springfieldxds

im calling twice a day, once from my work phone and once from my cellphone, i would also call from my house phone if i had one

i dont believe peruta is a good case for them, they can throw out the case saying that it only deals with concealed carry which in their opinion isnt protected by the 2nd amendment (9th circuit plus scotus made this clear with their historical analysis, seems like the 9th circuit believes open carry is protected and conceal isnt, but they believe that in today's age you can ban open carry if conceal carry is allowed because open carry can cause public panic) and if you want to test the legality of an open carry ban bring up a new case thats focused on that imho it seems like the dissent was pretty dead on about that, the case challenged the permitting scheme to conceal carry, it didnt challenge the open carry ban so there is a slight possibility that scotus will say the 9th over steeped their boundaries at least in NJ there is no open carry ban you just need a licence, there is also no distinction between open and concealed carry when you get your licence, that to me seems like a better suited case but then again im not a lawyer

done told 4 other people to call too

i still have hope, drake i believe is the one they are waiting for, the other one of the 3, not sure which one, dealt with 18 year olds carrying guns i believe, scotus probably doesnt want to touch that issue with a 50 foot pole on another note, can scoutus clarify guns outside the home without actually taking the case?

A Hawaii court might point out that in other states, typically less than 5-10 percent of the population obtains a permit, and this is “exceptional” enough. The requirement for “urgency OR need” could be met by the ordinary need to have the ability to defend oneself in an emergency. Its mostly this part, is this to say there is loop hole for Hawaii to remain may issue?

The simplest way for Hawaii to fix the problem would be to excise four words from the statute: “In an exceptional case.” Then the statute could be read so that need to carry for ordinary protection against ordinary crime could be construed as a sufficient basis for a permit. Alternatively, the Hawaii Supreme Court could apply a narrowing construction to the statutory language, bringing it into line with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. There are many examples of state Supreme Courts construing state statutes so as to save those statutes from violating the First Amendment or other constitutional provisions. A Hawaii court might point out that in other states, typically less than 5-10 percent of the population obtains a permit, and this is “exceptional” enough. The requirement for “urgency OR need” could be met by the ordinary need to have the ability to defend oneself in an emergency. Can somebody put this into simpler words?

I read there's a strong chance that the sheriff will appeal to the Supreme Court

Found it sorry

We are fighting this!! Thanks for contacting me. Alison from alison mchose if the republicans are against this christie will have to veto, he cant turn on his own party especially since the dems hate him with a burning passion

When will this be voted on? I need to know when to start stockpile 15s

Are any Republicans behind this? Or is Sweeny the only person behind this, if Republicans get behind this than Christie will be forced to sign

They were saying the same thing about Illinois after their ruling from the 7th circuit but look how that turned out Its not a great carry law but I'm sure its something that every nj gun owner wouldn't mind having

But whatever it may be this split only helps our case

Just my personal opinion but from my research scotus usually only approves cases with a split ie abortions

Theres a good chance en banc will be denied by the 9th circuit, remember en banc is rarely ever approved, less than 1% of cases are approved and even if it is approved, by the time they hear the case, scotus will decide to hear Drake or not, so at that point it'll still be considered a split This is very important for us very, this creates the split we needed, without this split scotus would of most likely turn down Drake

What affect is this ruling going to have on Hawaii since the 9th circuit also covers them? Also doesn't this throw out the whole good cause scheme in all of California not just San Diego?

well i for one dont think we have anything worry about on Christie being replaced, NJ loves Christie, Christie isnt going anywhere and he knows it now PA will be interesting as they have a 10% chance keeping a republican as governor eveyone there thinks their state Constitution will keep them safe from 2nd amendment infringement but they fail to see what happened in NY or Connecticut the disease has spread

so basically there is no hope left for nj

I'm mainly wondering if it changes anything with taking our firearms to PA, I know a lot of lawyers believe fopa protects us as long as we leave from our house and go straight to PA with out any stops

So are they going to arrest everyone trying to fly out of nj with a firearm? And does this ruling prove we can drive into pa with our firearms as long as we don't get out of the vehicle?

Any news on the en banc decision

It says it will ban the sale not possession, so you can just buy them in pa or something

What do you guys think are the chances the dems meet his conditions on the awful Sweeny bill?

I just don't understand what happened in the footage, would someone be able to give me the play by play

I'm lost, I can see the Hughes amendment failed the vote, so how did Charlie get it to go through