This might be a bit of a side bar to the topic, But what gets me is how "we" let liberals put us in defensive postures just by terminology. In the memo the term "large capacity" is used. A standard magazine (in this case) has the number of rounds that the manufacturer designed/provided with the firearm ie AR-15 20 is standard, Beretta 92 15 is standard, anything less is reduced capacity, NOT large just because its over 10! Just like the only AR-15 that is an assault weapon is a PD agency/Tax Stamp full-auto rifle. Maybe if we bit down like bull dogs on this simple issue and EVERY time liberals use these incorrect terms instead of letting it pass web shot up fireworks correcting them public opinion may not be so swayed?

 all that all that you need to do is look at the FBI statistics to know that civilians use them more.

So on-duty LEO are just citizens and have no duty to act.  Yet off-duty/retired LEO are a special class because they have training. Seems a conflict to me.  

1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

So on-duty LEO are just citizens and have no duty to act.  Yet off-duty/retired LEO are a special class because they have training. Seems a conflict to me.  

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/12/scott-peterson-had-no-duty-protect/#axzz5ZrLm3IPU

should be acceptable "justifiable need" in my book,        than again "shall not infringe" is in my book as well. 

14 hours ago, Zeke said:

Not en banc. 

You blame the cop? Or the 2 of 3 judges?

Is saying "I would like a LEO to explain" the same as "blaming the cop"? The state made the argument that LEOs have "training and experience" that your average gun owner does not to use "high capacity" mags. I would like someone to explain just what this training is.

And much like all the other losing "sure thing" cases over the last several years, they don't have to rehear it en banc, and SCOTUS is not required to take a case. My opinion is that SCOTUS is not doing its job in passing on the gun cases, but nobody can force them to do anything.

16 minutes ago, b47356 said:

Is saying "I would like a LEO to explain" the same as "blaming the cop"? The state made the argument that LEOs have "training and experience" that your average gun owner does not to use "high capacity" mags. I would like someone to explain just what this training is.

And much like all the other losing "sure thing" cases over the last several years, they don't have to rehear it en banc, and SCOTUS is not required to take a case. My opinion is that SCOTUS is not doing its job in passing on the gun cases, but nobody can force them to do anything.

We also wouldn't be fighting smart if scotus took all the gun cases in front of them, especially if they know they don't have the votes to win. We can discuss scotus not doing their job and find lots of agreement in other areas. But them not taking up a gun case is prudent given the previous makeup of the court. Now if we get a solid majority and they still don't take it up, then we'll talk.

18 minutes ago, EngineerJet said:

We also wouldn't be fighting smart if scotus took all the gun cases in front of them, especially if they know they don't have the votes to win. We can discuss scotus not doing their job and find lots of agreement in other areas. But them not taking up a gun case is prudent given the previous makeup of the court. Now if we get a solid majority and they still don't take it up, then we'll talk.

There's a very slim case SCOTUS will take up any gun cases now. They don't want that visibility and be targets by the radical, left wing Liberals.

All you need to do is look how Kavanaguh was treated by the Democrats, with physical death threats against him and his family, just to be nominated.

Do you really think the current SC judges would want to be targeted like that by the Rabid Left  if they made a pro 2A ruling on a gun issue? They won't touch a case, and will punt.

It comes with the job. Scotus takes controversial cases all the time. The kavanaugh circus was to stop him from getting in. There is no evidence to suggest scotus ever punted a controversial case out of fear. This is just fearful speculation.

Unfortunately when it comes to the SCOTUS,  the only Justice I have any faith in not being fearful of backlash on 2A cases is Clarence Thomas...

42 minutes ago, Sniper said:

There's a very slim case SCOTUS will take up any gun cases now. They don't want that visibility and be targets by the radical, left wing Liberals.

All you need to do is look how Kavanaguh was treated by the Democrats, with physical death threats against him and his family, just to be nominated.

Do you really think the current SC judges would want to be targeted like that by the Rabid Left  if they made a pro 2A ruling on a gun issue? They won't touch a case, and will punt.

that's nonsense

46 minutes ago, Sniper said:

There's a very slim case SCOTUS will take up any gun cases now. They don't want that visibility and be targets by the radical, left wing Liberals.

All you need to do is look how Kavanaguh was treated by the Democrats, with physical death threats against him and his family, just to be nominated.

Do you really think the current SC judges would want to be targeted like that by the Rabid Left  if they made a pro 2A ruling on a gun issue? They won't touch a case, and will punt.

I agree with this statement 100%.....

They will not touch a gun case..... 

29 minutes ago, 67gtonut said:

I agree with this statement 100%.....

They will not touch a gun case..... 

Yep. They are extremely afraid 

1 hour ago, Sniper said:

There's a very slim case SCOTUS will take up any gun cases now. They don't want that visibility and be targets by the radical, left wing Liberals.

All you need to do is look how Kavanaguh was treated by the Democrats, with physical death threats against him and his family, just to be nominated.

Do you really think the current SC judges would want to be targeted like that by the Rabid Left  if they made a pro 2A ruling on a gun issue? They won't touch a case, and will punt.

Becoming any kind judge means you realize you'll get exposure and criticism for your decisions.  They kind of know that when they take the job.

1 hour ago, myhatinthering said:

that's nonsense

OK. please tell us which one they took up and ruled on positively in the last few years.

25 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

Becoming any kind judge means you realize you'll get exposure and criticism for your decisions.  They kind of know that when they take the job.

So the Kavanaugh shit show is just SOP now for a judge, and they'll have no issue putting their family through that type of blender to rule on a 2A case?

Caetano v mass

Heller

 

seriously, think about how nonsensical the comment is to think SC won't take a case due to nutjob libs

2 hours ago, Zeke said:

Caetano v mass

A stun gun case??  Really?

2 hours ago, myhatinthering said:

Heller

How many years (decades) ago was that?

Have they argued any others since? The last one they argued before that one with a positive decision on the 2A was in 1995.

Here's two they punted on recently, why didn't they argue them?

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/339455-supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-two-second-amendment-cases

2 hours ago, myhatinthering said:

seriously, think about how nonsensical the comment is to think SC won't take a case due to nutjob libs

The facts and the past history aren't in your favor, unfortunately.

20 minutes ago, Sniper said:

A stun gun case??  Really?

How many years (decades) ago was that?

Have they argued any others since? The last one they argued before that one with a positive decision on the 2A was in 1995.

Here's two they punted on recently, why didn't they argue them?

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/339455-supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-two-second-amendment-cases

The facts and the past history aren't in your favor, unfortunately.

Lol.. you’re whacked..

4 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Lol.. you’re whacked..

How about typing MORE than 3 words and tell us all the other 2A cases the SC has argued and won in our favor the last decade or two.

I'll be waiting to review that extensive list.

 

Nah. Caetano was the last one they will ever take . That was ‘16

But they are scared now.

54 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Nah. Caetano was the last one they will ever take . That was ‘16

But they are scared now.

So, why are you busting my balls? The environment is way to hot for them to consider any 2A cases. They've punted a bunch back down to the local Federal state level and played hot potato.

 

You're still making the argument that they have turned down other gun cases as reason for them being scared or unwilling to take the case. In order for a case to be heard, 4 out of 9 justices need to grant petition for certiorari . Let's be realistic... If you are a progun judge and you feel the makeup of the court will not rule in your preferred ruling...you decline it. Not all gun cases are the same as even progun judges have different opinions on the scope of the second amendment. So while we may have had 5-4 for Heller, not all 5 may have all agreed on an assault weapons ban or concealed carry. I'm also sure in reality if you were a judge you would come to get to know your co-workers and know how they may vote on a particular case. Imagine if they took the case as you wished, knowing they didn't have the votes.

You're making statements about them never taking up gun cases based purely on pessimistic conjecture.

Is that why they haven't taken up the at least 5 or more cases sent to them the past years. Afraid to lose them? Instead, they send them back down to the state Federal level, where they are argued and ruled on, then become law of the land. Isn't that the same end point, and denied for good?

7 minutes ago, EngineerJet said:

You're making statements about them never taking up gun cases based purely on pessimistic conjecture.

The facts are, they've punted on more then they've argued. Call it what ever you want, they haven't been willing to take the cases on in the past, for whatever reason, but NOW you think they will welcome 2A cases in with open arms, based on how even more crazy and divided the country is?

Really?

 

I can't say for sure why they refuse to hear it but they receive thousands of cases and only review a few of them. It could be the least of the evils. Refusing to hear a case can still leave open similar cases they can take up on the future ..but having a case not rule in your favor could set legal precedent that silences all future cases. Point is you are stating exactly what will happen (no more cases) and why(political/professional fallout). And it seems based more on conjecture.

18 minutes ago, Sniper said:

Is that why they haven't taken up the at least 5 or more cases sent to them the past years. Afraid to lose them? Instead, they send them back down to the state Federal level, where they are argued and ruled on, then become law of the land. Isn't that the same end point, and denied for good?

The facts are, they've punted on more then they've argued. Call it what ever you want, they haven't been willing to take the cases on in the past, for whatever reason, but NOW you think they will welcome 2A cases in with open arms, based on how even more crazy and divided the country is?

Really?

 

Where did I say they will now welcome 2A cases with open arms?

It would have been foolish and dangerous for SCOTUS to have taken on ANY 2A cases when they knew damn well the risk of loosing due to the liberal makeup of the court! Now things will be different! Mark my words. We WILL start to see 2A cases being ruled on in OUR favor very soon!

It may take RBG going for the dirt nap but perhaps not! Times they are a changing for us......Just be patient. There are some who still understand the original intent of the Second Amendment and will vote accordingly!

32 minutes ago, JohnnyB said:

Now things will be different! Mark my words. We WILL start to see 2A cases being ruled on in OUR favor very soon!

It may take RBG going for the dirt nap but perhaps not! Times they are a changing for us......Just be patient.

I would LOVE to see that happen, and see the Constitution respected the correct way.

Unfortunately, I think gun related cases are like touching the third rail on the subway, based on that it's such a volatile subject in the country now. The crazy antics of the radical Left has made many people take pause, and step back. I hope the SC doesn't end up doing the same thing, and will have the balls to tackle these cases head on.

 

 

7 hours ago, Sniper said:

 

So the Kavanaugh shit show is just SOP now for a judge, and they'll have no issue putting their family through that type of blender to rule on a 2A case?

The Kavanaugh show is not just SOP for a judge.  They tried it and it failed.

Fortunately there are men like Kavanaugh who are willing to fight for what's right.  They no doubt discuss the potential of the bs they may have to endure with their families.  Their families are willing to back them.

There are some who want to give up fighting for what's right on both sides.  You can say things like won't and never and claim the sky is falling like Chicken Little.  Then you've prepared yourself to throw in the towel and ready for the Socialist People's Republic of the United States of America.

Many on this forum repeatedly comment all lawsuits should be filed and the enemy immediately attacked.  It is obvious they fail to recognize an important factor in winning.  That is strategy.  They have no concept of thinking on the long term strategic level.  They want to use the shotgun approach which is generally a waste of assets.  Thank God they didn't run WW2 or we'd be speaking German and Japanese now.

If you want to win on the battlefield or on politics strategy is important.  The difference is on the battlefield you defeat the enemy and it's over.  Politics is a continual fight and influences all 3 branches of government.  Congress and the Senate can change every 2 years.  The POTUS every 4.  SCOTUS is the most stable as they appointed for life.  Whether you agree with the makeup of the court is not material to your argument.  It is what it is. The lucrative retirement SCOTUS is offered is there to encourage turnover.

Fight smart.  Don't fight stupid.  Pick the time and the place for your fight.

8 hours ago, GRIZ said:

The Kavanaugh show is not just SOP for a judge.  They tried it and it failed.

Fortunately there are men like Kavanaugh who are willing to fight for what's right.  They no doubt discuss the potential of the bs they may have to endure with their families.  Their families are willing to back them.

That's exactly my point. Kav was willing to fight back against the shit show, and knew the blender it would put his family through.

What are the odds the current sitting judges will be willing to do that exact same thing, when arguing a 2A case and all the lunatics like Moms Demand Action and all the other Anti 2A fringe groups start showing up and make a scene with the other judges? Will all the other judges stand up and fight back, like Kav did, while having their personal lives investigated and threats made against their families?

To think that won't happen during an important 2A case is being really naive, based on the level of partisan attacks and the antics of the radical Lefties lately. Do I want that to happen, no. Do I totally rule out the possibility, based on what I've seen the last year or two since Trump won, no also. The Democrats and the Liberal media have zero issues throwing out all types of bullshit and lies.

Time will tell if the S.C. takes on any important 2A cases, but I'm not betting the farm on it.

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 11:59 AM, 70gto said:

only problem I called njsp, they said when I qual, i have to disclose on qual sheet the 15 round mag for the gun im qualifing with, so the new question becomes, what if i carry several different guns, depending on time of year. does that mean I have to qual with every gun i ever intend to carry every time in order to be compliant? I believe the law says 15 rounds for carry gun or intended to carry.

I have 8 listed in NJSP Headquarters, it just means I have to qualify once a month,