Jump to content
ChrisJM981

Thomas R. Rogers and ANJRPC v. Gurbir S. Grewal, et al

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, raz-0 said:

There's no soaking Scotus.

However, I would expect nj to engage in massive bullshit. Like making the permits incredibly expensive or making permitted carry unlawful in so many locations as to make it useless.

 

16 hours ago, BobA said:

 

Yes they could require certifications, classes, fees, etc., long waits. They aren’t going down easy. But there’s no appeal. Spartacus and/or the pervert could try to introduce something but not with and likely success. 

My fingers are crossed that this will loosen up the many other rediculous infringements so we can act like adults with our guns. 

these are some of the types of things i'm worried about......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2019 at 6:06 AM, BobA said:

 

Yes they could require certifications, classes, fees, etc., long waits. They aren’t going down easy. But there’s no appeal. Spartacus and/or the pervert could try to introduce something but not with and likely success. 

My fingers are crossed that this will loosen up the many other rediculous infringements so we can act like adults with our guns. 

They already have all these things. If (when) justifiable need gets struck NJ doesn't need to do anything. The rest of the process will still be there. You will still have a background check done (they send you back to morphotrack for $$$) , need to qualify with each and every gun you want to carry (which includes being signed off on knowing NJ laws), and you'll still need the permit approved by your CLEO and then a Superior Court Judge. The last step will be slow walked and queues allowed to build up.

I don't want it to be this way, but I'll bet it will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if the shall issue passes the Superior Court Judge should be out. If your CLEO approves you that should be that. And the only things to hold it up, would be a past felony, domestic violence, drugs, mental, etc.

Actually the Judge should never have been involved. The Justice branch does not approve any licenses. That is supposed to be an Executive function. It was just another block in the road. Something the SCOTUS justices could also argue about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr.Stu said:

They already have all these things. If (when) justifiable need gets struck NJ doesn't need to do anything. The rest of the process will still be there.

True but, other states do have minor hoops to jump through too. Safety courses and the like. Likely NJ will come up with impossible ones like guessing how many bubbles are in a bar of soap.

1 hour ago, Mr.Stu said:

you'll still need the permit approved by your CLEO and then a Superior Court Judge.

And part of this case is to eliminate this step.  The unfair judging of who can get approved and who can't violates the 14th of equal treatment.  This is why the Chief is also being sued in this case.  

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BobA said:

And part of this case is to eliminate this step.  The unfair judging of who can get approved and who can't violates the 14th of equal treatment.  This is why the Chief is also being sued in this case.  

Not quite. The case revolves around JN, not the administrative steps. Nowhere in Rogers does anybody mention getting rid of the Judges' role. If SCOTUS isn't asked the question, it is very unlikely that they will answer it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

Not quite. The case revolves around JN, not the administrative steps. Nowhere in Rogers does anybody mention getting rid of the Judges' role. If SCOTUS isn't asked the question, it is very unlikely that they will answer it.

Sort of. One of his issues is where the Chief won’t forward his application to the judge based on his opinion. Then once before the judge he points out “justifiable need”. The chief’s decision violates the 14th. The judges decision sucks for obvious reasons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2019 at 1:24 AM, ChrisJM981 said:

Nj probably gets a defined amount of time to rewrite their unconstitutional carry laws.

There may not be a need to re-write anything. If SCOTUS says NJ cannot ask for a need and/or self defense is a justifiable need, then you march into your PD and submit a letter of need with "self defense" as the reason and reference USA No. 18-824

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, galapoola said:

There may not be a need to re-write anything. If SCOTUS says NJ cannot ask for a need and/or self defense is a justifiable need, then you march into your PD and submit a letter of need with "self defense" as the reason and reference USA No. 18-824

I believe that a letter has to be sent out from the top of the Turban down for LEOs to do so. Or else they have to follow their last given order. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, njJoniGuy said:

In any event, you'll still need to submit qualifications for those handguns you with to have listed on your Permit To Carry, just like the active and retired LEOs do before your permit is issued.

Probably so. That and maybe qualify and renew as often as they do. Any strings that they can attach. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the chief or turban head won't be able to refuse if we get shall issue. Similar to the same questions on the handgun or rifle paperwork. Even if there are stricter instructional  standards that will be a matter of going to any gun club that has public classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, drjjpdc said:

But the chief or turban head won't be able to refuse if we get shall issue. Similar to the same questions on the handgun or rifle paperwork. Even if there are stricter instructional  standards that will be a matter of going to any gun club that has public classes.

