Jump to content
ChrisJM981

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

Recommended Posts

I do wonder though with the NY case if they may decide to consolidate them and deal with restrictions as a whole, namely what level of scrutiny should be used to determine what “reasonable” restrictions are allowed.  Time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, in lawyers terms, the State is saying, this is an important constitutional issue and we don't have our shit together so please give us 30 more days.  It is very unusual and bad form for the other side not to agree to a one month extension for briefing and judges don't look kindly on it.  The ANJRPC has to agree to the extension essentially.  It doesn't change a thing.  Not sure what exactly happens if we win and court strikes down justifable need.  I don't think there would need to be a remand here -- the statute would essentially be modified to delete the justifiable need requirement and everything else would remain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Spartiati said:

"In addition, this case involves a constitutional challenge to a state statute".

Wouldn't the supreme court justices realize its a constitutional challenge ????    How dumb does our AG think they are.   I would think any case sent to SCOTUS involves the constitutionality of a law.       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NJ AG has never had to argue before SCOTUS on 2A before. They had stacked courts before and didn't even send the A team. Anyone remember the valley girl that argued for the state the last time. They can't roll out the usual tropes and wink wink at the judge. There is a very good chance that this will be heard and they are without a viable constitutional plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, PDM said:

Basically, in lawyers terms, the State is saying, this is an important constitutional issue and we don't have our shit together so please give us 30 more days.  It is very unusual and bad form for the other side not to agree to a one month extension for briefing and judges don't look kindly on it.  The ANJRPC has to agree to the extension essentially.  It doesn't change a thing.  Not sure what exactly happens if we win and court strikes down justifable need.  I don't think there would need to be a remand here -- the statute would essentially be modified to delete the justifiable need requirement and everything else would remain.

Agree.  I do think SCOTUS may step it a bit further than just the "need".  Just my opinion of course.  Hopeful the NY case gets a positive ruling, which can open things up for NJ, and heck all states for that matter that regulate and infringe.  Heard PA planning registry bill.  It has to end at SCOTUS for all.

41 minutes ago, njJoniGuy said:

As well they should be!

Agree 100%.  The time is now for SCOTUS to clean up the 2A disaster these rouge states and politicians have inflicted.  Staying strong and optimistic on my end.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, njJoniGuy said:

The state has a lot of balls asking for an ADDITIONAL 30 days after first ignoring the plaintiff's complaint, then being ordered by the court to submit a reply.

I hope that bullshit comes back to bite them in the ass.

I'm with you.  NJ AG office thinks too highly of itself.  SCOTUS will school them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, njJoniGuy said:

The state has a lot of balls asking for an ADDITIONAL 30 days after first ignoring the plaintiff's complaint, then being ordered by the court to submit a reply.

So another 30 days this gets set back.  In 60 days or so, I'll be 67.  I'm running out of time for this.

The right to gay marriage, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, was approved by SCOTUS under "equal protection," because some states allowed it and some didn't.  Can someone explain to me how 2A rights, which are specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, should be viewed any differently?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Old Glock guy said:

So another 30 days this gets set back.  In 60 days or so, I'll be 67.  I'm running out of time for this.

The right to gay marriage, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, was approved by SCOTUS under "equal protection," because some states allowed it and some didn't.  Can someone explain to me how 2A rights, which are specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, should be viewed any differently?

No one can explain that because it makes no sense.  One word might help -- politics.  Even if there was no 2A in the Constitution, the "right to privacy" the Court found to exist in Roe v Wade would itself include the right to keep and bear arms.  In Griswold v Connecticut, (overturning a Connecticut ban on contraception) the Court first found a "right to privacy" to exist based on the "penumbra" of rights created by all the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.  Essentially, read together, the Bill of Rights implies and demands a right to be left alone by the government, subject to various limitations.   in Poe v Ullman, an earlier Supreme Court case in which the Court allowed a Connecticut ban on contraception to stand, Justice Harlan wrote a dissent in which the right to privacy was first addressed.  Guess what he included in his laundry list of things the government should butt out off (to put it simplistically)?  The right to keep and bear arms.  If there is a right to abortion or contraception or gay marriage -- all falling under the "right to privacy" read into the Consitution by the Court -- then there has to also be a right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of defending one's life.  In other words, as long as I'm not harming or threatening to harm anyone, its none of the government's business how I choose to defend myself or what tools I keep to do so.

But of course, we do have an explicit 2A in addition and it is quite amazing that the same people who happily go along with a seek to protect a made-up "right to privacy" claim the explicit and quite plain language of the 2A is meaningless.  Like I said, there is no logical explanation other than that law is often means oriented, driven by political agendas.

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good info by all.  Thanks.

So "if" it were to succeed at SCOTUS, anyone have any crystal ball thinking on the possible scenarios?  I know it would all hinge on the wording and opinions of the court, but interested in other folks views.  Just trying to stay positive and hopeful.  LOL. 

Would it be immediate upon ruling?

Would the state have a timeframe to comply and facilitate means of permits/processing?  

I know i'm putting the cart way before the horse, but if this were to happen, would it possible that since we've all been through the process of FID application, with background, mental health, reference screening that the FID serves as CCW.  Albeit a photo ID may be best for positive ID which the FID lacks, so perhaps a reparation for the state to issue photo ID, no costs (wishful thinking). 

Would some level of training be needed or included, much like with Utah or Florida classes we've taken.  

Happy to hear thoughts of others.  Keeping the faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would hope that "justifiable need" would be struck from 2C:39 and 58 immediately upon the decision coming down.

I would also hope that SCOTUS would compel NJ to rewrite 2C:39 and 58 in their entireties to comply with the literal meaning of the Constitution and its Amendments. But I expect NJ would be given some period of time (60-180 days) to do that.

We'd still need to qualify every 6 months, just like LEOs do, but the way some of them shoot, and continue to qualify every time (to keep their jobs) I don't expect that would be a problem for most of us. We burn up a lot more ammo on a regular basis than most LEOs do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

You can look to the history of Illinois and Washington D.C. as Recent examples of how a viciously anti- carry state reacts when they’re suddenly forced to recognize the 2A.

Well IL went as far as court of appeals and they got 180 days to craft a system.

DC lost also at appeals and DC was pretty quick, then re-interpreted the ruling and it took a few years and another judge if I recall.

My guess is NJ will do what they did with stun guns, they issued a one pager to all PD's noting the change. When I emailed my local chief he was aware of the letter and was vague on it's practical application. Couldn't nail the guy down. I went as far as providing a scenario. What if I had on my person a concealed stun gun, for all lawful purposes and an officer was knowledgeable of this, would I be arrested? He couldn't or wouldn't answer. I understand that they can't give legal advise but come on.

The first application after a win at SCOTUS will have to go before a superior judge for issuance, that's the law currently. He/she would have to accept self defense, if SCOTUS spells that out in the opinion, and then accept that as a justifiable need. No need to craft a new law. The legislature can pile on new laws that make it more expensive, more time consuming, more qualifying and begin to spell out where you can carry.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The first application after a win at SCOTUS will have to go before a superior judge for issuance, that's the law currently. He/she would have to accept self defense, if SCOTUS spells that out in the opinion, and then accept that as a justifiable need. No need to craft a new law. The legislature can pile on new laws that make it more expensive, more time consuming, more qualifying and begin to spell out where you can carry.

AND THIS IS F—king WHY THIS WHOLE F——ing ENCHILADA NEEDS TO GO UP AS INFRINGEMENT.  

Share this post


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

AND THIS IS F—king WHY THIS WHOLE F——ing ENCHILADA NEEDS TO GO UP AS INFRINGEMENT.  

Yes, that is what should occur.  All matters of infringement should be stricken and ruled un-constitutional. There are 16 states (last I recall) that are constitutional carry, no permits.  Some are newly added like OK and KY.  I could only hope the NJ cases attorneys will cite to SCOTUS.  The 2A has been through enough political BS and it needs to be restored in full to the entire Union.  

Share this post


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

Well IL went as far as court of appeals and they got 180 days to craft a system.

DC lost also at appeals and DC was pretty quick, then re-interpreted the ruling and it took a few years and another judge if I recall.

My guess is NJ will do what they did with stun guns, they issued a one pager to all PD's noting the change. When I emailed my local chief he was aware of the letter and was vague on it's practical application. Couldn't nail the guy down. I went as far as providing a scenario. What if I had on my person a concealed stun gun, for all lawful purposes and an officer was knowledgeable of this, would I be arrested? He couldn't or wouldn't answer. I understand that they can't give legal advise but come on.

The first application after a win at SCOTUS will have to go before a superior judge for issuance, that's the law currently. He/she would have to accept self defense, if SCOTUS spells that out in the opinion, and then accept that as a justifiable need. No need to craft a new law. The legislature can pile on new laws that make it more expensive, more time consuming, more qualifying and begin to spell out where you can carry.

Thanks.  Makes sense.  

Share this post


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

The biggest thing hat needs to happen, is that the state needs to be held responsible for legal fees for infringement.  If you can get this, you will have lawyers lining up to take these cases.

The politicians need to be held personally liable under US code 18 242.

http://classmom3352.blogspot.com/2011/09/violation-warning-denial-of-rights.html?m=1

  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

The politicians need to be held personally liable under US code 18 242.

http://classmom3352.blogspot.com/2011/09/violation-warning-denial-of-rights.html?m=1

Wouldn't that be wonderful. When does it start?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ChrisJM981 said:

WTF? Is there a link available?

 

1 hour ago, oldguysrule649 said:

I remember reading last week that the state requested, and was granted, an additional 30 days to respond.  If I find where I read it, I will add it here.

Link is in the 1st post of this thread.

https://certpool.com/dockets/18-824

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2019 at 5:30 PM, Spartiati said:

I do wonder though with the NY case if they may decide to consolidate them and deal with restrictions as a whole, namely what level of scrutiny should be used to determine what “reasonable” restrictions are allowed.  Time will tell.

Dunno. It seems like consolidation was being considered by someone. Might be the pro or anti side of the court, we don't know. 

NJ has officially said we are super busy with other cases, so please give us more time. 

Whatever is going on, I think that only opens up one new possibility, which is SCOTUS feels they are similar cases, but they DO grant the extension, and thus it basically gets pushed to the next session because of the delay. Should the court hand down a decision in the NYC case that they feel is binding on this case, I believe they can then remand the case back to the lower court to say that the decision seems fundamentally flawed due to existing law and precedent. At which point the lower court would have to reverse the decision or come up with some new ruling that fits within previous rulings. Or as the case with RKBA stuff. Make up some new flavor of bullshit out of whole cloth that completley ignores existing law and precedent via some new fanciful means that will have to be kicked to death. 

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.

  • NJGF members in chat (1)



  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Similar Content

    • 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 DevsAdvocate
      SIG P290RS two-tone.  Bought it from an NJGF member awhile back, but I never ended up using it.  Round count is low, maybe a box or two of 9mm.  Too small for my hands honestly.   Really tiny for a pistol though for concealment.
      Comes with leather pocket holster and a kydex.  2x 6rd flush fit magazines, 1x 8rd extended magazine.  Night sights too.  
      Asking $350 OBO, pickup in Morristown NJ.

    • 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
    • By NJGF
      Supreme Court Asked to Review California’s 10-Day Waiting Period for Gun Purchases
      http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/09/03/supreme-court-review-10-day-waiting-period-gun-purchases/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=NSSF
      In Silvester, et.al. v. California Attorney General Zavier the district initially found that a 10 day waiting period to purchase guns did absolutely nothing to deter a person that already owns a gun from committing an impulsive crime.
      Of course the Court of Appeals for the 9th curcuit overturned the district court ruling.
      SAF's Alan Gottlieb is now asking SCOTUS to hear the case:
      "Remember what Senior Judge Anthony Ishii of the U.S. District Court said in his original order, that the state has tacit knowledge that a protected Second Amendment right is burdened by the waiting period law. His comparison of the waiting period to prior restraint is a point that should grab the attention of every journalist who has ever defended the First Amendment while disdaining the Second. A civil right is a right, and all rights are equal and deserve equal protection."
  • Posts

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information