Jump to content
photon guy

NJ Violates The Constitution

Recommended Posts

The 2nd Amendment clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." In NJ you can't walk down the street or go out in other public places while carrying a Smith & Wesson or Glock on your hip, that is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment not only talks about the right to keep arms it also talks about the right to bear arms. The fact that you can't carry guns in public places in NJ is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

NJ isn’t violating the Constitution. It just believes that document identifies as a placemat. 

 

13 minutes ago, njJoniGuy said:

NJ isn’t violating the Constitution. It just believes that document identifies as a placeDOORmat toilet paper

FIFY

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the state of NJ creates new victims through forced defenselessness. It also ensures that those of us that are already victims of crime cannot have the means to repel or prevent further victimization. NJ is truly evil, and the people that support these laws deserve no sympathy if they too should be become victims.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I've always wondered is why the SCOTUS hasn't done something about NJ's Constitution. I've read the whole thing, and nowhere does it mention the right of New Jerseyans to keep and bear arms. So we have been without our full rights from the getgo. 

Share this post


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

What I've always wondered is why the SCOTUS hasn't done something about NJ's Constitution. I've read the whole thing, and nowhere does it mention the right of New Jerseyans to keep and bear arms. So we have been without our full rights from the getgo. 

Because SCOTUS is not proactive - someone needs to bring a case that has failed in the lower courts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

What I've always wondered is why the SCOTUS hasn't done something about NJ's Constitution. I've read the whole thing, and nowhere does it mention the right of New Jerseyans to keep and bear arms. So we have been without our full rights from the getgo. 

My thoughts exactly.

28 minutes ago, tomk62 said:

Because SCOTUS is not proactive - someone needs to bring a case that has failed in the lower courts.

We should at least be able to get it to a federal circuit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, tomk62 said:

Because SCOTUS is not proactive - someone needs to bring a case that has failed in the lower courts.

That and because SCOTUS judges are a bunch of useless POS's that violate their oaths of office regularly.  There have been plenty of cases presented, that they passed on, poo pooed, or let the government off the hook by bullshit "mooting".

Share this post


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

What I've always wondered is why the SCOTUS hasn't done something about NJ's Constitution. I've read the whole thing, and nowhere does it mention the right of New Jerseyans to keep and bear arms. So we have been without our full rights from the getgo. 

Maybe because what a State puts in its constitution is none of the Federal government's business so long as it does not contradict Federal law. The 2nd Amendment is applicable to all the States through the 14th Amendment so no mention of anything similar in the State constitution is irrelevant.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

...

We should at least be able to get it to a federal circuit.

We did previously - the Drake case. 

Drake V. Filko made it to the 3rd circuit in 2013, who upheld NJ's "justifiable need" standard:

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2013/08/divided-third-circuit-upholds-new-jerseys-handgun-permit-law.html

Appealed to Supreme court (as Drake v. Jerejian) who declined to grant certiori in 2014:

https://reason.com/2014/05/05/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-major-seco/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DirtyDigz said:

We did previously - the Drake case. 

Drake V. Filko made it to the 3rd circuit in 2013, who upheld NJ's "justifiable need" standard:

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2013/08/divided-third-circuit-upholds-new-jerseys-handgun-permit-law.html

Appealed to Supreme court (as Drake v. Jerejian) who declined to grant certiori in 2014:

https://reason.com/2014/05/05/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-major-seco/

Dirty,  Thanks for the best answer for logical discussion.  However one advantage we now have is the 3rd Circuit is no longer a Liberal dominated Court, thanks to Trump it is a Conservative dominated Court now. That also means that if a case gets sent back to them they could vote in a Conservative way.

Mr. Stu, your point is only valid since McDonald, what about before?  You mean from the 1940's nobody complained about not having the right to keep and bear arms.

PeteF, Were they useless when they passed Heller & McDonald?

Actually the Court can have original jurisdiction in a number of cases. I believe the point I made is covered by the underlined section, if a number of NJ Citizens complained about our Constitution leaving out their 2nd Amendment rights.