True. He won’t (shouldn’t) refuse, but he must inform the rank and file how to comply.

instruction-wise they could make us go to one of their classes given by NJSP for instance. All this is theoretical. The point being that they’re just not going to roll over and hand out permits. I think they’ll get as creative as they can to have as many legal road blocks as possible. They’re scumbags like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since NJ and NY are fighting similar battles. So I decided to look at their case, even though NY has been granted certorari already. Maybe some momentum in the CCW cases. NY City case has already been granted certiorari but the respondent's (NY City) are worried and tried to stall. Their stalling tactic to hear the case was denied. Here is the link to the NY case. For those interested in this stuff you can read 2 short letters from each side around April 12th or so. Basically the city is trying to push that they have amendments that might change the situation if they pass. The Supreme Court was having none of it.
As Bugs Bunny used to say, "It is to laugh."

www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-280.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May 07 2019    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/23/2019.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-824.html

So now we have an actual date for conference, that's a Thursday so the following Friday or Monday for a yes/no. I'm confident that either NYC and/or our NJ case will make a substantial difference. We should have a solid 4 to vote it out of conference to be heard. Don't need a majority as has been stated prior. Good news.

  • Informative 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, galapoola said:

May 07 2019    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/23/2019.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-824.html

So now we have an actual date for conference, that's a Thursday so the following Friday or Monday for a yes/no. I'm confident that either NYC and/or our NJ case will make a substantial difference. We should have a solid 4 to vote it out of conference to be heard. Don't need a majority as has been stated prior. Good news.

Agree that there are likely 4 votes.  However, I do not think the 4 will vote to grant cert. unless they are highly confident that the Chief will join them in an opinion on the merits.  Otherwise, they run the risk of a 5-4 decision against public carry if Roberts votes with the liberals.

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Princetonian58 said:

Agree that there are likely 4 votes.  However, I do not think the 4 will vote to grant cert. unless they are highly confident that the Chief will join them in an opinion on the merits.  Otherwise, they run the risk of a 5-4 decision against public carry if Roberts votes with the liberals.

May I ask... if you feel free sharing...are you an attorney? Because I've noticed that your comments typically seem insightful and informative on legal matters. Just curious!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Princetonian58 said:

Agree that there are likely 4 votes.  However, I do not think the 4 will vote to grant cert. unless they are highly confident that the Chief will join them in an opinion on the merits.  Otherwise, they run the risk of a 5-4 decision against public carry if Roberts votes with the liberals.

I've heard this as well. They generally have enough to hear a case, but it depends if they think they can get that 5th vote or not. I'm almost convinced that Roberts has some skeletons in his closet that someone on the left knows about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Princetonian58 said:

Agree that there are likely 4 votes.  However, I do not think the 4 will vote to grant cert. unless they are highly confident that the Chief will join them in an opinion on the merits.  Otherwise, they run the risk of a 5-4 decision against public carry if Roberts votes with the liberals.

I specifically heard Allen Gottleib, head of the Second Amendment Foundation, last year state to the effect “if there aren’t 5 votes to pass it, there won’t be 4 to hear it”. I believe that was on an episode of the American Armed Radio podcast, where he makes frequent appearances. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, revenger said:

So tomorrow is the day,   anyone know what web site to look at to see this outcome.

I think here?  

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-824.html

There may be another link that is updated sooner. 

 

Share this post


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

That gives the weekend for Ginsberg to choke on a hamburger at a barbecue. 

True.

the justices probably discuss and vote on stuff tomorrow though. Her untimely choking on a burger or wing wouldn’t help us for this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Gunnz said:

True.

the justices probably discuss and vote on stuff tomorrow though. Her untimely choking on a burger or wing wouldn’t help us for this case.

Even if it would not help us with this case, I still want her to choke! Don't discourage her!image.png.e0b68124c83e699ab40a265dfccc7c04.png

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Mark Cheeseman:

 

Quote

TODAY: U.S. SUPREME COURT
CONSIDERS WHETHER TO HEAR
ANJRPC RIGHT TO CARRY CASE

May 23, 2019. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to conference internally on whether it will agree to hear ANJRPC's challenge to New Jersey's carry laws (which prevent the average law-abiding citizen in NJ from defending themselves with a firearm outside the home).

