got smaller, private sales are mostly over, and next year we probably won't be able to mail order ammo anymore.

So yeah, there's a tide coming all right. Just not the one you think.

An event of national proportion takes place and you're stuck on NJ's stupid laws that could be crushed by the first in a long time 2a  SCOTUS majority.

NJ's laws won't change unless forced, and they won't stop passing them until they start getting knocked down. Nothing suggests the new SCOTUS would continue to reject cases with the power to actually do something now. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

An event of national proportion takes place and you're stuck on NJ's stupid laws that could be crushed by the first in a long time 2a  SCOTUS majority.

NJ's laws won't change unless forced, and they won't stop passing them until they start getting knocked down. Nothing suggests the new SCOTUS would continue to reject cases with the power to actually do something now. 

 

And even then nothing will change.  

Been almost 9 years now and we still legally need to pay for the priviledge and ask permission to exercise a constituionally protected right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, PeteF said:

And even then nothing will change.  

Been almost 9 years now and we still legally need to pay for the priviledge and ask permission to exercise a constituionally protected right.

"Been almost 9 years" 

You guys keep referencing the past, and a SCOTUS that never had the majority need for change. Why do you think the current SCOTUS would deny these cases? 

They took up Heller in those 9 years, what makes you think they won't proceed with the majority vote now?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

"Been almost 9 years" 

You guys keep referencing the past, and a SCOTUS that never had the majority need for change. Why do you think the current SCOTUS would deny these cases? 

They took up Heller in those 9 years, what makes you think they won't proceed with the majority vote now?

You missed my point.   MacDonald affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right and was incorporated against the states.   That means states MUST adhere to this.  But yet we still have to ask permission, get permits, pay not insignificant fees to exercise that right.

NJ refuses to follow the law.  So what makes you think a new SCOTUS decision will have any affect?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You missed my point.   MacDonald affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right and was incorporated against the states.   That means states MUST adhere to this.  But yet we still have to ask permission, get permits, pay not insignificant fees to exercise that right.
NJ refuses to follow the law.  So what makes you think a new SCOTUS decision will have any affect?


There isn't a state in direct Violation of MacDonald. MacDonald decision really only applied Heller to the States. MacDonald didn't address carry outside the home only ownership and unjust registration inside the home. One could argue NYC and Chicago are still inviolation of MacDonald because of their high fees and requirements.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But even those opinions followed a nearly razor thin margin. 

The permit process doesn't necessarily deny someone of firearm ownership, there has been yet anyone to challenge that. The argument is obviously to prevent prohibited person from ownership.. the fees need to be challenged again, and maybe go the SCOTUS this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, capt14k said:

 


There isn't a state in direct Violation of MacDonald. MacDonald decision really only applied Heller to the States. MacDonald didn't address carry outside the home only ownership and unjust registration inside the home. One could argue NYC and Chicago are still inviolation of MacDonald because of their high fees and requirements.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

So NJ's "all firearm possesion is illegal except.... "  is a direct contradiction to Scotus's  the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right.  

Unless you think that NJ has the authority to outlaw a right.

Free Ids to vote is burdensome but >$100 to jump through the fingerprinting, background checks, FPID and permit fees, is okay.  Lets not forget that NICS is free, but NJs check cost money.

Since NJ doesn't have the power to overide US constution, and NJ's entire gun law is based on the "illegal except" premise.  NJ's entire law as written is unconstitional.  

But yet it stll stands.  Why?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PeteF said:

So NJ's "all firearm possesion is illegal except.... "  is a direct contradiction to Scotus's  the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right.  

Unless you think that NJ has the authority to outlaw a right.

Free Ids to vote is burdensome but >$100 to jump through the fingerprinting, background checks, FPID and permit fees, is okay.  Lets not forget that NICS is free, but NJs check cost money.

Since NJ doesn't have the power to overide US constution, and NJ's entire gun law is based on the "illegal except" premise.  NJ's entire law as written is unconstitional.  

But yet it stll stands.  Why?

Why?  Because up to now applicants have been suing for relief in the form of a PERMIT, and not a change in the scheme itself.  Cheese-Jillard changes all of that by going after a house of cards in the wording itself both in the statutes and the common (unconstitutional) practices currently employed that were never voted on by the Legislature.  "Justifiable Need" to exercise a right, and you can only do it after proving an imminent threat of great physical harm.  Like using a crystal ball AFTER already being attacked.  Or in Mueller's case, kidnapped TWICE by the same outlaw motorcycle gang & still being denied!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So NJ's "all firearm possesion is illegal except.... "  is a direct contradiction to Scotus's  the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right.  
Unless you think that NJ has the authority to outlaw a right.
Free Ids to vote is burdensome but >$100 to jump through the fingerprinting, background checks, FPID and permit fees, is okay.  Lets not forget that NICS is free, but NJs check cost money.
Since NJ doesn't have the power to overide US constution, and NJ's entire gun law is based on the "illegal except" premise.  NJ's entire law as written is unconstitional.  
But yet it stll stands.  Why?


