Jump to content
TR20

SCOTUS agrees to hear 2A case from NYC

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, BobA said:

Very true. But this next election we do have the opportunity to turn the worm. Almost every slime bucket in the Trenton swamp is up for re-election. If enough people were motivated we could drain that swamp and stop our orthodontically challenged governor in his tracks. 

I wish for balance every day, but I don't think that will ever be achieved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2019 at 2:12 PM, drjjpdc said:

I don't care about what obstacles get in our way by NJ. As long as I see shall issue for NJ.

You might want to rethink that position. Sure, you’ve got your permit, but now you cannot carry within 10 miles of any school, hospital or government building.  Don’t think NJ lawmakers won’t do it. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Darrenf said:

You might want to rethink that position. Sure, you’ve got your permit, but now you cannot carry within 10 miles of any school, hospital or government building.  Don’t think NJ lawmakers won’t do it. 

There is no single square foot in NJ that’s not within 10 miles of one of those structures.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2019 at 4:19 PM, Darrenf said:

You might want to rethink that position. Sure, you’ve got your permit, but now you cannot carry within 10 miles of any school, hospital or government building.  Don’t think NJ lawmakers won’t do it. 

i don't really see how that would hold water. SCOTUS rules rights extend to public, the state creates laws that make it illegal to carry in public?

 

In buildings.... that would be a different story. 

 

The hoops would be qualifications, license fees and regular yearly registration. 

Even the feds couldn't keep guns out of school zones decades ago. 

Share this post


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

Jack,

You are forgetting that the McDonald vs. Chicago decision used the 14th amendment to extend the self defense portion of the 2nd amendment to all the states.

Very true. However they still managed to muck it up with rules. We can self defend but with “limited castle rules”. Others have stand your ground we have 1st retreat. 

Anyway you look at it they’re politicians using lawyers or weasels using weasels to bust our chops at every move. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2019 at 12:27 AM, Kevin125 said:

There is no single square foot in NJ that’s not within 10 miles of one of those structures.

Exactly. Now you’re getting it. 

20 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

i don't really see how that would hold water. SCOTUS rules rights extend to public, the state creates laws that make it illegal to carry in public?

 

In buildings.... that would be a different story. 

 

The hoops would be qualifications, license fees and regular yearly registration. 

Even the feds couldn't keep guns out of school zones decades ago. 

Yet they keep guns out of school zones now. Unless they have a hard definition of the limit for distance from those zones I guarantee we will see exactly what I described.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2019 at 4:19 PM, Darrenf said:

You might want to rethink that position. Sure, you’ve got your permit, but now you cannot carry within 10 miles of any school, hospital or government building.  Don’t think NJ lawmakers won’t do it. 

If SCOTUS rules in favor of the gun owners then it will probably establish that all gun laws must  pass strict scrutiny rather than intermediate. That means that such a law as you  purpose prohibiting firearms within ten miles of a school would  fail such scrutiny miserably just as the transportation law in NYC is probably going to fail such scrutiny when it gets in front of SCOTUS. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, supranatural said:

That means that such a law as you  purpose prohibiting firearms within ten miles of a school would  fail such scrutiny miserably just as the transportation law in NYC is probably going to fail such scrutiny when it gets in front of SCOTUS. 

Yes. Probably so. But that would be another case taking time. This whole matter, I feel, will be baby steps. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I am not saying it will be pie in the sky but if we get shall carry it won't be as draconian at some of the posts here.

If you older guys remember, Illinois used to be as bad as Washington DC, but after the SCOTUS decisions things changed a lot. Take a look at this website: http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/illinois.pdf

If you go to page 4 where they list where you can or can't carry; you will note that there are no distances that I can see for the places that were mentioned like school yards, govt. buildings, etc. I was quite surprised myself with the sections on non-resident carry too.

NJ will probably be something like this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, supranatural said:

If SCOTUS rules in favor of the gun owners then it will probably establish that all gun laws must  pass strict scrutiny rather than intermediate. That means that such a law as you  purpose prohibiting firearms within ten miles of a school would  fail such scrutiny miserably just as the transportation law in NYC is probably going to fail such scrutiny when it gets in front of SCOTUS. 

Strict scrutiny for any anti 2A law would be fantastic, but they will just continue to write laws knowing they will fail a Supreme Court decision   They don’t care as long as they can continue to delay our enjoyment of our rights until there are consequences for them. There are no consequences for lawmakers who write and enact clearly unconstitutional laws. The only penalty there is would be an election, and these morons have even more moronic voters who support them. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Darrenf said:

Strict scrutiny for any anti 2A law would be fantastic, but they will just continue to write laws knowing they will fail a Supreme Court decision   They don’t care as long as they can continue to delay our enjoyment of our rights until there are consequences for them. There are no consequences for lawmakers who write and enact clearly unconstitutional laws. The only penalty there is would be an election, and these morons have even more moronic voters who support them. 

