Jump to content
TR20

SCOTUS agrees to hear 2A case from NYC

Recommended Posts

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(?). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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  

 

 

 

  • FacePalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 5
  • Agree 3
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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). 

  • Agree 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Agree 3

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...