b47356

In the next crack at court, it will be dismissed because the court will say that Vullo has qualified immunity instead. Just like Jackson told them to in her concurrence

The ever so useful 3rd circuit threw it back to district court in the fallout from Bruen. Happened to just about all 2a cases around the country.

It really isn't.. Or you would have to get arrested to fight any law.

One of the problems in this ruling - besides the total rejection of SCOTUS 2A rulings - is that they said he should of applied for a license - back in 2017, when HI didn't give licenses to civilians (like NJ, CA, etc..)

How can you call it a "private sale" when it has to go through an FFL?

https://www.njoag.gov/attorney-general-platkin-files-civil-complaints-against-pennsylvania-gun-show-company-new-jersey-gun-dealer-under-nj-public-nuisance-law/ Has anyone mentioned to him that PA is not NJ?

Mags: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7147045/association-of-new-jersey-rifle-pistol-clubs-inc-v-grewal/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc AWB: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63567562/ellman-v-platkin/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63562212/cheeseman-v-platkin/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc Or, at the rate the 3rd circuit rules on things - the 6th wednesday of never.

So.. maybe.. years from now an MA state case will make it to SCOTUS. If we are very lucky, it will even occur before the makeup of SCOTUS is changed by a (D) pres. Maybe the 2nd and 9th circuit will rule on some outstanding cases by then..

Why is a SCOTUS regular conference (not emergency docket) suddenly a magical thing? Especially since this "news" .. is a week old. FYI, odds are quite low that the court will take the case at this point.

Don't give them any ideas.

Did I say that? Or did I say that I can't wait to see what the state would come up with in answer to that kind of ruling?

Yeah, I just can't wait to see what "constitutional" things that the state would do in an answer to a ruling that made manufacturing for personal use legal in NJ.

Do we really want to spend another 5+ years in court after NJ does NJ things in the fallout of that kind of ruling?

Will never happen, since most of the plaintiffs argument is that BATFE redefined things contrary to the GCA.

So? Its a ruling on a stay, not the whole case. The sky is falling, the BATFE got a stay on a ruling.

I can't help but wonder if folks understand that what is going on right now in the 3rd circuit (on the carry killer law) is a fight over Bumb's injunction, not the case as a whole. What is in Bumb's courtroom has barely started. And it is just further delayed by both the defendant and the plaintiff appealing Bumb's ruling. Do you really think SCOTUS is going to insert itself into a case that hasn't been heard yet? 5 years from now we will have an answer.

I'd love to see a link where any court ever got a time limit.

SCOTUS isn't going to touch anything until the case actually gets a ruling. And since this case in the 3rd is just about the injunction ruling out of district court, that means we now get to sit through this case in the 3rd, the related appeal from the plaintiffs recently appealed.. Someday, months from now, the case will be thrown back on Bumb's desk with orders from the 3rd circuit regarding the injunction appeals. Then things finally continue in district court - and someday - we get a ruling from Bumb (if she doesn't retire first). Then one or both parties appeal the ruling to the 3rd circuit. Maybe in 5 years or so we find out where we are allowed to carry. Or maybe longer (see the mag ban case) "The process is the punishment"

The 9th circuit held in 2013 that a firearm made in a state and that never leaves that state, it still has an effect on the national market for firearms - so the BATFE could continue doing whatever they wish, and preempting the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. Now you can say "well its the 9th" - but SCOTUS didn't take the case. Unlawful entry into the US is a felony. Not a crime to harbor a felon?

Of course not. Does that make it legal for a state to harbor illegal immigrants? How about making sure said illegals don't run into those fed officers by the front door by taking them out a back door? Now we have states declaring that schedule 1 drugs are ok to possess and use. And the admin stands around doing nothing.. (well, they did add a note to the 4473.. I guess that is something) But a state passes something that says that they will no longer cooperate on 2A related things? Well that ends up in court really quick.. and we all know how it ends up going for that state. Maybe they should of stuck with illegals and pot.

It is certainly a nice touch that this bill passed in an overwhelming fashion. Almost like none of them had any idea what they were voting on, they just had to "do something"

https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2018/A3129 https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2018/S2465

I'm pretty sure that a member of Congress didn't vote for a NJ state law.

So 3 weeks after Bumb's ruling, the Koons plaintiffs are now appealing. I can't help but wonder if I'll die of old age before any of these cases are resolved.

So it is still illegal to possess schedule 1 drugs? Imagine that. I've long wondered how democrats square the idea of sanctuary cities/states and state legalization of pot with their fight against things like 2nd amendment sanctuary states. How does ignoring federal immigration and drug law go untouched in court?