Section 2

1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Share this post


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

 

PeteF, Were they useless when they passed Heller & McDonald?

Imo,  yes.  What has changed after the decision?  Anything?  13 years later.

They should have had the balls to come out with a decision that says, yes the second means exactly what says. PERIOD.  Want to strip someones rights, guess what there is a procedure spelled out, it's called Due Process and its exercised on a individual basis.  Found quilty of a crime where the penalty is loss of a right, is a giant step from your right is denied because (insert favorite reason).

But since the decision includes "exception" language, it will take another case to challenge every possible variant on "exception". And since they have been ditching cases for 13 years...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2020 at 1:04 PM, PeteF said:

Imo,  yes.  What has changed after the decision?  Anything?  13 years later.

They should have had the balls to come out with a decision that says, yes the second means exactly what says. PERIOD.  Want to strip someones rights, guess what there is a procedure spelled out, it's called Due Process and its exercised on a individual basis.  Found quilty of a crime where the penalty is loss of a right, is a giant step from your right is denied because (insert favorite reason).

But since the decision includes "exception" language, it will take another case to challenge every possible variant on "exception". And since they have been ditching cases for 13 years...........

Well this happened after Heller. I think this meant something, even if it wasn't as strong as we wanted. We have to consider what happens to other states and not just us.

The US Supreme Court of the United States decided District of Columbia v. Heller, establishing for the first time that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guaranteed an individual right to keep and bear arms in defense of oneself. From that point on, more states adopted Constitutional carry policies, and the last "no-issue" holdouts gave way.

In 2010, Arizona became the third state (after Alaska and Vermont) to permit constitutional carry.

In 2011, Wyoming became the fourth Constitutional carry state. Also in 2011, Wisconsin was the 49th state to legally abandon a "no-issue" policy, adopting instead a "shall-issue" policy. (Other states remained "no-issue" in practice, but not in law.) That same year, Iowa changed its "may-issue" policy to become "shall issue."

In 2013, Arkansas became an ambiguously Constitutional-carry state, a position that was further solidified with a precedent set in 2018 in Taff v State of Arkansas. Briefly, this case considered a person suspected of stealing from a convenience store who, upon interview, was found to be carrying a concealed firearm and charged with carrying unlawfully. The charge was dismissed, as the defendant had not used the firearm unlawfully, nor had demonstrated intent to do so. The court held that simply carrying a concealed firearm by a person not otherwise prohibited is not a criminal act.

2013 also marked the last of the 50 states to abandon a "no-issue" policy when Illinois began a "shall-issue" policy.

In 2015, two states, Maine and Kansas, adopted forms of Constitutional carry.

In 2016, four states adopted some form of Constitutional carry: Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri, and West Virginia.

In 2017, two more states adopted Constitutional carry, North Dakota and New Hampshire.

On January 31, 2019, newly elected South Dakota governor Kristi Noem signed a bill into law that makes South Dakota a constitutional carry state. The first law signed by her administration, the law goes into effect on July 1, 2019.

Share this post


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

The supreme court bounced these cases yet again.....5/28/20 will be the next conference. Maybe on the 5th try they will get it right:angry:

That is my sincere hope. I hope that they pick Rogers v Gurwal. That involves a Governor and an AG. But Cheeseman v Polillo only involves a Police Chief and a Judge. It might be easier.

Share this post


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

Well this happened after Heller. I think this meant something, even if it wasn't as strong as we wanted. We have to consider what happens to other states and not just us.

 

Well what about us?  The supreme court decision that says the second is a personal right, changed ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in NJ.  

Is there any chance for a civilian to get a carry permit?

How about not having to ask permission of the government to purchase a firearm?

How about not possibly getting a prison sentence for stopping to get a soda on the way to the range?

So what did we get?  Even more limited magazines.

