Downtownv 1,764 Posted October 27, 2020 I truly believe they were not heard because they knew they had 1 shot at them pass or fail. ACB changes EVERYTHING! like Magazine limits and Concealed carry in NJ as well as reciprocity. AFTER the SCOTUS rulles on the election outcome, of course. This is finally a new era, where the courts will do as envisioned by our founders. Rule on the Constutionality of laws, NOT re write them to make them acceptable. The media is crying about a 6-3 majority, but I call it a 5-4 as Justice Roberts is no conservative. I looked to see if there was any posts related and didn't see any. LET THE GAMES BEGIN! 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,766 Posted October 27, 2020 I hope that you are right, but I'm not holding my breath. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gleninjersey 2,134 Posted October 27, 2020 Thomas was PISSED thst they didn't take any of the 2A cases before them earlier this year. I hope you are correct. At the very least, strike down NJ's permitting scheme and make them issue conceal carry. Especially since it was already done in DC. And my understanding is that DC founded their "Good Cause" scheme on NJ's "Justifiable Need" scheme. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,417 Posted October 27, 2020 41 minutes ago, gleninjersey said: Thomas was PISSED thst they didn't take any of the 2A cases before them earlier this year. I hope you are correct. At the very least, strike down NJ's permitting scheme and make them issue conceal carry. Especially since it was already done in DC. And my understanding is that DC founded their "Good Cause" scheme on NJ's "Justifiable Need" scheme. Let’s start with overturning the mag ban. Especially since that case is awaiting en banc review and could go to SCOTUS within a year. Regain some small ground. Then target those bigger things. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downtownv 1,764 Posted October 27, 2020 Agree mag Ban absolutly But outside of the totalitarian state of New Jermany, conceal carry is a norm not a peculiarity. Reciprocity is a no brainer, works for my motorcycle car an boat licenses. I permits are good for 35 states but not NJ, pure bullshit. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,417 Posted October 27, 2020 21 minutes ago, Downtownv said: Reciprocity is a no brainer, works for my motorcycle car an boat licenses. Reciprocity actually has some interesting State’s rights aspects that makes it anything but a no brainer. Add to that there isn’t an agreed-to standard for CCW. How do you align states with CC (no “license”) with others like PA (“license”) with NJ (GTFO)? I want to tackle the easy no brainers like Justifiable Need before causing a constitutional crisis 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downtownv 1,764 Posted October 27, 2020 4 minutes ago, voyager9 said: How do you align states with CC (no “license”) with others like PA (“license”) with NJ (GTFO)? I want to tackle the easy no brainers like Justifiable Need before causing a constitutional crisis To which I add, who gave the states these "Rights" The 2a is spectacularly clear: SHALL NOT INFRINGE PLEASE TRY TO CHANGE MY MIND...... 2 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,417 Posted October 27, 2020 Just now, Downtownv said: To which I add, who gave the states these "Rights" The 2a is spectacularly clear: SHALL NOT INFRINGE PLEASE TRY TO CHANGE MY MIND...... You’re moving the goalpost. You can’t have reciprocity with national Constitutional Carry. If you don’t need a license nationally then what is reciprocal? Ironically National CC seems easier legally to get to than NR. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Hartman 31 Posted October 27, 2020 States do not have the authority to regulate firearms. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downtownv 1,764 Posted October 27, 2020 8 minutes ago, Jim Hartman said: States do not have the authority to regulate firearms. MY POINT EXACTLY! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PeteF 1,044 Posted October 28, 2020 1 hour ago, Downtownv said: To which I add, who gave the states these "Rights" The 2a is spectacularly clear: SHALL NOT INFRINGE PLEASE TRY TO CHANGE MY MIND...... 10th "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 2nd "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Since the 2nd says Fed cannot infringe on the rights of the people to bear arms, and the 2nd having been held against the states, means the States have no power to infringe on the right to bear arms either. Something that can be licensed is not a right. Reciprocity is an abortion of people's right. National Constitutional Carry is what needs to be forced. 1 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downtownv 1,764 Posted October 28, 2020 #PeteF exactly my fokking point! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downtownv 1,764 Posted October 28, 2020 The 2A Cases That SCOTUS Could Accept With ACB On The Bench Posted at 9:00 am on October 27, 2020 by Cam Edwards With Monday evening’s confirmation and swearing in of Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court is back to nine justices, and in the coming weeks and months Barrett is likely to provide a crucial vote in deciding what, if any, Second Amendment-related cases the Court should consider. While the Supreme Court just turned away a case called Rodriguez vs. City of San Jose that dealt with firearms seizures, gun owners and Second Amendment advocates are hoping that with Barrett on the bench, 2A cases will start to be addressed by the Court for the first time in a decade. It was 2010 when the Court struck down the city of Chicago’s ban on handguns in the McDonald case, but since then SCOTUS has been mostly silent on the issue. So what are the cases that could soon come before the Court? While the Supreme Court doesn’t currently have any Second Amendment-related cases that are being considered in conference, a case called Caldara vs. City of Boulder could go to conference by the end of the year. This case is a challenge to the city of Boulder, Colorado’s so-called assault weapons ban, but the question before the Court is whether or not the plaintiffs in the case will actually be able to bring a challenge to the local ordinance, with lower courts turning away the case and petitioners asking the Supreme Court to revive the issue. The Court will also soon consider a case called Carey v. Throwe, which involves a right-to-carry challenge brought by Norris Paul Carey, Jr., a retired officer with the Maryland Natural Resources Police who sought to carry under the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act, but had his LEOSA card stripped from him after his former department claimed that he had not retired in good standing. While this case could ultimately be used as a vehicle for the Court to weigh in on the right to bear arms outside of the home, because the challenge deals with LEOSA and not the standard concealed carry licenses for civilians, if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case it could issue a narrow ruling that doesn’t directly impact the ability of law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm. There are also a number of cases currently in circuit courts of appeals that could soon make their way to the Supreme Court for consideration, including a challenge to California’s ban on online and out-of-state sales of ammunition (Rhode v. Becerra), a case taking on California’s magazine ban (Duncan v. Becerra), and a challenge to the state of Hawaii’s ban on open carry (Young v. Hawaii). The Young case could be one of the next cases to arrive at the Supreme Court, since oral arguments have been held in the en banc review of the case in the Ninth Circuit. Once the en banc decision comes down, it’s likely that the losing side will appeal the case up to the Supreme Court, and that could be the first case that deals with a right to carry that the Court will hear after Barrett’s confirmation. This case not only deals with the right to openly carry a firearm, it also implicates an earlier case out of the Ninth Circuit (Peruta v. San Diego) that held that there is no constitutional right to carry concealed. The Young case would allow the Supreme Court to not only undo the damage done in Peruta, but to finally weigh in on whether the right to keep and bear arms actually protects a right to, you know, bear arms. There are a few other cases percolating in the circuit courts of appeals that we’ll be taking a closer look at later today, but I’d say the cases listed above are the first that have the opportunity to be heard by the Supreme Court now that Amy Coney Barrett is officially an Associate Justice. https://bearingarms.com/came/2020/10/27/the-2a-cases-that-scotus-could-accept/?utm_source=badaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&bcid=bc1d86e1053dd21c60a121534def959c 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Regular Guy 264 Posted October 29, 2020 On 10/27/2020 at 6:32 PM, voyager9 said: Reciprocity actually has some interesting State’s rights aspects that makes it anything but a no brainer. Add to that there isn’t an agreed-to standard for CCW. How do you align states with CC (no “license”) with others like PA (“license”) with NJ (GTFO)? I want to tackle the easy no brainers like Justifiable Need before causing a constitutional crisis The States need to get "aligned" under the constitution. It addresses the extend to which each state can exercise its own right as a state and where that authority ends. Besides the "shall not be infringed" statement in the 2nd amendment, section 1 of the 14th amendment says: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. One could make a very valid argument that every law that has anything to do with firearms in NJ is unconstitutional. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Golf battery 1,223 Posted November 30, 2020 Coup d’etat. Is that how you say it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites