This is 100% accurate and why NJ will never see its carry rights restored outside the home unless Alex Jones himself sucks all the demons out of the legislature in Trenton and absorbs their bloodsucking souls.

A nice little plague would do the trick as well. 

SCOTUS is the most impotent branch of government;

 

The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. - The Federalist 78

 

Regardless of what they decide, it will have no bearing on NJ unless Trump puts the screws to the State.  Brown v. Board of Ed was in 1954, it wasn't until 1957 and the us of the National Guard that the first black  students were able to attend a white school.  Even if this case goes our way, don't expect anything to change.

 

Regardless of what they decide, it will have no bearing on NJ unless Trump puts the screws to the State.  Brown v. Board of Ed was in 1954, it wasn't until 1957 and the us of the National Guard that the first black  students were able to attend a white school.  Even if this case goes our way, don't expect anything to change.

 

The real irony of that is that black students these days are demanding segregation.  They want a black space, free of white influence. 

 

As to the topic, Goresuch will vote based on law, not on emotion.     Roberts...meh, whatever will make him most popular at DC parties.

The real irony of that is that black students these days are demanding segregation.  They want a black space, free of white influence. 

 

As to the topic, Goresuch will vote based on law, not on emotion.     Roberts...meh, whatever will make him most popular at DC parties.

 

Roberts and Kennedy are the toss up.  I think the rest are safe to assume on.

Looks like this has been rescheduled again.

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/peruta-v-california/

A nice little plague would do the trick as well.

Catestrophic gas leak in Trenton? One can dream.

A nice summary for those that need a memory jog:

 

"The Supreme Court's next big gun case could determine whether you have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public"  http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-carrying-concealed-weapons-in-public-supreme-court-2017-4

A nice summary for those that need a memory jog:

 

"The Supreme Court's next big gun case could determine whether you have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public"  http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-carrying-concealed-weapons-in-public-supreme-court-2017-4

Tremendous article. Must-read for anyone interested in this case. 

 

 But here's where NJ legislators go nuts:

 

A decision in favor of Peruta wouldn’t necessarily mean that states could no longer place any restrictions on concealed gun carry, however. “The question is not the absolute one of whether states are going to allow public carry,” Blocher said. Because, in practice, every state already does.

Redacted.

Fixed for you -

Hey Mr. Editor I wish you'd stop doing that. When you do that you're misquoting me. I'm serious. Quote the original and make any edits or comments you like under your own posting.

Look at it again is that better

A decision in favor of Peruta wouldn’t necessarily mean that states could no longer place any restrictions on concealed gun carry, however. “The question is not the absolute one of whether states are going to allow public carry,” Blocher said.

It wouldn't mean states can't put some restrictions on CCW but it would prohibit using "just cause" or "serious threat"-type restrictions.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Look at it again is that better

No it isn't. Two can play this game. Unless you want a fucking posting war do me a favor and either quote my posts according to accepted standards or do not quote them at all. 

No it isn't. Two can play this game. Unless you want a fucking posting war do me a favor and either quote my posts according to accepted standards or do not quote them at all.

 

Seems you're an originalist.

No it isn't. Two can play this game. Unless you want a fucking posting war do me a favor and either quote my posts according to accepted standards or do not quote them at all.

Jesus Christ man calm the fuck down for someone who is usually a very dry sense of humor on these boards you sure are me fucking dead serious. Take a fucking pill and put away the copyright infringement papers Jesus.

I think he has his " visitor"

Jus sayen

Jesus Christ man calm the fuck down for someone who is usually a very dry sense of humor on these boards you sure are me fucking dead serious. Take a fucking pill and put away the copyright infringement papers Jesus.

I'm a professional writer. I publish about 70,000 words a year under my name and as a ghost writer. I also look around me and see how the law, science, and "journalism" have degenerated into what their practitioners believe should be, not what actually is. It disturbs me. You wouldn't want anyone changing your posts would you? How'd you like it if I quoted a post of yours, "For some reason I feel like the rape rates at Liberty are going to drop next year" to "For some reason I feel like the rape rates at Liberty are going to drop next year because they kicked all the niggers out of the school." There, fixed it for you.

 

I don't know who's reading these forums, what they know about us, or what they plan to do with this information. Probably nothing. But I do know that there is almost no such thing any more as an innocent, non-incriminating statement. I post enough stupid, inflammatory shit without having you or anyone else add fuel to the fire by changing my text. There's an acceptable way to do what you were trying to do and there's an unacceptable way. 

If you are full of shit, does 70,0000 make it better shit?

Back to topic...... Right away......

anybody no why the case was rescheduled? 

anybody no why the case was rescheduled?

Where did you hear it was "rescheduled". Where did you even see it was "scheduled". The Justices only met on Thursday to conference on what cases they were going to hear and I haven't seen anything about it since.

Where did you hear it was "rescheduled". Where did you even see it was "scheduled". The Justices only met on Thursday to conference on what cases they were going to hear and I haven't seen anything about it since.

See the link in post #35:

Apr 10 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017.

Apr 12 2017 Rescheduled.

 

anybody know why the case was rescheduled?

Ftfy

See the link in post #35:

 

Thanks.

 

Honestly I'm a bit relieved. I'd like us to get one of the liberal justices replaced before this case gets heard.

Thanks.

 

Honestly I'm a bit relieved. I'd like us to get one of the liberal justices replaced before this case gets heard.

I don't thinking will be that long... weeks..

I don't thinking will be that long... weeks..

Maybe that will be long enough. Fingers crossed.

Maybe that will be long enough. Fingers crossed.

What are the chances another Justice has a life-long, undiagnosed, heart problem?

 

Now, I could see them agreeing to hear the case and then something happening before it comes up on the docket.. that could take a while.

What are the chances another Justice has a life-long, undiagnosed, heart problem?

 

Now, I could see them agreeing to hear the case and then something happening before it comes up on the docket.. that could take a while.

Agreed. I'm not saying a justice is going to retire or expire soon. Just fingers crossed for a retirement soon.

anybody no why the case was rescheduled?

There is no way to know. Drake was rescheduled two or three times and cert was ultimately denied. It could be thw juustices are debating whether ro hear it. It could be that gorsuch wants time to consider it. Or it could be purely administrative.

This article is now saying April 25th. Not sure how accurate it is.

https://www.crushthestreet.com/articles/breaking-news/gorsuch-influence-california-gun-case

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk