galapoola

Gura has been pretty clear on capacity, if a magazine fits in the grip of a pistol for instance, then that would be a common use magazine and therefore can't be banned. That was his rational. I believe the new compliant stock that does away with the pistol grip on an AR-15 proves that the NY SAFE act was all about cosmetics and had nothing to do with the lethality. Again, AR-15's are today's musket and according to Heller are common use, really can't be banned by name or evilness. I think that once we get another SCOTUS victory, lower courts may finally get it, that you can't use interest balancing on the 2nd Amendment.

Since Sheriff Gore opted not to ask for en banc of the full appeals court and said he wouldn't pursue any further, there is no one to appeal this up. Some have opined that the state of CA could but they weren't named as a defendant so they may not have standing

Drake's timetable doesn't get moved by this, NJ has until March 14 to file a brief then SCOTUS will schedule for conference, then it is either ignored like these three or scheduled for oral arguments

Court denies gun rights cases The Supreme Court refused on Monday, as it has done repeatedly in recent years, to reopen the issue of whether Second Amendment rights to have a gun extend beyond the home. The Court, without comment, denied three new petitions — two filed by the National Rifle Association. The cases were 12-1401, 13-137 and 13-390. (This post will be expanded following this morning’s oral arguments.)

Per federal law you are free to travel with your legally owned firearms from NJ through enemy territory (MD, Wash DC). Once in NC, how you transfer your legally owned firearms are no longer under the jurisdiction of NJ. In NC you are under the jurisdiction of NC and federal law. Want to make it real safe? Find a dealer in NC to do a transfer from you to son. Son gets a NICS to see if he is eligible, all the guns go in the bound book, and you're done.

These "hiding in wait" laws suck, there is one from the 80/90's that basically allows the state to confiscate and destroy your car if you failed the DMV inspection two or three times. I remember seeing a flyer about the legislation on the bulletin board at a dealership parts counter.

Sandy knocked out our grid power for 8 days. We ran a portable generator on and off during the day to keep the fridge cool. Hunting for gas was the biggest challenge. For that stretch heat was not a problem. We have an old school NG hot water heater. K-1 was a backup heat source.

No more negotiations, it's our way or the highway. What, these morons all of a sudden think stopping for a burger is OK when yesterday it was blood running in the streets? Are they serious? I'm going to start speaking life to this, call those things that are not as though they are. Once we win this and "justifiable need" is a footnote in law books, I for one will remind the news outlets how much this civil rights lawsuit cost NJ. Besides the salaries & expenses of the AG office to defend this, we the tax payers will have to pay Gura and company for their time. Then I'm going to call Alan Gottlieb and/or Scott Bach and tell them to start the next round which can include standard capacity magazines. Moving forward, we decide freedom, not the idiot legislators who are firearm clueless. == end of rant ==

I thought that IL would offer up a "may issue" scheme similar to what we have on the books in NJ. To my surprise, they did not. They have a version of "shall issue" which still amazes me. In NJ the only part of the statute being challenged is "justifiable need". Once that's struck down no superior judge can deny an application from a law abiding citizen who meets the requirements. The subjective tool is taken out of their kit. Nothing in the process changes. You still apply at your PD or NJSP barrack. If you're denied or approved at that level you still go before a judge and he has to sign off. The tyrants in Trenton can try and offer a bill to change the statute but Christie wouldn't sign it. He has national ambitions. With a favorable SCOTUS ruling he has his cover to go along with carry in NJ. Fast forward to when some dumb liberal is our new governor, carry in NJ will have been proven to be a success and no more boogeyman.

Assuming SCOTUS takes our case, they will almost definitely review the court of appeals majority opinion including the logic. The NJ valley girl attorney who argued for the state can't totally ignore her argument or the lower court opinion. The decision is a wildly poor opinion. Even if there was no split among the courts, the sloppy work of the appeals court has to be corrected. Come on, long standing laws trump the Bill of Rights because they've been there a long time and were crafted prior to 2008/2010, really? That alone is reason for cert.

