ryan_j

Huh He turned on them last election. That said it is likely he will veto but don't take it for granted.

As I posted in the other thread, Sheriff Gore from San Diego has decided not to appeal. So now we almost pretty much have an established split (barring a judge asking for en Banc) and this will work in our favor for the Supreme Court to hear Drake.

http://apps.sdsheriff.net/press/Default.aspx?FileLink=fce6dc6b-e015-4c15-8d6c-4e38b4e212e1

Sheriff decided not to appeal. The decision becomes final next week, but a judge on the 9th circuit can ask for en Banc review within 7 days. Less likely than the appellants asking but still a possibility. So, Barring another appeal, CA will become shall issue on March 7. This also has a huge effect on our case, Drake v Jerejian since there is now a well established circuit split.

The Supreme Court has done no such thing. The 9th circuit in the Peruta opinion has. But that opinion is only binding in the 9th circuit which is basically California, Hawaii, the Mariana Islands (and a bunch of other states which are shall issue already).

Plenty could change. San Diego has until the 27th to apply for a rehearing en banc. If they do, the decision will be stayed pending appeal. The split becomes weaker, but it's still there. But if they let the decision stand, the split is strong, pretty much compelling the high court to review the case.

I would hold off on applying. The case seems to be solidifying now for a grant of cert, just need that 9th cir decision to stand.

The other thing that could happen is that we could get the courts to hear a SAFE act challenge. Not the NJ courts, they're activist lapdogs. I'm talking about the US Supreme Court to apply Heller. Needs to be done soon. They are getting up there in age. Justice Scalia was saying something to the effect that if you think there couldn't be internment camps like they had during WW2 again, you're kidding yourself. So while much of what Nickjc is saying may sound alarmist, I think it has some merit.

From NJ2AS: February 20, 2014 - Manahawkin, NJ New Jersey Democrats in the Senate and Assembly announced today that they have reached a “deal” to ban firearms magazines over the arbitrary number of 10 rounds. It was claimed in a news article that this “deal” was in exchange for supporting a bill favorable to firearms owners, amending the existing “reasonable deviation” restriction in transportation of firearms to and from the range. The New Jersey Second Amendment Society was not involved in any such “deal” and is unaware of any rights-based organization in New Jersey that supports a reduction in magazine capacity from the current 15 rounds to an arbitrary 10 rounds. It appears the “deal” was made between Democrats in both houses of the Legislature. The New Jersey Second Amendment Society condemns such backroom “deals” by the Legislature, particularly as the people of New Jersey have not been given the opportunity to testify or attend hearings on the subject matter. Criminals will not abide by such magazine reductions, once again leaving the law-abiding citizen to remain in a position of State-mandated victimhood. The New Jersey Second Amendment Society maintains that the actions of the Legislature are unconstitutional in both substance and procedure, and an appropriate response is warranted. It was further announced today that Democratic legislative leaders will host some Newtown, Connecticut Victims’ families at a press conference in support of this latest attempt at gun control in New Jersey. The NJ2AS, its leadership, membership and supporters all mourned the senseless killing of innocent children by a madman in Newtown, Connecticut. However, the Democrats in the New Jersey Legislature are exploiting the victims and their families, using tragedy and related emotion to further infringe on the rights of New Jersey’s law-abiding gun owners. For this, we cannot stand despite the degree of emotion involved. Each and every member and supporter should be prepared to become involved in stopping this unconstitutional attack on our liberties. Be on the alert for further communications regarding how you can help the Society respond to these unconstitutional attacks once that information is available.

From ANJRPC: NJ DEMS CLAIM "DEAL" TO BAN MAGAZINES OVER 10 ROUNDS Watered-Down "Fix" to Firearms Transportation Law Is Supposed to Pacify Legal Gun Owners A news story is making the rounds today indicating that a "deal" has been cut between Senate and Assembly Democrats to ban firearms magazines over 10 rounds, in exchange for a supposed "fix" to a firearms transportation law that threatens gun owners with incarceration if they stop en route to the range or other authorized points. The story indicates that legislative leaders will be joined by Newtown victims' families as part of "the fanfare" (the reporter's words, not ours) at an upcoming press conference. The story has fueled speculation among gun owners that Second Amendment organizations were somehow involved in this supposed "deal." Neither ANJRPC, nor any other Second Amendment organization of which we are aware, had any involvement in such an arrangement. More importantly, this news is a reminder that there remain politicians in the Garden State who continue to exploit tragedy to advance a pre-conceived agenda that has nothing to do with stopping criminals or madmen, and everything to do with limiting the self-defense rights of law-abiding citizens. Arbitrary magazine limits do nothing to stop tragedy. Those bent on doing evil will not follow a magazine ban, and even if they did, magazines can be changed quickly. This kind of legislation gives criminals advantage over the law-abiding, and ties the hands of citizens in an emergency or home invasion. Additionally, the idea that gun owners will accept a magazine ban in exchange for a supposed "fix" of an unrelated issue, is absurd. Both issues represent an infringement of Constitutionally protected rights. Gun owners will never, ever trade one infringement for another. The message to gun owners is clear: the threat to Freedom in the Garden State is ever-present, and it will soon be time to answer the call once again. Please get ready to attend upcoming hearings when they are announced, and to speak out in every way possible. Please watch for upcoming alerts with details as soon as we have them.

Well played, sir. Well played!

LOL, he has a billion scandals to his name already and people are already saying they don't trust a North East republican

And then our next mission will be to shout it from the rooftops that Christie supports gun control. He will be absolutely dead as a GOP candidate for anything outside of NJ. Not even dog catcher!

Yeah, right. I must admit they're getting warmer though. To that I say, no sale. Let the US Supreme Court strike down justifiable need, and we won't even need this bill. NO DEAL, SWEENEY. NO DEAL!!! http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/02/deal_in_place_to_cut_ammo_magazine_limit_to_10_rounds.html#incart_river

There is no stay, but there is only a decision, not a mandate (court order). Once there is a mandate, it's case law that has to be followed. Until there is a mandate, the existing law applies. But some like Orange County are already preparing to accept applications with "self defense" as the good cause.

It applies to the entire 9th circuit. Immediately affected are CA and HI and I believe Guam and the Northern Mariana islands. If there is no appeal, a mandate will be issued and they will have to accept "self defense" as good cause for issuing a permit, or allow open carry.

I'm arguing that you have the CHOICE of having one at home. They are not forcing you to have one.

Yeah, right? IT was in the Washington Post though.

You're arguing need and practical things. This is about a right. Once you have a right, it's no one's business why you need that right.

You do not have a right to anything first of all, you have exemptions. Now that we have that out of the way, let's address the rest of it. The exemption allows you to keep or carry a firearm about your place of business, residence, premises or other land owned or possessed. It doesn't say anything about unloaded or loaded. Loaded and unloaded does come into play when you are transporting, in which case they specify the manner in which it must be transported, which is, "unloaded and contained in a closed and fastened case, gunbox, securely tied package, or locked in the trunk of the automobile in which it is being transported." So it is perfectly legal to unload your firearm and case it before you leave your property. If your car is on your property you're good. If your car is not on your property (eg. the street or a common garage or parking lot in an apartment complex), it is unclear whether it is legal to transport your firearm on foot in a case to your car. But it may be covered under reasonable deviation, but it may not. No case law on this, so it's up to a judge to decide.

Security guard permit, or regular justifiable need?

I don't get where you're going with this one.

It's fake. The spoof is a template for other states like LA and NC and they use the same 170k number.

This is because they view gun ownership through the narrow window of hunting. It was interesting talking to people while working the NJ2AS booth at GSOSS (I met one guy who said he was a NJGF member too). There were a few outright antis but what surprised me was that there were a few people who were "soft" antis, like supporting "reasonable restrictions" that pretty much made guns unsuitable for anything but hunting. One person even said that guns shouldn't be used for self defense, that's what the police and his dogs are there for. Unbelievable.

Not for nothing look where she lives too. She can practically spit and it would land in NYC.