With strict scrutiny appeals don't need to reach SCOTUS, all lower courts will be required to abide by strict scrutiny. Means that pretty much all restrictive laws won't even survive the first court ruling so draconian laws could be overturned very quickly. This hasn't been the case because all the lower courts have been using intermediate scrutiny. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, supranatural said:

With strict scrutiny appeals don't need to reach SCOTUS, all lower courts will be required to abide by strict scrutiny. Means that pretty much all restrictive laws won't even survive the first court ruling so draconian laws could be overturned very quickly. This hasn't been the case because all the lower courts have been using intermediate scrutiny. 

What is the penalty for a judge that applies the wrong scrutiny in a decision?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Darrenf said:

Strict scrutiny for any anti 2A law would be fantastic, but they will just continue to write laws knowing they will fail a Supreme Court decision   They don’t care as long as they can continue to delay our enjoyment of our rights until there are consequences for them. There are no consequences for lawmakers who write and enact clearly unconstitutional laws. The only penalty there is would be an election, and these morons have even more moronic voters who support them. 

Sadly, this is exactly correct, to the best of my knowledge.  There needs to be some kind of consequences for legislators who knowingly make unconstitutional laws.  

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

No real penalty, only that he would be overruled by a higher court.

Which is my point. Without any penalty they will continue to flaunt the Supreme Court decisions. If they gave a damn about the law itself, we wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with. 

Share this post


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

There's only one thing that will stop them from writing unconstitutional laws.

We the people

I assume your point is that we need to vote out the anti-gun legislators.  If so, it's been tried, we are too few in NJ for that to happen.  SCOTUS is our best chance as the Heller decision showed.  Like it or not, there are a lot less gun owners than non-gun owners in this country and if we depended solely on voting in gun favorable politicians we are in a losing battle over the long haul as it has been for the last 20-30 years.  SCOTUS is our best shot right now at righting the wrongs that have been done to our 2A rights.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

I assume your point is that we need to vote out the anti-gun legislators.  If so, it's been tried, we are too few in NJ for that to happen. 

This is correct, that ship sailed a long time ago. The voting booth is useless.

3 hours ago, supranatural said:

SCOTUS is our best chance as the Heller decision showed.    SCOTUS is our best shot right now at righting the wrongs that have been done to our 2A rights.

Unfortunately, your hope is misplaced in that vain. There won't be a legal remedy for fixing all the 2A issues in the country. It's too much of a hot button issue, and because of that, they might just nibble around the fringes, but the real issues WON'T be fixed.

9 hours ago, Bowling Ball said:

There's only one thing that will stop them from writing unconstitutional laws.

We the people

This is the ONLY solution, but "We the People" have been neutered and became passive. We need REAL men, like we had back in 1776. Do any still exist?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/06/new-york-legislature-attempting-to-moot-supreme-court-review-of-nyc-law/#axzz5phSXuAHk

 

New York seems to be pulling out all the stops on this,   Now the legislature is going to have at it with changing the law.

I hope the Court sees it for what it is and still follows through with hearing it.

The enemy has adapted their tactics and has adopted one of NJ's tricks to make these things go away.   NJ has known for some time it is better to issue 1 permit to a complainant rather than take a chance at a Supreme Court beat down.     NY is going to attempt the same tactic here,  adjust the law just enough and try to make the case moot.

They know a loss for them them will be a win for the entire USA and ALL Americans.     

Share this post


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

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/06/new-york-legislature-attempting-to-moot-supreme-court-review-of-nyc-law/#axzz5phSXuAHk

 

New York seems to be pulling out all the stops on this,   Now the legislature is going to have at it with changing the law.

I hope the Court sees it for what it is and still follows through with hearing it.

The enemy has adapted their tactics and has adopted one of NJ's tricks to make these things go away.   NJ has known for some time it is better to issue 1 permit to a complainant rather than take a chance at a Supreme Court beat down.     NY is going to attempt the same tactic here,  adjust the law just enough and try to make the case moot.

They know a loss for them them will be a win for the entire USA and ALL Americans.     

Nothing stops them from changing it back after. SCOTUS knows this . It will rule on the merits of the law.

What is interesting this law was put in place for” public safety “. I guess it’s no longer needed? Or was a lie to begin with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is it’s a very similar restriction that allows NYC to continue doing what their doing. They can repeal the local policy and claim there are adhering to the state law.

If SCOTUS falls for it then it requires the defendants to file a new suit and start over. The result may be the same but would require additional legal fees and time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the fact the petitioned to have it dismissed because they were proposing alterations to the law and then immediately filed a bill to implement the exact same restrictions via state law might clue in Scotus that they are full of shit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Nothing stops them from changing it back after. SCOTUS knows this . It will rule on the merits of the law.

What is interesting this law was put in place for” public safety “. I guess it’s no longer needed? Or was a lie to begin with?

It's the same public safety philosophy behind gun free zones bring implemented... Which obviously does a lot for public safety...

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

I think the fact the petitioned to have it dismissed because they were proposing alterations to the law and then immediately filed a bill to implement the exact same restrictions via state law might clue in Scotus that they are full of shit.

Apparently there is precedent with this kind of situation with SCOTUS I’ve read. I jus don’t feel like looking it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Apparently there is precedent with this kind of situation with SCOTUS I’ve read. I jus don’t feel like looking it up.

There is. I don't think anyone is going to get filled by it.

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...



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information