I was only stating what MacDonald decided. Sadly there needs to be another SCOTUS decision that states shall not be infringed is pretty damn clear and anything that obstructs, delays, financially affects, etc is an infringement. This should include all background checks including NICS.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, capt14k said:

 


I was only stating what MacDonald decided. Sadly there needs to be another SCOTUS decision that states shall not be infringed is pretty damn clear and anything that obstructs, delays, financially affects, etc is an infringement. This should include all background checks including NICS.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Macdonald was enough to invalidate NJs gun laws because it invalidates the premise that "possesion of a firearm is illegal except". 

Unfortuneately, it left the overall question of Carry open.  I agree that another SCOTUS  decision that "and bear" means carry is legal everywhere except where prohibited with cause.  Ie carrying in a prision is prohibited.

As to background check,  i don't have a problem with free,instant, does this person have a criminal or mental record, check

Thats it, no need to know if buying one or 1000.  And by instant, i mean just that.  Fbi gets 1 minute to prove prohibited, otherwise assumed Not Prohibited.  

The whole innocent till proven guity concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Macdonald was enough to invalidate NJs gun laws because it invalidates the premise that "possesion of a firearm is illegal except". 

Unfortuneately, it left the overall question of Carry open.  I agree that another SCOTUS  decision that "and bear" means carry is legal everywhere except where prohibited with cause.  Ie carrying in a prision is prohibited.

As to background check,  i don't have a problem with free,instant, does this person have a criminal or mental record, check

Thats it, no need to know if buying one or 1000.  And by instant, i mean just that.  Fbi gets 1 minute to prove prohibited, otherwise assumed Not Prohibited.  

The whole innocent till proven guity concept.

We got along just fine for many years without background checks. Unless someone has had their rights removed through due process by a court of law in which they were able to defend themselves with the assistance of counsel they should not be prohibited. Make the instant background check for only those people and as you said instant then I am fine with it. NJ exceptions do unfortunately fall within the ruling of MacDonald because it is not an outright ban. There is a path to ownership. What we need is a new ruling.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, capt14k said:

We got along just fine for many years without background checks. Unless someone has had their rights removed through due process by a court of law in which they were able to defend themselves with the assistance of counsel they should not be prohibited. Make the instant background check for only those people and as you said instant then I am fine with it. NJ exceptions do unfortunately fall within the ruling of MacDonald because it is not an outright ban. There is a path to ownership. What we need is a new ruling.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

I agree, unless proven incapable of exercising your rights properly, you need to be assumed Not prohibited.  The problem is, how do you know if a person is prohibited, without the check?  Do we go with the assumption of if your on the streets, all is well? I'm not sure of how I feel on the "served your time, all is forgiven" for convicts, and there are many funtioning people with mental issues that should not have a firearm. (again this needs to proven before being held against someone).

As to Njs law.  100% illegal.  All firearms possesion is illegal.   That is an outright ban of a right,  PERIOD.   

Obviously you need to pay the state fees and go thru checks before you can exercise your right to free speech or to practice a religion.   

How many times has a Poll tax been declared unconstutional?  Paying for and needing permisison for something makes it a priviledge not a right.

Lets not forget showing a free state issued Id to vote has been ruled  a burden on the right to vote.  Even though constutionally you need to be citizen and 18 to vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, unless proven incapable of exercising your rights properly, you need to be assumed Not prohibited.  The problem is, how do you know if a person is prohibited, without the check?  Do we go with the assumption of if your on the streets, all is well? I'm not sure of how I feel on the "served your time, all is forgiven" for convicts, and there are many funtioning people with mental issues that should not have a firearm. (again this needs to proven before being held against someone).
As to Njs law.  100% illegal.  All firearms possesion is illegal.   That is an outright ban of a right,  PERIOD.   
Obviously you need to pay the state fees and go thru checks before you can exercise your right to free speech or to practice a religion.   
How many times has a Poll tax been declared unconstutional?  Paying for and needing permisison for something makes it a priviledge not a right.
Lets not forget showing a free state issued Id to vote has been ruled  a burden on the right to vote.  Even though constutionally you need to be citizen and 18 to vote.


I agree 100% except I do feel if released from prison you should have your rights reinstated because you are supposed to be rehabilitated. If not rehabilitated then they shouldn't be released from prison. I also agree NJ laws are Unconstitutional the problem is MacDonald nor Heller properly handled the Second Amendment as it should have been. Decision should have been simple and it would have invalidated NFA, GCA, Hughes Amendment and every state law that restricts or infringes on the right to keep or own and bear or carry arms which include not only firearms but edge weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, etc.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2018 at 9:13 PM, myhatinthering said:

we need to get as many gun cases to the sc as possible now!

I think they'll come in time   Let the wheels of justice grind slow and fine.  

What we need to be working towards is the allergic reaction that every SJW, liberal and most union members have with anything Trump or similar.  And it’s not really Trump even (though they use him as their battle cry), it’s Congress. It’s the obstruction that they’re trying to create in droves everywhere.  Kavanaugh was just a good example of that.  Was he really that bad of a guy?  No worse than, say, Corey Booker  But the allergic reaction to Trump causes a giant mess and battle.

The focus shouldn’t be on SCOTUS rulings.   It should be on (1) getting back a balance of power in Trenton, (2) getting a balance of representation for NJ in dc, and (3) exposing any and all who are affecting our liberties for their every wrong, the same dirty way the left does.

 

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...