b47356

You are overlooking how quickly the left bows to the SC when it rules in a way the left approves of. Bruen is definitely not the same thing. Heller said the same thing.. years ago.. How many "wins" have there been in the meantime? Not including the temp ones, which happened in the 9th circuit. If you follow things like the Nichols (open carry) case in CA, you will see how courts will deal with Bruen - Throw the cases back to the beginning in district court, and make sure they have no progress for a couple more years.

Cite? Explain how it works with the concept of "equal protection", since a retired leo.. is a civilian. Note that one of the attacks on the carry killer bill is the exemption of judges, prosecutors, and attorney generals from that law.

Yeah, I would put any law that grants special abilities to _retired_ police as unconstitutional. But that grift has been baked into the system since the 1920s

4 years or so? That would be how long the mag ban has been rolling around. After Bruen, the 3rd circuit dumped it back down to the district court, so it has essentially started over. Your tax dollars at work. Hopefully in another 4 years we will know how it turns out. I guess we are doing better then the california open carry case, which was argued in front of the 9th circuit in 2018 (originally filed in 2011), which they never ruled on. Of course, that has also been kicked back to district court due to Bruen.

Err, what? When did we start calling democrats RINOs? Why wouldn't a democrat play nice with.. another democrat?

5 years from now maybe a court will say "don't do that"

Please explain how a ruling in the northern district of NY has any bearing on what the NJ legislature does.

They still sell gun safes from part of the same location.

Have you read the bill? 5. (New section) Safe carry requirements for authorized holders of a permit to carry a handgun. a. The holder of a permit to carry a handgun issued pursuant to N.J.S.2C:58-4 shall not: (1) use or consume alcohol, a cannabis item, or a controlled substance while carrying a handgun; (2) be under the influence of alcohol, cannabis, or a controlled substance while carrying a handgun; [...] 7. (New section) Places where the carrying of a weapon is prohibited. a. Except as otherwise provided in this section, it shall be a crime of the third degree for any person, other than 2[a person lawfully carrying a firearm within the authorized scope of an exemption set forth in N.J.S.2C:39-6 and only to the extent permitted by the entity responsible for security at the place in question] an active or retired law enforcement officer in accordance with subsection f. of this section2, to knowingly carry a weapon, as defined in subsection r. of N.J.S.2C:39-1, in any of the following places, including in or upon any part of the buildings, grounds, or parking area of: [...] (15) a bar or restaurant where alcohol is served, and any other site or facility where alcohol is sold for consumption on the premises; https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2022/A4769/bill-text?f=A5000&n=4769_R2

Why would you be surprised by a party line vote?

I'm aware of that. It is just more obvious now, since we have years of ..communications.. pointing out to these PDs that they are doing things contrary to the law. And they continue to anyway. You can be sure that if a bill was filed to add some teeth to that part of the law, it wouldn't come out of committee. (see PA for details of what happens when it actually passes with a (D) gov)

I can't find the penalty for failure to follow the law as written, maybe a reason that many departments have made up their own "laws" for years to get a FPID or PPP.

Well, SCOTUS didn't hear Kolbe the 1st time... Maybe a miracle will occur this time..

And some people say sarcasm doesn't work in print...

That is a joke, right? I've heard wonderful stories about "what the gun laws are in NJ" from cops, I could only stand there and wonder if these stories were passed around like urban legends.

Next, the CA AG will ask for en banc review, they will rehear it en banc, and (surprise) the panel decision will be overturned. Just like every other "big win" in the 9th circuit. Then it will be appealed to SCOTUS, which will probably refuse to hear it - just like every other "sure thing" case in recent history. I would apologize for being pessimistic, but that has been the result since McDonald was decided.

At least all but 1 still are alive. I don't know why Beers was mooted. Of interest is that they rejected Kelsay v. Ernst and Jessop v. City of Fresno, both qualified immunity cases. Kelsay reads as contempt of cop, with a predictable outcome for Kelsay - and the cop is, naturally, immune from lawsuit. In Jessop, police on a search warrant stole a rare coin collection. Not only is it acceptable that they did so, but they are immune from a lawsuit. It comes down to being able to point to a historical case in your circuit where the court held the public official was not protected. So in Jessop, the police were immune because there is no case that says police who steal are not immune.

Am I supposed to be impressed that NJNICS is working on a Sunday, still processing requests from a week ago? Fed NICS is open 17 hours a day and only closed on Christmas. Please excuse me if I'm less then impressed by a group that is normally 6 days a week and closed every state holiday. Thank you Gov. Whitman for this amazing state run system.

Since everything is online, what exactly do they do to have "2-3" people only move "100-150" a day? Sounds like stereotypical government job "work".

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/30580292/GRECO_v_GREWAL_et_al

Well.. There is always the possibility that it was DIG'd.. and now Thomas, etc.. are writing their objections to it being DIG'd..

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public\18-824.html

This is a district court decision. The next step would be for the state to appeal it to the 9th circuit. The "9th circuit" won't do anything unless the case is appealed... The "9th circuit" doesn't appeal anything to SCOTUS. One of the parties in the case appeals it to SCOTUS, after losing in circuit court. It really isn't that difficult to understand the process, I thought it was taught in high school..

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-323.html Err, no. "Response requested" from the defendant (the US) (10/22/18) Multiple motions to extend the time before the US's response is due (11/14-12/12) US response filed 1/22 Petitioners reply 1/31 Cert denied 2/25 Someone should tell them never to do that then. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-7151.html Really, the best possible outcome for the CCW case would be a SCOTUS bench ruling that said "please read the ruling in Wrenn if you are confused about the meaning of Heller, McDonald, & the 2A in general" Which will never happen. If anyone is still following the mag ban case, I'm pretty sure the case itself will be dismissed sometime soon after 3/18. Can't wait to see what ANJRPC files in opposition to the motion to dismiss.

Why is anyone thinking this makes it a win? https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-323.html is just one example of the court asking for a reply from the defendant..