Since some of the threads meant for NJ Carry Process Experience are getting bombarded with Constitutional Carry discussion, lets take it here if thats ok.

How do folks see Constitutional Carry coming to NJ ?  

Never, ever happening ? 
NJ Politicians finally seeing this as non issue and abiding by Constitution (LOL) ?
NJ Courts seeing the light and smacking NJ laws down ?
SCOTUS ruling(s) in another 10 years from now ?
Something else ?

What do you think @xXxplosive ? How do you see this playing out ?

it's now made possible by Judge Thomas.......a change in our elected officials and a return to Constitutionality.....we've gone far adrift, a rising tide floats all boats.....omo.

7 minutes ago, xXxplosive said:

it's now made possible by Judge Thomas.......a change in our elected officials and a return to Constitutionality.....we've gone far adrift, a rising tide floats all boats.....omo.

Question is, exactly HOW we get there ?  Bruen decision did NOT invalidate permitting schemes.  How do you see anyone challenging and getting rid of permitting scheme completely ?

-----------------------------------
To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States' "shall-issue" licensing regimes, under which "a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit]." Drake v. Filko (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting). Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent "law-abiding, responsible citizens" from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/27/the-limits-of-bruen/

***DELETED***

How can we have constitutional carry when Bruen explicitly allowed licensing schemes such as those is shall issue states?

Bruen for better or worse only stipulated that a state must have a pathway for people carry who aren't otherwise prohibited. 

Because the 2A of the Bill Of Rights over rides the USSC.......................that's how.

I am very concerned about SCOTUS siding with any permitting that purports to ensure "law abiding and responsible".

Anti's long game (among other things) is to hack at 2A in following ways:

1. Restrict and eliminate (taxes, regulations, lawsuits, supply restrictions, tariffs etc) manufacturing of Arms , Ammunition and related parts for private / commercial market.
2. Eliminate private / do-it-yourself making of Citizen own arms, ammunition and related parts.  A.K.A laws against "Ghost guns", constrict supply of reloading parts, supplies etc.
3. Criminalize trivial things under much more severe category so as to use that to strip and deny 2A. This is where "law abiding and responsible" is going to be used against the People.

Anti's are atleast 30 years (in SCOTUS ruling timeline) ahead of the game in sh*tting these laws out like there is no tomorrow.

We all know 1A, Due Process etc do NOT have any of this non-sense. We as society afford Due Process to even MOST HEINOUS criminals out there without fail, without a test, without exceptions.   So, I am highly disappointed most of the SCOTUS watered down the 2A support where as they could have just kept quiet and leave it future cases if need be.

 

we've made a small step, thanks to justice thomas. one which the 'rats will continuiously throw blockades at. what i think we need to do now, is to find a way to use their stubbornness against them, and get more repubs out to vote. it looks like nj is approx 40% repub. if we can get more people out to vote, we can get repubs voted in. mind you, i'm talking actual repubs, not the rinos we normally see here. i think other than that, this is the best we're gonna get.

We may not be able to get the permit process removed, but we have to bring in lawsuits against EVERY ONE of the above 3 attack vectors Anti-s are pursuing relentlessly.   Every one of them is severe danger to long term 2A.

We got opportunity and its VERY important to go on offense and go very strong.

Money, money and more money. In addition to the voting, we need to get TONS of money into the hands of organization that are bringing real lawsuits. We got healthy competition in 2A space as various organizations

19 hours ago, xXxplosive said:

Because the 2A of the Bill Of Rights over rides the USSC.......................that's how.

Oh really? Might want to read article 3. 

First step is to get rid of the permit to purchase (keep).

Maybe not constitutional carry, but what about making it so that a carry permit one state must be reciprocal in all states. 14 Amendment.   Much like Drivers Licenses are.  Yes the requirements, training, etc are different state to state, but the same is true for DL's. 

Sent a note to FPC. Those of us who live on the NY border up here gonna get taste of "Shaneen Allen Treatment" pretty soon. Especially since NY does not have even have a "Out of state resident permit"

4 hours ago, CJack said:

Sent a note to FPC. Those of us who live on the NY border up here gonna get taste of "Shaneen Allen Treatment" pretty soon. Especially since NY does not have even have a "Out of state resident permit"

You are correct. If you don't have a domicile in the state of NY you cannot get a permit to carry a handgun.

You can however rent a domicile.

I'm hoping (it would be a miracle) that SCOTUS gets pissed off enough at states thumbing their nose at their rulings that they rule that constitutional carry is a necessity since states are not dealing in good faith. 

***DELETED***

I dont think SCOTUS will rule on Constitutional Carry across the board. If it does, it will be another 10 or 20 years, and it assumes Kavanaugh wakes up and smells coffee and assume Justice Thomas stays on along with other Constitionalists.   Perhaps, even conservative Justices will be waiting for MOST states to go Constitutional Carry before touching that topic.

However, it should be easy picking to challenge any State law that does not allow some type of reasonable process for an out of state resident to carry.

 

When/how can politicians and law makers be held accountable (legally or financially) for knowing making laws that clearly violate the constitution, go against SCOTUS, and violate citizens rights?  

***DELETED***

On 8/30/2022 at 8:39 AM, samiam said:

Currently, the only way to hold a politician accountable, short of outright prosecution for a consensus felony committed in plain sight, is by means of political opposition and donations. The overlap between those dynamics makes them nearly the same thing. Since nearly all of the donations that are large enough to be persuasive to a politician (meaning, capable of influencing the next election) come from corporations (whether for-profit, or "charitable"), an individual (or even a modest-sized group of like-minded individuals), has virtually zero chance to exert such influence. 

Except for Ed Durr.