I don't know if "clearer" is the best word but I understand the sentiment. Yes, the few "we order thus and thus" sentences at the very end of the opinion are what count, but the dicta, all that good tasty stuff on the other hundred pages is how the justices arrived at their opinion. And all that foundational dicta is replete with what "to bear" means. Gura and the SAF didn't ask about "to bear" so the order at the very end of both opinions does not address it. In that sense the 2008 & 2010 SCOTUS opinions are not "to bear" opinions. Not sure if everyone here realizes that it took almost 60 years and 8 separate cases for the 1st Amendment to be completely incorporated to the states. Prior to 1925 no part of the 1st Amendment was a protected right. Hard to believe but in prior to 1925 an American citizen living in NJ had no protection under the Bill of Rights for anything in the 1st Amendment. Hell the free exercise of religion was not protected until 1940. If you listen to or read the 2008 Heller v. DC orals, there is a point where a justice (believe it was Scalia) asks Gura if he wanted Dick Heller to be able to carry. Gura answered in a kind of astonished manner, (paraphrasing) "that would be great". Since it wasn't asked for in the complaint, the opinion did not address "to bear" in the order. The strategy as best as I can tell is you never want to bite off too much when appearing before SCOTUS. Gura and SAF have been systematically nibbling around the 2nd Amendment, building precedent on top of precedent. In the long term it will be very hard to dismantle any SCOTUS victory we enjoy. Alternately, every loss we encounter in the lower courts, no matter how many or how bodacious, can not over rule one good SCOTUS opinion. That is always been another strategy, attack as many and varied carry laws as possible. The sum of all the losses and or variety of outcomes (splits among lower appeal courts) can only benefit our cause as mentioned previously.

We still have the 5 who ruled favorably in 2008 & 2010. Kennedy is the so called "swing vote" on many cases that split left/right. He had said he was considering retirement but would not do so during an Obama presidency or if he got re-elected. Everyone knows what happens when any of the 5 gets replaced, a 5-4 liberal majority and an end to conservative wins in SCOTUS. Even if Ginsberg retires or leaves due to her poor health in the next three years, it is not good. That means a fresh liberal who will hold the seat for a long time.

In 2002 they had the "purchase & carry rifles & shotguns pursuant", that's what mine says. In 2013 the word carry was not on a family member's card. Not sure when it changed in those 11 years. Both cards still live under the 2C:58-3 and 20:39-5 so even if someone in Trenton removed the wording on the card, the legality of carry still exists, or one would think

wow, I truly hope they keep her on this for orals in the Fall, it would be epic. Maybe she can get a reality show out of it, "Clueless Civil Servants of Trenton" or "Valley Girls of the Attorney General's Office"

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-827.htm Jan 31 2014: SCOTUS grants Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 14, 2014. Attorneys for Respondents: Mary Beth Wood State of NJ, Dept. of Law & Public Safety (609) 984-6998 P.O. Box 112, 25 Market Street Trenton, NJ 08625-0112 [email protected] Don't remember if this was the valley girl who argued for the state in the court of appeals, if so this will be a very entertaining audio file when it gets heard

I've been aware of the "handgun possession illegal" and then "except in these circumstances" but never knew that we were under a guilty until proven innocent scheme. Well I kinda new it but the way Nappen describes it in his brief, at any time the authorities could storm troop your home. Technically that may be the case which begs the question why then does the NJSP approve your purchase through an FFL dealer without a carry (he calls it a possess) permit? It may be that this thing is always hanging over our heads and we just didn't really know? If you read the statute there is a good character clause somewhere in there for the issuance of a NJ Firearm Purchase ID card. I wonder if the state and towns decided that no one is of a good enough character that they could just shut down firearm purchases by collecting all our cards. NJ has a nasty tradition of crafting laws that give huge leeway to the police/prosecutors/courts at our expense. I'm still reading the brief, it's kind of mind blowing that a technical reading of the statute means what Nappen is presenting.

"The officer that handles the firearms dept said the NJSP are doing something new where you can pay the $18.00 online (+ a $2.00 convenience fee) and complete the criminal history background check that way, instead of getting a money order for $18.00 and having the PD do it in-house." Maybe I'm confused here but this $18 fee, is that in addition to a PPP? I thought once you got your NJ FPID any back ground check at the PD was on them. I understand the NICS fee at point of purchase, does this $18 apply to new card holders?

last pistol purchase permits I had was before one gun a month became law, so how much does it cost at the local PD ?

Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 12, 2014) http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-827.htm We have a date for a first response. I'm assuming this means a conference vote will be made to decide if the court will review. At that point SCOTUS may ??? ask for the plaintiff (NJ) to file a brief. Not sure of the order of things but eventually a date for oral arguments are set and then an opinion is rendered after that. With Heller and McDonald the opinion was released the very last day before summer break. I'm not sure how this timelines but supposing we get our day in court, NJ is given a reasonable amount of time to file a brief, say by summer. They may ask for an extension but if everything falls as it should, this could be heard next fall at the earliest. Maybe NJ will decide not to file a brief and/or bother representing itself in arguments preferring to let the two lower courts decisions speak for themselves.. The AG has sorta no-showed with two state 2nd A cases. It may be an attempt by the big guy to get a favorable view going with the other 49 states if he goes national by covering his 2nd Amendment record.

Again, the beauty of the petition is Gura gets to argue the merits of the states win. Liberal judge says a long standing scheme that pre-dates Heller is constitutional ? Well now dumbalina from the AG office has to go with that.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-rifle-association-of-america-v-mccraw/ National Rifle Association of America v. McCraw is not assigned to conference yet, it deals with to bear outside the home and the rights of18-20 year old's. The other is Drake v. Jerejian (ours, one named changed again) Both cases are before SCOTUS waiting for a response to a Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari No telling if they will hear either, many are hopeful they hear Drake v. Jerejian, I'm still NJ optimistic they will, can't get over the fact that our dumb laws continue to stand with all that has gone on since Heller in 2008, but the majority in all three branches are statists so that's what you get I suppose.

so the firearm permit lady actually slid a carry application under the glass? I'm surprised anyone even knew the form existed. I will say her tone has changed. I always got a "why do you need a gun sonny" vibe from her. When I accompanied a female family member she seemed very supportive of a first time FID & PP applicant. Might be a comradery thing but it was a better experience for sure.

A+ Also, unlike IL, there is no appeal after SCOTUS, they decide and NJ has to comply. SCOTUS won't grant NJ 180 days to craft a law, we already have a law. So in a perfect world SCOTUS strikes down justifiable need and rules that self defense is a sufficient "need". Also they declare that the 2nd applies outside the home (big duh). Under those conditions the issuing judges in NJ can not refuse self defense in the "letter of need" when signing off on permits. The statute doesn't even have to change, that's the genius of the petition.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/petitions-were-watching/ SCOTUS blog does a great job of updating the goings on. That link lists everything they will be reviewing in conference today. The conferences on the 17th & 24th are not as populated which tells me the justices haven't decided those day's complete agenda yet. The editors of the blog also list "Petitions Not Set for Conference" which already lists National Rifle Association of America v. McCraw and should list Drake soon. I would imagine most of the justices and their staff follow the lower court cases especially topics that are as active as the 2nd Amendment. As they do not tip their hand, we may never know why the NY & MD petitions were denied cert. If they grant cert for Drake it is my guess that the 4 who voted were waiting for it or one like it. I learned an interesting lesson at a town meeting a few years ago. A group was trying to develop a piece of land that needed a variance. The project was a low income housing rental adjacent to single family properties. Every person who spoke against the variance gave great reasons why the town shouldn't allow a low income rental. A 20+ year vet of Lakewood PD even spoke up and explained his experience with low income and what it does to a neighborhood. Those testifying all lived in close proximity of the property and would feel the impact. The reasons homeowners gave ranged from crime to drugs. Nothing seemed to phase the officials. The zoning board listened patiently for two hours, never revealing what they'd do. Everything changed when a young mother spoke. She said that the road was busy and there was a blind corner near the property. Her concern was for the children of the single mothers living in the proposed housing. She said they might get hit by one of the cars. The faces of the board immediately changed from comatose to wide eyed. They literally all looked from side to side at each other in a guesture that I took to mean, "did you hear that"? The chairman broke in and announced that they were very concerned for the safety of the children and put the variance to a vote on the spot. In less that 20 seconds we went from endless testimony to petition denied. If you blinked you missed it, it happened that fast. My take away was that the board knew and agreed with all the reasons the homeowners did not want a low income project in their neighborhood. They just couldn't publicly agree with it. They were waiting for cover. The safety of the children was all they needed. I believe these justices operate the same way on certain levels. Look at Roberts and how he voted on Obamacare. Even people who side with conservative values can be swayed. You just never know. Maybe this petition has a few hot buttons the fence sitters have been waiting for. Maybe the volume of cases rolling in will finally give someone the cover they are comfortable with. The five who voted together on Heller and McDonald are still seated and we only need 4 to grant cert. We should know soon.

+1 that, the issuing authority in NJ is the judiciary. Last I checked there is still separation of powers between the three branches but then again this is NJ. FYI, NJ's legal scheme to empower the judiciary to perform an executive action was a point made in the first brief at the federal level when our civil rights law suit was first heard.