Well, well, well. The Supremes Just woke up NJ -High Court Considers Taking ANJRPC Appeal

[gunforhire 826]

Well, well, well. The Supremes Just woke up NJ -High Court Considers Taking ANJRPC Appeal

February 19, 2019. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court required the State of New Jersey to file a brief in response to ANJRPC's petition asking the High Court to hear its challenge to NJ's carry laws. Under the Supreme Court’s order, the State of New Jersey is required to file papers by March 21, arguing why the High Court should not agree to hear ANJRPC's appeal. NJ had previously ignored the appeal. https://www.anjrpc.org/page/SupremeCtRequiresNJFileResponseinCarryAppeal

 

[124gr9mm 859]

I don't hold out any hope that I'll ever see any kind of carry laws passed in NJ, but I'm VERY glad that these douchebags are being forced to "defend" their position.

[TR20 47]

If SCOTUS decides to hear the case I honestly believe NJ's "justifiable need" will go down in flames.   There is no way the court can cite this kind of restriction based on constitutional law.  Its a pure fabrication and should be ruled as such.  We shall see...

[Maksim 1,504]

Yup.  That will be the ONLY likely way NJ gun owners get their rights back. 

[1LtCAP 4,264]

1 hour ago, TR20 said:

If SCOTUS decides to hear the case I honestly believe NJ's "justifiable need" will go down in flames.   There is no way the court can cite this kind of restriction based on constitutional law.  Its a pure fabrication and should be ruled as such.  We shall see...

ALL of nj's laws should go down in flames if this or any case from here is heard...…..

[antimatter 139]

very curious to see how this all plays out 

[Ray Ray 3,566]

https://www-washingtonpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/courts_law/roberts-again-sides-with-liberals-in-disagreeing-with-lower-court-interpretations/2019/02/19/c27c635c-3473-11e9-a400-e481bf264fdc_story.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fpolitics%2Fcourts_law%2Froberts-again-sides-with-liberals-in-disagreeing-with-lower-court-interpretations%2F2019%2F02%2F19%2Fc27c635c-3473-11e9-a400-e481bf264fdc_story.html

This guy could start turning against us, the Constitution and the Republic. 

[njJoniGuy 2,131]

8 minutes ago, Ray Ray said:

This guy could start turning against us, the Constitution and the Republic. 

Yes, that very real possibility is disturbing.

[1LtCAP 4,264]

wasn't he the shitbag that flipped and gave us obamacare?

[M1152 713]

14 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

wasn't he the shitbag that flipped and gave us obamacare?

yep and he's the one that had the disagreement with Trump when Trump made the "Obama judges"  comment so he'd be the one to watch...

[1LtCAP 4,264]

we're screwed

1 minute ago, FXDX said:

yep and he's the one that had the disagreement with Trump when Trump made the "Obama judges"  comment so he'd be the one to watch...

 

[45Doll 5,877]

We all should have been working on Plan C already.

Don't rely on the Republican Supreme Court justices to do your work.

[M1152 713]

36 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

we're screwed

We’ll have to see.  if they do their job all NJ 2A cases should be a slam dunk for reversal but if Roberts goes the way of an Obama appointee & activist then that could be a problem.  But again, if they do their jobs its a good case and 2A should prevail. Either way I’m thankful for the efforts of ANJRPC and Mr C from GFH to come this far.

[Scorpio64 5,156]

Just now, FXDX said:

if Roberts goes the way of an Obama appointee & activist then that could be a problem. 

afaik, Roberts' opinions have always been originalist, pro 2A.

[Sniper 6,372]

I'll be really surprised if anything positive comes of this in the SC. Any case that's 2A related is a EXTREME hot potato in the country today. I think the last thing the judges want is HALF the electorate pissed off at them, and will probably just punt on arguing these cases.

All you need to do is remember how a certain segment of the population tried to DESTROY Kavanaugh's life. Why would any other judge want to risk their personal lives like that by stepping into a BIG hornets nest of a 2A case?

 

[M1152 713]

32 minutes ago, Sniper said:

 Why would any other judge want to risk their personal lives like that by stepping into a BIG hornets nest of a 2A case?

for starters it’s their job. If they want to be activist let them get jobs in the murphy administration, the pay is good and no heavy lifting    

[Zeke 5,504]

46 minutes ago, Sniper said:

I'll be really surprised if anything positive comes of this in the SC. Any case that's 2A related is a EXTREME hot potato in the country today. I think the last thing the judges want is HALF the electorate pissed off at them, and will probably just punt on arguing these cases.

All you need to do is remember how a certain segment of the population tried to DESTROY Kavanaugh's life. Why would any other judge want to risk their personal lives like that by stepping into a BIG hornets nest of a 2A case?

 

Because they aren’t huge bagina’s? And they have security? 

Project much?

[124gr9mm 859]

1 hour ago, Sniper said:

I'll be really surprised if anything positive comes of this in the SC. Any case that's 2A related is a EXTREME hot potato in the country today. I think the last thing the judges want is HALF the electorate pissed off at them, and will probably just punt on arguing these cases.

All you need to do is remember how a certain segment of the population tried to DESTROY Kavanaugh's life. Why would any other judge want to risk their personal lives like that by stepping into a BIG hornets nest of a 2A case?

 

I dunno.

Once they're in, they're in for life.  They can give zero fucks about what anyone thinks.

[Sniper 6,372]

40 minutes ago, FXDX said:

for starters it’s their job. If they want to be activist let them get jobs in the murphy administration, the pay is good and no heavy lifting    

 

 

32 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Because they aren’t huge bagina’s? And they have security? 

Project much?

So, that's why they argued every 2A case that came across the bench the last decade or so, right?

oh, wait...

Supreme Court agrees to hear gun rights case after nearly a decade of inaction on Second Amendment

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/22/supreme-court-will-hear-gun-rights-case/2482910002/

 

[Darrenf 422]

1 minute ago, Sniper said:

 

So, that's why they argued every 2A case that came across the bench the last decade or so, right?

oh, wait...

 

Are you really so daft as to not know that neither side wanted these cases brought up until one side was assured it would go their way? 

[Sniper 6,372]

3 minutes ago, Darrenf said:

Are you really so daft as to not know that neither side wanted these cases brought up until one side was assured it would go their way? 

That's the whole point, they play politics MORE than play Constitution.

Thanks for proving my point.   Duh......

12 minutes ago, 124gr9mm said:

Once they're in, they're in for life.  They can give zero fucks about what anyone thinks.

So why haven't they taken on hardly any 2A cases the past decade, if they give zero fucks... hmmmmmm..

[Darrenf 422]

7 minutes ago, Sniper said:

That's the whole point, they play politics MORE than play Constitution.

Thanks for proving my point.   Duh......

So why haven't they taken on hardly any 2A cases the past decade, if they give zero fucks... hmmmmmm..

That's not necessarily playing politics.  It's making a pragmatic decision, which is often the exact opposite of playing politics.  What is with you always thinking some random comment "proves" your point?

Since I know you are going to ask, I will provide an example of "playing" politics.  Chuckie Schumer's complete reversal on border security now that Trump is in power is a most blatant example.  

[Sniper 6,372]

33 minutes ago, Darrenf said:

That's not necessarily playing politics. 

It's not? Then it should be cut and dry, following existing laws and the Constitution. Why haven't they?

In the last ten years, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to grant review in at least 88 Second Amendment cases where lower courts upheld gun safety laws. By repeatedly declining to review lower court decisions that upheld federal, state, and local gun laws, the Supreme Court has reconfirmed that the Amendment is not an obstacle to the laws that keep our communities safe from gun violence.

Since 2008, there have been over 1,310 Second Amendment cases challenging gun laws nationwide, with an overwhelming majority—nearly 93%—of the lower court decisions upholding those laws.

Many of these Second Amendment challenges to gun laws make their way to the Supreme Court.  However, the Court has refused to hear these cases,¹ leaving lower court decisions upholding the laws intact and keeping strong gun laws on the books.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/protecting-strong-gun-laws-the-supreme-court-leaves-lower-court-victories-untouched/

Think any of those lower court rulings had any political bias attached to them?

 

[Darrenf 422]

Just now, Sniper said:

It's not? Then it should be cut and dry, following existing laws and the Constitution. Why haven't they?

In the last ten years, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to grant review in at least 88 Second Amendment cases where lower courts upheld gun safety laws. By repeatedly declining to review lower court decisions that upheld federal, state, and local gun laws, the Supreme Court has reconfirmed that the Amendment is not an obstacle to the laws that keep our communities safe from gun violence.

Since 2008, there have been over 1,310 Second Amendment cases challenging gun laws nationwide, with an overwhelming majority—nearly 93%—of the lower court decisions upholding those laws.

Many of these Second Amendment challenges to gun laws make their way to the Supreme Court.  However, the Court has refused to hear these cases,¹ leaving lower court decisions upholding the laws intact and keeping strong gun laws on the books.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/protecting-strong-gun-laws-the-supreme-court-leaves-lower-court-victories-untouched/

Think any of those lower court rulings had any political bias attached to them?

 

I already answered why they haven't.  And I never said they didn't have political bias.  That is not the same as "playing politics". 

Maybe a definition is needed here.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/play-politics
 

play politics

to use a situation or the relationships between people for your own advantage:

 

[Zeke 5,504]

This is dumb. They same argument could be used by the gun grabbers that they are afraid of the gun owning fake noosers and the NRA. Oh wait they do that. I thought our side was the rational, honest, good guy side....

[Sniper 6,372]

2 minutes ago, Darrenf said:

I already answered why they haven't.  And I never said they didn't have political bias.  That is not the same as "playing politics". 

Now we're going to play semantic word games?

Wow.

[Darrenf 422]

9 minutes ago, Sniper said:

Now we're going to play semantic word games?

Wow.

Words mean things.  If that is beyond your ability to comprehend, then I apologize.

[gunforhire 826]

Lets all ban together and hope and pray the Supremes take it, then we fight later. I will host the event and participate!

 

Ant 

[Scorpio64 5,156]

3 minutes ago, gunforhire said:

Lets all ban together and hope

????

Do you mean band together?

[gunforhire 826]

Ugh. Fat fingers yes BAND.