JHZR2 56 Posted October 14, 2019 57 minutes ago, Bowling Ball said: Agreed, The sad part is, while we're fightingin upper courts for scrutiny to be applied to laws on the books already, Murphy will keep signing more laws in, just worded differently. It's a fight, make no mistake. That’s a good point/question. If they get slapped down, especially if one of the NJ cases ends up at the SC, will they reconsider? Or at least slow down? I suspect to appease the base that they surely consider to be “useful idiots”, they’ll just keep writing and signing in laws, knowing full well that they’ll get scrutinized and struck down. But so long as they sign them in at the right place and the right time to give the optic of doing something, I suspect they’ll keep doing it. Then the question becomes, what is the citizens’ recourse to “lawmakers” continually writing unconstitutional laws that they know will be struck down? I was thinking about them leaving the existing laws on the books to linger unless someone took in the cost to challenge. But they could keep making new unconstitutional laws just for the sake of doing it, I suppose(?). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
10X 3,296 Posted October 14, 2019 1 hour ago, Bowling Ball said: The sad part is, while we're fightingin upper courts for scrutiny to be applied to laws on the books already, Murphy will keep signing more laws in, just worded differently. He may be distracted by picking paint colors and new carpets for a week or so. It came out today that he’s spending $1MM of our money On a new office in Newark. Whats that, you say? Newark isn’t the capitol of NJ? And the governor already has a lavish office there, just a short hop away? Well, yeah, but Murphy defended the move by saying that Gov Cuomo has offices in Albany and NYC, as if that justifies anything 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sniper 6,372 Posted October 14, 2019 1 hour ago, Bowling Ball said: The sad part is, while we're fightingin upper courts for scrutiny to be applied to laws on the books already, Murphy will keep signing more laws in, just worded differently. 44 minutes ago, JHZR2 said: Then the question becomes, what is the citizens’ recourse to “lawmakers” continually writing unconstitutional laws that they know will be struck down? There won't be any recourse, Murphy will just continue, and the citizens will continue to take it up the rear with these new laws, just like they've been doing for decades... 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JHZR2 56 Posted October 14, 2019 1 hour ago, 10X said: He may be distracted by picking paint colors and new carpets for a week or so. It came out today that he’s spending $1MM of our money On a new office in Newark. Whats that, you say? Newark isn’t the capitol of NJ? And the governor already has a lavish office there, just a short hop away? Well, yeah, but Murphy defended the move by saying that Gov Cuomo has offices in Albany and NYC, as if that justifies anything No part of NJ is NYC, and Trenton isn’t Albany geographically. Impeachment is the thing to do these days. I find this Newark office an abuse! 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bowling Ball 22 Posted October 14, 2019 1 hour ago, JHZR2 said: That’s a good point/question. If they get slapped down, especially if one of the NJ cases ends up at the SC, will they reconsider? Or at least slow down? I suspect to appease the base that they surely consider to be “useful idiots”, they’ll just keep writing and signing in laws, knowing full well that they’ll get scrutinized and struck down. But so long as they sign them in at the right place and the right time to give the optic of doing something, I suspect they’ll keep doing it. Then the question becomes, what is the citizens’ recourse to “lawmakers” continually writing unconstitutional laws that they know will be struck down? I was thinking about them leaving the existing laws on the books to linger unless someone took in the cost to challenge. But they could keep making new unconstitutional laws just for the sake of doing it, I suppose(?). We all know the answer to that..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
noshow 10 Posted October 15, 2019 I hope I posted this in the rite place: https://shorenewsnetwork.com/2019/10/14/scotus-relists-nj-cheeseman-carry-case/ 1 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,777 Posted October 15, 2019 "They" will keep throwing shit against the wall until something sticks. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kc17 622 Posted October 15, 2019 2 hours ago, noshow said: I hope I posted this in the rite place: Thank you for posting that link. I admit I was amazed to see such an article on an NJ based news site. The author made some good points and examples on how the NY case can be beneficial for all 2A supporters. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobA 1,235 Posted October 15, 2019 1 hour ago, kc17 said: The author made some good points and examples on how the NY case can be beneficial for all 2A supporters. You bet it does. I'll bet Murphy goes to bed every night prating that NYC wins. He'd just love to whip a law like that here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted October 15, 2019 56 minutes ago, BobA said: You bet it does. I'll bet Murphy goes to bed every night prating that NYC wins. He'd just love to whip a law like that here. He is a drone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bowling Ball 22 Posted October 15, 2019 1 hour ago, BobA said: You bet it does. I'll bet Murphy goes to bed every night prating that NYC wins. He'd just love to whip a law like that here. They'll just write new laws worded differently every time there's a shooting. It becomes our problem to fight them in court. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted October 15, 2019 4 minutes ago, Bowling Ball said: They'll just write new laws worded differently every time there's a shooting. It becomes our problem to fight them in court. But they are us... on paper 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobA 1,235 Posted October 15, 2019 22 minutes ago, Bowling Ball said: They'll just write new laws worded differently every time there's a shooting. It becomes our problem to fight them in court. Which is why all this needs to be addressed under "Not to be infringed". Anything short of a back ground check is an infringement. And even at that, if they want me to get a back ground check then they should pay for the back ground check. Check? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bowling Ball 22 Posted October 15, 2019 2 hours ago, BobA said: Which is why all this needs to be addressed under "Not to be infringed". Anything short of a back ground check is an infringement. And even at that, if they want me to get a back ground check then they should pay for the back ground check. Check? The only check when purchasing a firearm is the clerk counting my money, other than that we're losing the whole point. It's only a matter of time before you, I, we, fail passing a 'background check' based on our thoughts or political views. They consider us dangerous to society already, the only thing stopping them is there's too many of us. Another generation of these most basic infringements and we're just another Ecuador or England. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
reloaderguy 30 Posted October 15, 2019 You will be long gone. Dead and buried before anything changes in NJ. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EngineerJet 191 Posted October 16, 2019 1 hour ago, reloaderguy said: You will be long gone. Dead and buried before anything changes in NJ. Im sure someone said the same thing about tasers being legal to own and carry in NJ. Every bit of change that goes in our favor, were made possible by people not giving up. If everyone is optimistic, we can be proven wrong or right. But if everyone is pessimistic, we can only be proven right. 5 3 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,259 Posted October 17, 2019 They can try and pass all the laws they like. If they keep losing, regardless of the presence of the law in the statute, it will likely be effectively mooted by the administrative code on how to interpret the law. NJ has a number of laws on the books that have been ruled against, yet not removed from the statutes. They are effectively mooted by the administrative code or the AG refusing to prosecute if they are losers due to court precedent. You will note how, by and large, most of the gun grabbing stupidity that goes anywhere avoids semi-automatic handguns. That's because they are specifically mentioned in Heller as protected and not unusually dangerous. I think that if strict scrutiny falls, you will see laws that put forth abusive background checks as well as painful exclusions to carry and probably registration schemes. It would not surprise me if we got strict scrutiny handed down and NJ gets smacked with regard to carry that we very rapidly see shall issue, but with a very high fee, abusive disqualifiers like if you have ever been fined or had a moving violation, and a gross litany of excluded places. They may also try things like mandating training for a carry permit. Just make it training from the state police, and offer it in one place a couple times a year, limit class sizes, and make sure it's just always full with guarda employees for the next 50 years. Because those are likely all things strict scrutiny won't prohibit completely, and thus will have to be argued as to what is a compelling interest and what is the narrowest means of achieving it. But if we get strict scrutiny, it will be hard for things like the AWB and mag capacity limits to stand. They effect large swaths of people and have had no demonstrable effect of achieving anything other than burdening law abiding citizens. IT can't be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest of the state if it doesn't do anything. The only thing it does that is a state interest is reduce the number of citizens exercising their right. And that doesn't fly in terms of a compelling state interest. That is if they choose to be a pain in the ass by the least hazardous means. If they outright ignore it, SCOTUS can find individuals in contempt. At that point it is a matter of who controls the executive branch and thus determines the nature of the AG. The AG can bring charges directly to SCOTUS if they desire. The AG can also bring it as a civil rights case, or a RICO case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobA 1,235 Posted October 17, 2019 1 hour ago, raz-0 said: I think that if strict scrutiny falls, you will see laws that put forth abusive background checks as well as painful exclusions to carry and probably registration schemes. It would not surprise me if we got strict scrutiny handed down and NJ gets smacked with regard to carry that we very rapidly see shall issue, but with a very high fee, abusive disqualifiers like if you have ever been fined or had a moving violation, and a gross litany of excluded places. They may also try things like mandating training for a carry permit. Just make it training from the state police, and offer it in one place a couple times a year, limit class sizes, and make sure it's just always full with guarda employees for the next 50 years. This will be more than likely this case. NJ is not going to lay down and roll over. But we, of course, still need the fight to go on. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spartiati 63 Posted October 17, 2019 That's what everyone thought about Chicago/IL and guess what they have reasonable shall carry now. If the court ends up giving us strict scrutiny it will be a huge win that will give circuit court little play in ruling on these idiotic laws. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted October 17, 2019 12 minutes ago, Spartiati said: That's what everyone thought about Chicago/IL and guess what they have reasonable shall carry now. If the court ends up giving us strict scrutiny it will be a huge win that will give circuit court little play in ruling on these idiotic laws. Look at dc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobA 1,235 Posted October 17, 2019 20 minutes ago, Spartiati said: That's what everyone thought about Chicago/IL and guess what they have reasonable shall carry now. If the court ends up giving us strict scrutiny it will be a huge win that will give circuit court little play in ruling on these idiotic laws. 7 minutes ago, Zeke said: Look at dc So it still comes down to "who knows?" but still fight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted October 17, 2019 Just now, BobA said: So it still comes down to "who knows?" but still fight. The fight will always always always be there Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobA 1,235 Posted October 17, 2019 43 minutes ago, Zeke said: The fight will always always always be there I hope so. But I see attitudes that make me wonder. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
siderman 1,137 Posted October 17, 2019 When NJ is forced to comply we know they will fight, delay andmake it as difficult and costly as possible but would still be worth seeing the state and legislators get bitch slapped. Not to mention the propaganda they will spew warning the dear citizens of the coming apocalypse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted October 17, 2019 1 hour ago, BobA said: I hope so. But I see attitudes that make me wonder. Be a man! Ffs Makes me wonder! I should slap you! But next round on me Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobA 1,235 Posted October 17, 2019 Calm down. Put the file away. I contribute 25.00/month to four gun orgs. Two are our own NJ ones. I’m in the fight. Pooh-Pooh heads that won’t contribute or move out and say “fuck you I'm out” or the ones that are just “we’ll never make it” like a bunch of boot licking FUDDs concern me. But please. ...please don’t hit me (or pull any files on me). 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted October 17, 2019 13 minutes ago, BobA said: Calm down. Put the file away. I contribute 25.00/month to four gun orgs. Two are our own NJ ones. I’m in the fight. Pooh-Pooh heads that won’t contribute or move out and say “fuck you I'm out” or the ones that are just “we’ll never make it” like a bunch of boot licking FUDDs concern me. But please. ...please don’t hit me (or pull any files on me). Ok beer then. You can’t fix stupid Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobA 1,235 Posted October 17, 2019 12 minutes ago, Zeke said: Ok beer then. You can’t fix stupid Whew. I thought I’d catch shit for using Pooh-Pooh heads instead of shit heads. Amazing grace? Or senior oversight? I wonder..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bowling Ball 22 Posted October 18, 2019 10 hours ago, raz-0 said: If they outright ignore it, SCOTUS can find individuals in contempt. At that point it is a matter of who controls the executive branch and thus determines the nature of the AG. The AG can bring charges directly to SCOTUS if they desire. The AG can also bring it as a civil rights case, or a RICO case. I can see this happening in NJ. Although It would probably take decades of fighting to get the attention of the executive branch. On another note, FUDDS and guys wearing white New Balances are big contributors to the reasoning behind background checks and the like. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobA 1,235 Posted October 18, 2019 8 minutes ago, Bowling Ball said: FUDDS and guys wearing white New Balances are big contributors to the reasoning behind background checks and the like. True. FUDDs don’t realize Murphy is after their shit too. The cancellation of the bear hunt wasn’t pro-bear but anti-gun. 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites