I can only speak for myself but I'd gladly deal with a small time period of back logged p2p's if it meant getting a nj carry permit. And hopefully what would follow would be your p2p would now become your carry permit. I know..... I'm a dreamer.......

I'm sure many NY permit holders thought something similar, "Well at least they didn't touch concealed carry." The goal is achived in degrees. 

 

I think what you mean is "your carry permit would be a p2p." But I don't even think that will happen. Even if they omit the justifiable need, they can still keep the p2p system, change to OGPY or add any other impediment they like. Look at what they did in NY.

Issue: (1) Whether the Second Amendment secures a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense; and (2) whether state officials violate the Second Amendment by requiring that individuals wishing to exercise their right to carry a handgun for self-defense first prove a “justifiable need” for doing so.

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/drake-v-jerejian/

And by association, the structure of the law in question, as well as the method of scrutiny applied by the lower court to reach their decision.

If they hear the case I am confident they will rule in our favor, however I seriously doubt they hear the case.

It's like your favorite team is in the Super Bowl and not only can't you watch or listen to the game. But you also won't know the score for 3 days!

 

On the contrary - you won't know who is playing for 3 days.  The score... well that won't be decided until late summer.

I'm sure many NY permit holders thought something similar, "Well at least they didn't touch concealed carry." The goal is achived in degrees.

 

I think what you mean is "your carry permit would be a p2p." But I don't even think that will happen. Even if they omit the justifiable need, they can still keep the p2p system, change to OGPY or add any other impediment they like. Look at what they did in NY.

If I were them I'd make it OC only, having a gun in the car is considered concealed, and same rules of transport apply. So we'd be effectively limited to carrying within walking distance of our house or a range.

And if your neighbor calls to complain, you get arrested for disturbing the peace.

 

We'll cross that bridge if we get there.

So if they don't hear the case does that mean the most recent ruling stands and Cali gets CC?

So if they don't hear the case does that mean the most recent ruling stands and Cali gets CC?

Yes

So if they don't hear the case does that mean the most recent ruling stands and Cali gets CC?

If they don't hear it, it means drake as decided on the 3rd circuit stands as precedent and the circuit split between the 7th and 3rd stands. 9th is still open to challenge and if that challenge succeeds, they could use drake as part of the challenge of compelling states interest and two pronged rational basis being the hard floor rather than intermediate scrutiny.

 

As I understand it, there is precedent out there for something like the following logic to fly as intermediate scrutiny: nj has a gun problem, legislature believes restricting access to them for everyone will fix that problem and reduce deaths, expenses, etc. they pass the law and it DOES reduce them, one can argue compelling interest and a sufficient fit.

 

Rational basis would be we want to regulate guns so we regulated guns because we said so. Which is what drake did essentially, but had the second prong of they were regulated for a long time so nyah!

 

Basically they did a piss poor job of even following the recommendation of the dissenting decision. They let it stand, and circuit courts can feel free to pick whatever they want out of a ruling, so unanimous or scotus might as well go suck it would be the rule of the future.

 

Which is why I think pro or anti, it will be heard.

 

I don't know if it is procedurally possible, but I could see a possible option of declaring the judicial reasoning screwed and passing the buck back down to the 3rd with guidelines of how to make a decision without looking like idiots if there is a way to do it.

 

They let it stand, and I'd expect to see at least a couple circuits take a case and apply similar logic to roe vs. wade as a start.

 

 

 

If I were them I'd make it OC only, having a gun in the car is considered concealed, and same rules of transport apply. So we'd be effectively limited to carrying within walking distance of our house or a range.

Common misconception. Only one or two states have laws like that. And before you bring up PA, no, PA has no law that says a gun in a car is concealed. It's sort of like "You can't get a CCW because of 'self defense'" or "You can get a CCW if you carry a lot of money for work." Both are true in two or three states, now down to one or two.

 

And if your neighbor calls to complain, you get arrested for disturbing the peace.

Now that is just complete nonsense.

 

This might sound a bit conspiratorial but here it goes:

 

I'm concerned this may backfire on us honest citizens. First , we have the most liberal circuit saying the right of the individual to defend himself outside the home via the 2a is warranted. Then another liberal court saying the opposite. I feel they're intentionally forcing SCOTUS to hear this case. They may feel it can be struck down. If SCOTUS SAYS "no", we're all screwed.

 

The reason, conceal carry permit holders are increasing like never before. Progressives don't like this and want it stopped. Hey, I could be wrong, but I simply don't trust these people anymore.

Except if the two liberal circuits wanted to shut it down, rather than going through the whole debacle with the Supreme Court, they could have just said no all the way.

So both my buddy and I w "restricted" NJ "carry" permits are good to go right outta the box? He's in armored car, I'm not.

 

Hopefully the SCOTUS sees the value of this case.

 

Hopefully....................

So both my buddy and I w "restricted" NJ "carry" permits are good to go right outta the box? He's in armored car, I'm not.

 

Hopefully the SCOTUS sees the value of this case.

 

Hopefully....................

 

That's the problem... *Either* side might see some value.    the "Anti" justices might want to take on the case just as much for their own purposes.

So, even if cert is granted, we still have a way to go before we can breathe a sigh of relief.

 

Fingers crossed.

Man, I want them to take just so I can see what arguments our idiot DA makes, she will be good for a few laughs. She reminds me of the lawyers from Idiocracy. Sadly so did the 3ed Circuit judges.

Man, I want them to take just so I can see what arguments our idiot DA makes, she will be good for a few laughs. She reminds me of the lawyers from Idiocracy. Sadly so did the 3ed Circuit judges.

"Justifiable Neaaaahhhd"

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

 

Man, I want them to take just so I can see what arguments our idiot DA makes, she will be good for a few laughs. She reminds me of the lawyers from Idiocracy. Sadly so did the 3ed Circuit judges.

Same here, they will have little patience for her idiocy.

IMO that's the reason the democrats in this state keep postponing the magazine limiting bill

They are waiting to see if the laws are overturned and will allow ccw in this state

If ccw is allowe I'm sure we will be similar to ny state laws

Now that is just complete nonsense.

 

Not nonsense. I know in Connecticut they do that all the time to harass open carriers.

Man, I want them to take just so I can see what arguments our idiot DA makes, she will be good for a few laughs. She reminds me of the lawyers from Idiocracy. Sadly so did the 3ed Circuit judges.

 

I was thinking the same thing.

 

I can't believe this bumbling idiot is a senior deputy AG. Then again she prevailed in the 3rd circuit!!!

I am hoping they hear it, but we have been screwed so many times over I wouldn't be surprised if they don't.

 

I guess we will find out in the A.M.

I know I won't get much work done tomorrow morning waiting for the decision. Imagine the beautiful site of all the antis bitching and complaining should they decide to hear it....

 

The purpose of the constitution is ensure the rights of the minority in our republic. That's us in nj, but we are growing ...

 

Our numbers will only increase if / when SCOTUS allows us our RKBA...

 

It could be the biggest day for gun rights in the history of NJ ever...

 

Keep the faith. Freedom prevails!

Man, I want them to take just so I can see what arguments our idiot DA makes, she will be good for a few laughs. She reminds me of the lawyers from Idiocracy. Sadly so did the 3ed Circuit judges.

If you knocked on her office door you would hear this reply "Go Away bating".

 

We should send her the long sleeved t-shirt Dax Sheppard wore in the movie with "AttorneeAtLaw" written down the sleeve. Although I doubt she would get the joke.

I know I won't get much work done tomorrow morning waiting for the decision. Imagine the beautiful site of all the antis bitching and complaining should they decide to hear it....

 

The purpose of the constitution is ensure the rights of the minority in our republic. That's us in nj, but we are growing ...

 

Our numbers will only increase if / when SCOTUS allows us our RKBA...

 

It could be the biggest day for gun rights in the history of NJ ever...

 

Keep the faith. Freedom prevails!

I would like to hear what the antis have to say after we get CCW, and the crime rates dramatically decline state wide.

 

I know I won't get much work done tomorrow morning waiting for the decision. Imagine the beautiful site of all the antis bitching and complaining should they decide to hear it....

Or, it could be a "rally cry" to fight harder against us... I can see them easily spiniing themselves as "the victim" in re: the decision... especially on the MSM... both now, and should SCOTUS eventually rule in our favor in the slightest way.

 

I'll try to get some sleep, BTW...

 

 

The purpose of the constitution is ensure the rights of the minority in our republic. That's us in nj, but we are growing ...

 

Our numbers will only increase if / when SCOTUS allows us our RKBA...

More like, "when SCOTUS enforces our (existing) inailiable right upon those govts. that seek to restrict it..." 

 

If you knocked on her office door you would hear this reply "come back later I'm bating". :lol:We should send her the long sleeved t-shirt Dax Sheppard wore in the movie with "AttornneeAtLaw" written down the sleeve. Although I doubt she would get the joke.

"Ow my balls"

"I can't believe you like money too"

"Electrolytes! "

I love that movie

I would like to hear what the antis have to say after we get CCW, and the crime rates dramatically decline state wide.

The antis will never admit they are wrong.

The antis will never admit they are wrong.

 

Exactly, they will claim that the crime rates would have dropped even farther if CCW was banned.

This site will be live blogging SCOTUS today beginning at 9:30am. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/drake-v-jerejian/

 

I threw up a little in my mouth when I saw this at the top...

 

sponsored by: Bloomberg Law

 

deliciously ironic if they take the case (and later decide in our favor) since I think everyone can agree Bloomberg has no effing clue what the word LAW really means.

I threw up a little in my mouth when I saw this at the top...

 

sponsored by: Bloomberg Law

 

deliciously ironic if they take the case (and later decide in our favor) since I think everyone can agree Bloomberg has no effing clue what the word LAW really means.

 

People need to separate bloomberg publications from the man himself.