SCOTUS agrees to hear 2A case from NYC

[Tunaman 548]

1 hour ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Well, one writer over at Slate (a reliably left-wing online site) seems awfully concerned about this case. I'd say that's very promising, lol.

Here's his take on this case - which can be pretty much summed up as "the sky is falling": https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/supreme-court-new-york-gun-case-heller.html

The comments section is a great read into the liberal mindset.  Some of these people have it all backwards. Good reading.  Thanks for sharing.

[nondisclosure 55]

Seems like the laws have to be tackled one by one. Where can we donate?

[diamondd817 826]

This is the gun control case they decide to take? Unbelievable. This will only benefit NYC guys owners. Let me know when they take up something all gun owners will benefit from. Like:

1. Magazine capacity limits

2. Assault Weapons

3. May issue ccw

[Ray Ray 3,566]

9 hours ago, Tunaman said:

The comments section is a great read into the liberal mindset.  Some of these people have it all backwards.

Doom and gloom

[ChrisJM981 924]

5 hours ago, diamondd817 said:

This is the gun control case they decide to take? Unbelievable. This will only benefit NYC guys owners. Let me know when they take up something all gun owners will benefit from. Like:

1. Magazine capacity limits

2. Assault Weapons

3. May issue ccw

If SCOTUS decides that the second amendment applies outside the home I wonder if number 3 on your list would be addressed? I'd like to see the first two on your list go as well. 

[Sniper 6,372]

5 hours ago, diamondd817 said:

This is the gun control case they decide to take? Unbelievable. This will only benefit NYC guys owners. Let me know when they take up something all gun owners will benefit from. Like:

1. Magazine capacity limits

2. Assault Weapons

3. May issue ccw

I agree. I think if they argue it, they will keep it very focused just on the travel restrictions in NY. I really doubt they will dig deeper into 2A issues with this case. That's a can of worms they won't open.

[DirtyDigz 1,810]

Or could be that SCOTUS uses this case to establish that strict scrutiny must be used on laws affecting 2A rights and that precedent causes every...single...case...previously decided on intermediate scrutiny or a lower basis to have to be re-decisioned on a  strict scrutiny basis.

[supranatural 66]

6 hours ago, diamondd817 said:

This is the gun control case they decide to take? Unbelievable. This will only benefit NYC guys owners. Let me know when they take up something all gun owners will benefit from. Like:

1. Magazine capacity limits

2. Assault Weapons

3. May issue ccw

Go read up on strict scrutiny.  SCOTUS took up this particular case rather than a right to carry like that case in California.  There's a specific reason and it has to do with setting an overarching precedence for how *ALL* cases heard by lower courts are handled.  If it goes to the way of strict scrutiny it leaves the door wide open for appeals to overturn a lot of onerous burdens/infringements on the Second Amendment.  It will benefit an entire nation of 2A supporters.

[DirtyDigz 1,810]

From elsewhere:

 

 

I had a long chat with Todd Vandermyde who was formerly the NRA lobbyist for Illinois. His feeling is that this case is a lot more important than it would seem on the face of it. While the question before the Court deals with the New York City ban on transporting firearms out of the city, his feeling is that it will be used by the Court - provided we win - to set the standard for review of future Second Amendment cases. Given the way lower courts have been fudging scrutiny, this would be a great win if he is correct.

[raz-0 1,259]

22 hours ago, Fred2 said:

Just confirming that Infringed means Infringed, would settle most of the cases out there.

You won't get an absolute like that. The broadest impact we could hope form this is that they establish a well defined legal test that lower courts can't squirm out of. 

 

[Heronimo42 9]

curious- what do you guys think happens if the SC agrees with NYC?

[Lakota 342]

18 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

My admittedly uninformed opinion is that if amicus briefs weren't helpful - people wouldn't do them. I can only assume that's correct unless someone informs me differently. That said, I hope they get a brief from CNJFO and also from ANJRPC, the NRA, GOA, SAF and a few other groups as well.  I know the Well-Armed Woman has some NY Chapters - I'm not sure if they've gotten involved on the legal end of things - but the founder is now an NRA board member. She should pony up an amicus brief also IMO.

So, perhaps you should have your lawyer give you an estimate of what the brief would cost... and do a fundraising campaign (as you did with the matching funds for Cheeseman)…? I'm sure people will kick in. Having multiple legal angles all supporting any SCOTUS 2A case - much less the first one they've taken in years - AND coming from a particularly "anti-2A" state like NY - seems like a good investment of capital IMO.

yea what she said .. run another fundraiser for this and I will surely chip in

[raz-0 1,259]

41 minutes ago, Heronimo42 said:

curious- what do you guys think happens if the SC agrees with NYC?

That would be very bad. However, I see it as unlikely as if they were fine with the lower court's decision, they would have simply let it stand. 

 

[Zeke 5,504]

15 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

That would be very bad. However, I see it as unlikely as if they were fine with the lower court's decision, they would have simply let it stand. 

 

Agree.

[myhatinthering 462]

I'll admit, not fully adept at the legal side of things but from what I've read, this could be great for us!

[WP22 1,558]

19 hours ago, Smokin .50 said:

Is there any financial support available here on this forum to help CNJFO become part of an amicus brief on this NY case?

Yes, we've already been approached!  So everybody get back to me please & thanks!

Rosey

I'll trow some money towards the effort.

[Zeke 5,504]

I hope Thomas writes the majority opinion!

[Smokin .50 1,907]

On 1/22/2019 at 7:15 PM, Mrs. Peel said:

My admittedly uninformed opinion is that if amicus briefs weren't helpful - people wouldn't do them. I can only assume that's correct unless someone informs me differently. That said, I hope they get a brief from CNJFO and also from ANJRPC, the NRA, GOA, SAF and a few other groups as well.  I know the Well-Armed Woman has some NY Chapters - I'm not sure if they've gotten involved on the legal end of things - but the founder is now an NRA board member. She should pony up an amicus brief also IMO.

So, perhaps you should have your lawyer give you an estimate of what the brief would cost... and do a fundraising campaign (as you did with the matching funds for Cheeseman)…? I'm sure people will kick in. Having multiple legal angles all supporting any SCOTUS 2A case - much less the first one they've taken in years - AND coming from a particularly "anti-2A" state like NY - seems like a good investment of capital IMO.

Peel & ALL:

We've gotten an estimate of at least $2,500 to be a part of this amicus brief as a named entity.  Several other entities are also being approached.  Our lawyer is the same firm representing the Cheeseman-Jillard case here in NJ.  He's written amicus briefs to SCOTUS before and is very good at doing them.  In fact we're already employing his firm to write us an amicus brief for the Rogers case which is due in a week.  Rogers is ANJRPC's carry case.

Our Treasurer, Jack Pyle, is currently writing a proposal to our CNJFO Board of Trustees (of which he's a member) encouraging the corporation to undertake the responsibility & expense, and in so doing (once approved) will bind us under contract for the approximated amount (based upon total number of entities joint-filing & splitting the huge fees).

Once the rubber stamp happens at a meeting a week from NOW (after-all, WHO serving on an all-volunteer Board of Trustees wouldn't want to literally be a PART OF HISTORY?), I'll be back here with info (most likely a direct link w/ a "drop-down") on how to DONATE to help offset this huge undertaking.

CNJFO has thus far expended $16,500 for the two Matching Funds Campaigns:  ANJRPC's Rogers case in August--$5,500 PLUS $11,000 to Cheeseman-Jillard this last Thursday at the NJ Constitutional Republicans meeting where Theresa, Mark, jay & I all spoke (video will be released shortly after an edit).  Obviously we couldn't have done this without the support of our members, friends, sponsors, committee members & executives PLUS all of you here on the Forum that saw fit to trust us with your hard-earned money.  So please accept my personal thanks as well as the thanks of every NJ gun owner on who's behalf we fight.

As soon as we have our hot link, I'll post it.  And just in-case you've forgotten, all donations made thru CNJFO to fight these unconstitutional laws are TAX-DEDUCTIBLE both state AND federal because we hold a 501(c)3 status  

Rosey

@Lakota   @WP22  Thanks to you both for your generous offer!

[BobA 1,235]

I'll be making my usual monthly to CNJFO and  ANJRPC.  But do you guys do Go Fund ME?  Apparently those things rake in the dough. 

[Smokin .50 1,907]

1 minute ago, BobA said:

I'll be making my usual monthly to CNJFO and  ANJRPC.  But do you guys do Go Fund ME?  Apparently those things rake in the dough. 

We don't have a GoFundMe as of yet.  I'll ask Jack about it at next week's meeting.  There might be a "snag" of some sort, I'm not sure?

As always, we thank both of you for your continued support!

~R

[BobA 1,235]

8 minutes ago, Smokin .50 said:

We don't have a GoFundMe as of yet.  I'll ask Jack about it at next week's meeting.  There might be a "snag" of some sort, I'm not sure?

As always, we thank both of you for your continued support!

~R

Oh.  Maybe it's the non-profit thing.  

P.S.  I know Cheeseman has one.  Maybe he knows how to jump through the hoop.

[Smokin .50 1,907]

7 minutes ago, BobA said:

Oh.  Maybe it's the non-profit thing.  

P.S.  I know Cheeseman has one.  Maybe he knows how to jump through the hoop.

He's gonna get TAXED on his since it flows thru to his 1040 as personal income.  Something we didn't want to burden him with.  A GoFundMe for a person is like winning a car on a big game show on TV.  Sometimes ya gotta sell the car to pay the taxes on the prize  

[Ray Ray 3,566]

7 hours ago, Heronimo42 said:

curious- what do you guys think happens if the SC agrees with NYC?

Not gonna happen because they already ruled harder cases in our direction.

[BobA 1,235]

5 minutes ago, Smokin .50 said:

He's gonna get TAXED on his since it flows thru to his 1040 as personal income.  Something we didn't want to burden him with.  A GoFundMe for a person is like winning a car on a big game show on TV.  Sometimes ya gotta sell the car to pay the taxes on the prize  

Income, now that needs a not to be infringed clause. 

[ChrisJM981 924]

3 hours ago, Smokin .50 said:

Peel & ALL:

We've gotten an estimate of at least $2,500 to be a part of this amicus brief as a named entity.  Several other entities are also being approached.  Our lawyer is the same firm representing the Cheeseman-Jillard case here in NJ.  He's written amicus briefs to SCOTUS before and is very good at doing them.  In fact we're already employing his firm to write us an amicus brief for the Rogers case which is due in a week.  Rogers is ANJRPC's carry case.

Our Treasurer, Jack Pyle, is currently writing a proposal to our CNJFO Board of Trustees (of which he's a member) encouraging the corporation to undertake the responsibility & expense, and in so doing (once approved) will bind us under contract for the approximated amount (based upon total number of entities joint-filing & splitting the huge fees).

Once the rubber stamp happens at a meeting a week from NOW (after-all, WHO serving on an all-volunteer Board of Trustees wouldn't want to literally be a PART OF HISTORY?), I'll be back here with info (most likely a direct link w/ a "drop-down") on how to DONATE to help offset this huge undertaking.

CNJFO has thus far expended $16,500 for the two Matching Funds Campaigns:  ANJRPC's Rogers case in August--$5,500 PLUS $11,000 to Cheeseman-Jillard this last Thursday at the NJ Constitutional Republicans meeting where Theresa, Mark, jay & I all spoke (video will be released shortly after an edit).  Obviously we couldn't have done this without the support of our members, friends, sponsors, committee members & executives PLUS all of you here on the Forum that saw fit to trust us with your hard-earned money.  So please accept my personal thanks as well as the thanks of every NJ gun owner on who's behalf we fight.

As soon as we have our hot link, I'll post it.  And just in-case you've forgotten, all donations made thru CNJFO to fight these unconstitutional laws are TAX-DEDUCTIBLE both state AND federal because we hold a 501(c)3 status  

Rosey

@Lakota   @WP22  Thanks to you both for your generous offer!

Aside from potentially being a part of history, is there a benefit to NJ gun owners from filing an Amicus curiae brief? Could SCOTUS use any of our terrible gun laws as an example that would trigger a review? I will contribute either way, but I'm curious if there is a potential bonus. @Smokin .50

[JackDaWack 2,895]

On 1/22/2019 at 11:45 AM, Sniper said:

I just read the synopsis of the case. I don't think it will help us here, as we can transport to many different locations.

It's a ridiculous law in NYC, where it says you can ONLY transport handguns to one of the few city ranges, and no where else. That law says permit holders can't transport to any other range, a second house, to a competition, or any other legal location. It should be overturned by the SC

That depends ENTIRELY on how they phrase their opnions, if they rule in our favor. If they say that the government cannot restrict any transport of firearms other then to government property, that is a win. If they claim that there may not be restrictions in the manner a  firearm can be transported, that is also a win... Thats obviously a shot in the dark, and obviously a best case outcome. 

You've also established constitutional carry at that point, not that im holding my breath.

[Silence Dogood 468]

There WILL be dicta!  Kavanaugh, Thomas and Alito will make sure of it.

[raz-0 1,259]

If I were to bet on it I suspect the decision will look something like this. 

It's the right to keep and bear arms. This means that you have the right to own them and use them. They will likely refer to the case history around DC and the storing it disassembled rule. Point out that a ban on transporting to a location of manifestly lawful use such as any place of repair outside of NYC, any recreational range outside of NYC, or any place where one can legitimately hunt with the firearms outside of NYC is a defacto ban on the most restrictive meaning of bearing arms. At that point you will see a very clear statement that the NYC law is bullshit and null and void. 

Worst case that is all you get. 

Really good case is that you get a scathing diatribe calling the various lower courts disingenuous shitheels for pretending they don't understand previous rulings and undermining the protection of law and the entirety of the bill of rights with their behavior. Followed up by a very well defined legal test as part of the RULING to determine if an infringement is acceptable or forbidden that would be hard for a lot of laws to pass without being significantly altered or eliminated entirely. 

I think we will get something anywhere between those two points.

Absolute best case would require them to rule beyond the scope of the complaint. This would be out of the norm. However I guess it could be possible that as part of the legal test they put forth a test that essentially declares regulatory legal construction that operate from the notion that the protected right is inherently illegal to practice without specific approval of the government. This would basically kick the shit out of a lot of gun control laws.

I do not see good odds of this outcome. 

The question to ask yourself is how much do you feel the court is filled by people with a conviction and does that conviction jibe with protecting the second amendment. Or are they all partisan. Because if they praty loyal, the party wants the RKBA crowd held prisoner with no alternative as much as the democrats want to hold welfare recipients prisoner with no alternative. 

For the party politics, to make the GOP side of the house happy, they need to mint more gun owners, but keep them dependent on the GOP winning things.  

[DirtyDigz 1,810]

2 hours ago, raz-0 said:

Really good case is that you get a scathing diatribe calling the various lower courts disingenuous shitheels for pretending they don't understand previous rulings and undermining the protection of law and the entirety of the bill of rights with their behavior. Followed up by a very well defined legal test as part of the RULING to determine if an infringement is acceptable or forbidden that would be hard for a lot of laws to pass without being significantly altered or eliminated entirely. 

Beautiful!

[Zeke 5,504]

I don’t foresee constitutional carry, I do foresee constitutional transport.