raz-0

They already made insurance illegal once, and driving is not a constitutional right. I suspect they will be surprised what is no longer constitutional in the long run.

Looks like they aren't getting it if default is prohibited on private property including places of public accommodation. SO everything will be private property or a sensitive location. They do want to fuck around and find out. The dems COULD seriously hobble the GOP for a generation by simply laying off gun control and blaming scouts. Without the gun vote, the GOP woold pretty much be crippled at the national level. But they are too stupid to see this... or thing the things they want to do will get them shot in the face. One or the other.

FRom the press conference. In court: Oh we aren't suppressing demand, nobody actually wants one. now: We expect demand to be about 200,000 applications.

Links to this? Or did it just go off the rails because Roe dropped?

"Delay" means something different in the presence of a ruling. The goalposts have been moved (or finally established if you like that view better), about what is burdensome from a civil liberties standpoint. So if they suggest something sufficiently stupid, we don't have to wade through the state stuff, we can go straight to the federal level seeking injunction. If you have been paying attention, getting to SCOTUS for an injunction is something that can be done in months. If they are really stupid about it, NJ could wind up with no CCW law creating a carry holiday like CA would up with a magazine holiday. I don't think they will be that stupid, but I also don't think they will be smart enough to just say the existing process is it, but self defense should meet the good cause justification requirement.

I'm not asking where the lawsuits at. I know that more or less. I'm asking for people to throw some ideas out there no matter how wild. Some fun speculation that might spark some ideas but probably won't. And maybe shoot some holes in said wild speculation because it might be educational.

If you read the decision he literally says that if they go the route of burdensome fees, delays, or restrictions to sidestep this ruling that the court will take these cases. I suspect we will get a flurry of remands on the pending 2a cases at some point.

It’s a logical extension of Thomas saying that bearing arms is a right of the average citizen. The police are not only empowered to bear arms defensively, but offensively. They are given the power of arrest, qualified immunity, etc. Setting the standards to exercise a fundamental right tobe higher than that required to exercise those extraordinary privileges would go very much as against his warnings in this case. I do not think it has really hit home just how much this ruling said fuck around and find out.

Three is wrong. The 14th had nothing to do with life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. The due process clause says that a citizen shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. The 14th amendment is the amendment via which any particular bill of rights item from the first eight amendments is incorporated to the states. It was applied to the 2nd in McDonald. It was reiterated by Thomas in Bruen. Additionaly, it may have been a shot across the bow of the judiciary regarding the privileges and immunities clause. That clause has been effectively mooted by the court for pretty racist reasons. The court has put out some pretty tortured logic to avoid changing that. The pretense was stare decisis but the reality was that it was a wrong ruling long enough ago that there would likely be some massive re-litigation that could potentially cripple the courts just due to case load. It is however the most direct path to the court insisting in reciprocity of ccws. So you have a black man who just redefined the strictest form of scrutiny. Who agreed with the majority on the leaked roe decision that is basically saying state decisis is not sacrosanct. Who may very well be threatening to burn down nearly 100 years of case history sitting on top of some incredibly racist case law if they fuck around and find out regarding his decision.

It can’t be harder than leo qualification, and that isn’t that hard.

The Bruen decision has me thinking of what would be good to mess up NJ's web of crap laws. My #1 would be suing not over the purchase permits themselves, but over all the fees associated with it as an infringement on civil rights. The suit would attach damages, which would include all legal fees, and for NJ to return all associated fees to those who had been affected by them or their estate. If it needs doing for public safety, let the public pay for it via tax money, not individual fees.

You will need 10,000 letters of reference. They are going to try a lot of stupid things. The problem is that the right applies to the typical citizen, so if it is broadly exclusionary of most people, it's a problem. Something like excluding anyone with a moving violation on their record would be a problem. Burdensome fees would be a problem.

They do not use 4473. That is for people. The police department is not a person it is a government entity. Just like an non C&R ffl is not a person, but a business entity. Government entities use a form 10.

They have not. And were the decision to grant one left in the hands of a sheriff, there would 100% not be a path to avoiding them. Avoiding conviction perhaps, but not avoiding them. But you go to court for them. And that court has been issued precedent. NJ being NJ, they probably won't obey it, but they might and it's a button worth pushing.

Uhh fine. but in the end the permit is issued by Judges. They make the decision on the cause being justified. They ignore SCOTUS at their peril. What is likely is that they will punt until there's a new statute. The AG doesn't get to say jack about this. They aren't a legislator or a judge. They could offer guidelines about ignoring that part of the statute in view of the ruling, but they won't. I'm just not sure it matters.

I think everyone here is mistaking your question. My kid was given a $30 basic wave razor drone. It is stabilized and able to be piloted by people with minimal skill unlike a lot of the toy drones. It is not sold under that brand, but harbor freight seems to sell the same drone with camera for $50. It's not a good drone, but it is plenty controllable enough with cheap enough batteries to buy extra and be able to screw around with it for a while. It's good for determining if this is a thing that interests you and you would like to spend more money on as the whole package is cheaper then even a spare battery for anything good. https://www.harborfreight.com/high-performance-drone-with-480p-cameravideo-56814.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=12169617963&campaignid=12169617963&utm_content=116466547349&adsetid=116466547349&product=56814&store=381&gclid=Cj0KCQjwntCVBhDdARIsAMEwACmIkgBBVLnZp_-V7Z4tmDGiy8unQ9WQ7QdqLfFEL_BcYxFjJUvuYSUaAuElEALw_wcB

Hopefully the various NJ orgs and the private ranges with a charter to foster gun ownership are gearing up for some volume. Step one should be train the trainers.

There are exemptions to normal FFL stuff for departments, yes. Just not officers operating as individuals.

I mean the decision literally says that permitting is permitted and uniform, objective standards are not necessarily infringing nor are they guaranteed to not be infringing.

Well it shuts down intermediate scrutiny hard. It says there is no balancing test of states interests. It either conforms to the 2nd amendment or not, and the argument is about what the second amendment covers. It will certainly take more time, but the question is how much. There are a bunch of other held cases they will likely remand, but I don't have them committed to memory and am still reading the ruling.

"Because fuck you that's why"

This is telling the lower court they are wrong and to redo it. I believe this is there because the correct ruling should be to issue the permit, which the lower court needs to do rather than scotus.

What I can't tell is if we got strict scrutiny or some new tier of scrutiny they re trying to make happen. It very clearly states strict scrutiny is a no-no.

I am shocked it wasn't the last day. This is officially me eating crow. Now I gotta read it.

People need to stop perpetuating this. CA is the ONLY state that has ever mandated microstamping. All these references are to "ballistic fingerprinting" databases. MD and NY had them, and that was why for the longest time you got two spent shell cases in the box with every pistol. Those were useless too, but for different reasons than microstamping. Microstamping does NOT exist. There is a patent, and it kind of works. But there is no mass manufacturing scale method to implement it. The patent rights have been waived, but there are still not practical implementations of it. It doesn't have a success rate higher than tool marks, and it is easily compromised. If it magically existed, it'd still be useless for the same reason the ballistic fingerprinting was. That's simply because there is seldom a need to identify a firearm to solve a crime. Identifying the firearm doesn't place anyone at the scene of the crime, and they need to prove Bob was there and did it, not that this particular gun we can't prove Bob from the hood ever owned was used.