This is my point exactly, a case will be need to be brought in front of the USSC (because we all know that NJ SC is a bunch of hacks) for EACH and EVERY aspect, taking years and years and hundreds of thousands of dollars for each case,  to get any relief from NJs unconstitutional laws.  And since the USSC instead of making a firm decision, wiffed with a milquetoast decision ("that certain firearms restrictions mentioned in District of Columbia v. Heller are assumed permissible and not directly dealt with in this case" so its a personal right but can be restricted on a whim. Somehow "Not infringed" == Restricted ) and keeps passing on each case brought before 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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  •  

    NJGunForums Web Banner Ad July 2021[74426].jpg

  • olight.jpg

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

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Posts

    • Ok, so I spent the last couple days cleaning the basement and going through all the random stuff I accumulated over the last few years that has been sitting in my famous parts bins and I have the following stuff for sale.   Everything is in great condition. Some stuff still has tags on it. I will update this post as items sell, and I will be adding to it as I find more stuff.   If you’d like to discuss trade ideas, let me know via PM.   Venmo and cash preferred. I’ll take a USPSMO, but you’ll have to wait till I get it and deposit it before I ship anything.   I live near Sandy Hook and work in Middlesex County. I am open to Face to Face deals that aren’t too far out of my way. Otherwise, if you want something shipped, add $8 to get it to you. If you want extra insurance, let me know and we’ll figure it out.   I’ll put photos up when I have a minute. In the meantime, photos on request via PM.   For Sale:   • Eagle FB pouch - holds 2 AR mags with 4 Glock mags stacked in front, MOLLE attachment, black - $80 • Gcode Scorpion soft shell AR single mag pouch, MOLLE/PALS attachment, black - $25   • ESSTAC Triple M4 Tall KYWI magazine pouch, Malice Clips included, black- $55   • BCM pistol and pic rail mount vertical grip, Wolf gray - $40   • BCM vertical grip MLOK, black - $30   • Strike Industries handstop MLOK or Keymod - $25 (scratches on the rear screw)   • MFT React Adjustable Vertical Grip - $20   • Magpul MOE Midlength Handguard, black - $30 • Magpul K Pistol Grip, pic rail mount Vertical Grip, and ACS Stock, Magpul Gray - $110   • Magpul Paraclip and pic rail front sling mount system - $35   • Magpul vertical grip MLOK, black - $20   • Tangodown pistol and pic rail mount vertical grip, Foliage Green - $65   • Tangodown MRO cover, black $35   • Safariland MLS fork and plate (no hardware) - $10   • Olight Mini Valkyrie pistol WML - $70 • HSGI Lasercut belt pad XL - $50 • Ameriglo Spartan Operator night sights, fit small frame Gen 3 &4 Glocks (G26/27, 19/23, 17/22, 34/35), these are less than a year old, orange front sight, very bright tritium - $60   • Reptilia 10mm RMR/Holosun riser - $40   Thanks for looking. More to come soon - (slings, holsters, AR parts)   First to post “I’ll take it” wins the sale.    
    • Medal rounds for the mixed-team Air Rifle and Air Pistol events were held today.   This is a new event in this Olympic cycle, with each mixed team composed of one male and one female shooter from their respective national team in each discipline. Mixed Team 10 meter Air Rifle Gold:  China Silver:  USA Bronze: Russia*   Mixed Team 10 meter Air Pistol Gold:  China Silver: Russia* Bronze: Ukraine   *Russia and many of their top athletes are currently serving out a multi-year ban from international competition, as a result of being busted for state-sponsored doping violations on a massive scale.  However, many of their athletes are still being allowed to compete as the 'Russian Olympic Committee' (ROC) team, flying Russian colors but not the actual flag.   I'll still refer to them as Russia here. Russia making a mockery of their Olympics ban
    • Nope.  They just left it at my door.  Was USPS - has USPS stickers all over it, not Fedex.
    • Really? Mine was FedEx all the way. I assumed the signature/age requirement was because of the value. It's not a firearm and there's no serial number. Did you have to sign?
×
×
  • Create New...