While the result of today's conference will not be publicly announced until Tuesday, May 28, the U.S. Supreme Court could take any one of the following actions on the case:

- Agree to hear the appeal
- Decline to hear the appeal
- Relist the appeal for consideration at the next conference
- Defer the appeal pending the outcome of another case

 

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.



  • olight.jpg

    Use Promo Code "NJGF10" for 10% Off Regular Items

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Similar Content

    • By SMOKIE901
      Can anyone who has a FLORIDA Non-Resident Concealed Carry Permit explain the details on how it is done to obtain?
    • By Smokin .50
      BREAKING!!
      CNJFO FILES AMICUS BRIEF FOR CHEESEMAN CASE!!
      by Black Wire Media Thursday July 18, 2019 www.cnjfo.com/join-us
      TOGETHER WE MAKE HISTORY! For the second time this year, and with the help & support of our members, sponsors, friends and those who contributed to our Lawsuit Fund, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners is proud to announce that on behalf of all legal firearm owners in NJ, we've officially filed a "friend-of-the-Court" brief explaining to SCOTUS why NJ GUN LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL! This brief strongly supports Mark Cheeseman's case highlighting the abuse of the NJ gun owner by subjecting him/her to the patently ILLEGAL "Justifiable Need" Rule that prevents carrying self defense weapons outside of your home or business using a "case-by-case basis" as was made ILLEGAL via the Dick Heller decision 11 years ago!
      We're proud of everyone that helped bring this amicus brief to fruition, especially our well-known 2nd Amendment Patriots, Attorneys Alan Beck and Stephen Stamboulieh. Their tireless efforts and keen insight combined with historical documentation discovered by our own member Jay Factor, resulted in this historical PLEA FOR RELIEF OF PERSECUTION!
      Please consider helping us in any way you possibly can: Join or RENEW today, make a donation or planned monthly gift, or buy an apparel item. Every dollar counts! Thanks EVERYONE for helping to make this happen! ON TO VICTORY!  
      THE ENTIRE BRIEF IS READABLE THRU THIS HOT LINK:
      https://www.scribd.com/document/418500310/CNJFO-Amicus-Brief-Filed-in-Mark-Cheeseman-carry-petition?fbclid=IwAR0k-SPnAzGR3kKbRGm8_0x1wWQNrmbso8JE1BcNtqqBZFFMcNzSYmxx_Og 


      CROSS-POSTED FROM OUR CNJFO NEWSWIRE THREAD!  ENJOY & HELP US PLEASE!
      ---Rosey
       
       
    • By NJGF
      Judge Kavanaugh and the Second Amendment
      http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/judge-kavanaugh-and-the-second-amendment/
      "....Kennedy sided with his more conservative colleagues in finding a Second Amendment right to have a handgun in the home, and there is no reason to believe that Judge Brett Kavanaugh, if confirmed, is likely to disagree"
      "....We know from his recorded dissents from the denial of review that Thomas would vote to review and overturn some existing gun laws, and we know that Gorsuch – at least to some extent – agrees with him. But it takes four votes to grant review in a case, and we do not know whether Roberts and Alito also agree with Thomas but have opted not to say so publicly, or whether they instead are content to leave the court’s gun-rights jurisprudence as it is."
      ".... just this week, the 9th Circuit struck down Hawaii’s ban on carrying weapons openly outside of the home; even if the case goes to the full 9th Circuit, the losing party is almost certain to ask the Supreme Court to weigh in."
    • By stuckinNJ
      https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171201/us-house-of-representatives-to-vote-on-hr-38-the-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-next-week
       
      please take 60 seconds to call your reps, BOTH Republicans and Dems, urging their support. It seriously takes seconds. 
      No excuses
    • By fslater
      Hi Everyone
      I just Read the article in the Political report in Shooting Illustrated about The July ruling By the US Court Of Appeals that found DC's "good reason" to be granted a CCW unconstitutional. Wouldn't the conflicting rulings between the DC Federal Court and the Jersey District Federal court force the SCOUS to a hearing to resolve the conflict? This is old news from back in July I'm just hearing about now. If its already been discussed  please direct me to the thread.
      Thanks
  • Posts

×
×
  • Create New...