springfieldxds

not our country, this state, there are plenty of states that still respect our individual rights

what is his job and what was the threat he received

you might be right, but i believe at the very least, republicans will take some seats from the dems which might be more than enough to send shock waves through the senate, with that it'll force the more conservative leaning dems to vote with care when it comes to guns and possibly a new scotus appointee

reading through the decision and trying my best to understand it, it sounds like Abramski shot himself in the foot, it seems like he wanted scotus to rule that no straw purchasing was illegal even if the person receiving the gun couldn't legally own a gun, he says all that matters is that the person at the counter can own the gun this was so broad that even the dissent rejected it and still tried to side with Abramski, if he would've stayed with his original defense, the dissents reasoning, which was that one legal owner can buy a gun for another legal owner, well we might have won the case am i wrong in this reading?

well theres a very likely chance that republicans will take control of the senate, if that happens we might be able to tip scotus in our favor or at the very least, keep it as it is till we get a republican president

“Five members of the Supreme Court have decided to make it a federal crime for a lawful gun owner to buy a firearm for another lawful gun owner,” Lund said in a statement sent to TGM by a public relations firm. “No federal statute says any such thing. The Justices are once again legislating from the bench, which violates the Constitution, and enacting a retroactive criminal law, which is even worse.” i couldn't have said it better myself, they're making up laws where there weren't any, sounds like scotus is turning more into the NJ supreme court

this i understand but to me it just seems like a clear way to make purchasing a firearm more difficult while making more people prohibited, as someone else stated, you buy a gun with the intent to sell it, you go through the ffl and get all the paperwork and youre breaking the law but if you buy a gun today and decide you dont want it an hour later so you decide to sell, now youre legal i think Kennedy could have easily understood this and did but didnt want to vote pro gun it was a 2nd A issue with the NRA and over 20 something states who supported Abramski we all know the law was made to keep prohibited people from acquiring guns, Kennedy knew this too but wanted to give more power to the ATF and make the law broader this is all my opinion of course which in the end is moot

why would you think this

well i guess now we know why scotus has decided not to hear any of the carrying cases, im not a tinfoil hat guy myself but im starting to feel like the whole nsa having something on Kennedy might have a little truth in it, i mean we get Heller and McDonald and now Kennedy is agreeing with Kagen sorry meant Kennedy not Roberts

i dont think its so hard for scotus to rule that they can charge a fee if that fee is used to cover the amount it takes to issue the permit. ie a fee to cover the material and time, not a fee to make it harder to exercise that right, which is clearly what NYC is doing, i dont think it costs 340 bucks in material and time to get that permit made if you dont want scotus getting involved in that than we just have different views on what the job is of scotus

im talking about fees not actual permits.............. i dont think its so hard for scotus to rule that they can charge a fee if that fee is used to cover the amount it takes to issue the permit. ie a fee to cover the material and time, not a fee to make it harder to exercise that right

i agree with this, were a republic to protect our rights regardless of what the majority thinks, if congress all of sudden wanted to ban free religion by an overwhelming majority well the constitution is there to stop them and when it doesn't the courts kick in or they're at least supposed to

also last i checked the 1st amendment gives us the right to protest, peacefully that is, so we can use public land to assemble and what im saying is im sure scotus would find it unconstitutional if a town wanted to start charging 450 bucks for a permit to assemble

private land is completely different than public land

i guess that's true but i just wished there was a way that such unconstitutional laws could be dealt with, when all other methods fail (legislators and courts) were a republic to protect the minority from the majority so it shouldn't matter how few people the law affects, i just wish scotus would see it that way

true but for some reason i believe that if a small out of no where town started charging 440 bucks for a permit to protest scotus would be all over that in no time

ryan do you think it would be wise for our legislators to make a law that basically says that if a majority of the house, senate and the president believes a case should be heard by scotus they have to hear the case then, a law like that might actually make them take cases that have affect on the ordinary Americans

funny but true, Pakistanis judiciary system is more effective than ours at this point in time

i cant wrap my head around why scotus is denying all these cases, this one was cut and dry and wouldn't really affect the 2nd amendment at all, this seems like the type of case scotus would want to take in my own opinion im thinking that probably about 50% of new yorkers cant own guns now because they don't have the funds, scotus doesn't find anything wrong with this? on an unrelated note i wouldnt mind paying $440 a year for a cc permit in NJ if the extra money would make them happy and shut their mouths, i believe a $500 dollar yearly fee was already recommend by a legislator though in NJ and they didnt seem too interested, weird considering all NJ cares about is money

yes i believe its pretty clear that if you get pulled over and have a visible rifle in your vehicle youll probably have guns pointed at you, your car searched and youll most likely be arrested do you believe in your own a opinion though that if you have ammo and an unloaded magazine in you immediate possession like the center console, do you think that can be considered "loaded"

i have no idea what you mean by this

i think technically you can but youll probably be arrested and charged with disturbing the peace and a load of other crimes, and in a state in NJ the judge will probably agree with the charges

this actually answers my question, so i can basically have my AR on my lap when driving down the road now whats considered loaded? can i have my mags loaded with ammo on the passenger seat or in the glove compartment or do they have to be in the back?

thats for handguns i believe so ryan in your non lawyer opinion, i can have an unloaded AR in a rifle rack in the back of my jeep? does it have to be in the back or can it also be in the back seat? is there any regulations on carrying the ammo and mags with it too? like having the ammo already loaded in the mags and having them in the glove compartment? thanks

im with ryan on this one, plus if scotus doesnt want people carrying it would have been much more convenient for them to take Drake and say carrying isnt protected by the 2nd, that then opens a bunch of states to lawsuits from the Brady bunch Drake was the perfect case but with a not so perfect lawyer, i dont think scotus wants to ever see Gura in their courtroom again after the slaughter house fiasco in McDonald, to scotus that was way out of line, which is why not even one justice sided with Guras arguments in McDonald Gura also leaves out alot of info in his cases and forces the courts to do a lot of their own research which shows lack of preparation