1 minute ago, WP22 said:

Of course they are, that always do. If all the predictions came true, we all should have died  in the past two years.

At least now we have 12 years to die. 

5 hours ago, BobA said:

They continue to try to make it about carrying when I thought all the guy wants is to throw it in his trunk and leave the city. 

Many people in NYC don't have a car. It mentions in the article that when NYC tried allowing it, people carried their gun on them and just told the police they were heading to a range. That's why I believe some are saying this could impact concealed carry.

5 hours ago, Maksim said:

This is the full article.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/supreme-court-new-york-gun-case-heller.html

Despite not agreeing with the premise, I must say, it is very well written and presents the situation well.   Much better than that CNN bs.

Quote

And when New York City did allow residents to take their weapons to shooting ranges outside the city, the rule proved extremely difficult to enforce: Gun owners simply carried their weapons around and, when caught, insisted that they were heading to target practice.

Wait, what?! That’s an option?

1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

Wait, what?! That’s an option?

I suppose now that I am out of NJ... a certain private club had the transportation statute printed right on the cards...  If in doubt... "I'm going to my 24/7 range."

 

The antis are beginning to get concerned about this case:

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-fix-these-nypd-gun-regs-now-20190328-hvews767xvcxdadgvvatur64je-story.html

Paraphrasing: “NYC, please repeal your handgun transport law, right quickly now, and moot this case before we get another 2nd amendment defeat as bad as Heller”.

9 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

The antis are beginning to get concerned about this case:

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-fix-these-nypd-gun-regs-now-20190328-hvews767xvcxdadgvvatur64je-story.html

Paraphrasing: “NYC, please repeal your handgun transport law, right quickly now, and moot this case before we get another 2nd amendment defeat as bad as Heller”.

Good, “they” are starting to run scared. 

21 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

The antis are beginning to get concerned about this case:

Did you read the last paragraph of that article?

...."It’s true that allowing New York City residents to transport guns outside the city would entail certain public safety risks, even if the practice was regulated. But with the gun violence epidemic increasing in the United States, our communities simply cannot withstand newfound constitutional protections for violent “good guys with a gun." Now is the time for the NYPD to step up and protect all Americans by repealing NYC’s gun transport ordinance.

Everitt is the director of One Pulse for America, a gun violence prevention group founded by actor/LGBTQ rights activist George Takei after the mass shooting at The Pulse nightclub in Orlando.

Is there an acronym for these people, like we have TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome)?  Maybe a new one, GDS (Gun Derangement Syndrome).

7 minutes ago, Sniper said:

Did you read the last paragraph of that article?

.our communities simply cannot withstand newfound constitutional protections for violent “good guys with a gun."

Newfound constitutional protections?  Meaning those passed in 1791?

New York City filed a motion with SCOTUS on Friday, April 12, seeking to kneecap this case from being heard.  NYC has introduced an amendment to its rule that would allow NYC residents to transport handguns to other locations outside the City where is is legal to possess them, such as a second upstate home; a range; or a competition out of state.  NYC's lawyer is arguing that SCOTUS should hold further briefing in abeyance as in their view, the case will become moot once the new rule is adopted and SCOTUS could not therefore grant the plaintiffs any relief.  

SCOTUS does not have to accept this position but if it does, the case will be dismissed as moot.  This might enhance the odds for certification to be granted in NJ's Rogers v. Grewal case since there is no chance that NJ will flip flop and suddenly allow concealed or open carry outside the home.

Smart move from the left..They are working together across the country to try and limit impact to other jurisdictions.  Will interesting to see what SCOTUS does here.

1 minute ago, Spartiati said:

Smart move from the left..They are working together across the country to try and limit impact to other jurisdictions.  Will interesting to see what SCOTUS does here.

It's the cowardly move and one most of us saw coming.

4 hours ago, Princetonian58 said:

New York City filed a motion with SCOTUS on Friday, April 12, seeking to kneecap this case from being heard.  NYC has introduced an amendment to its rule that would allow NYC residents to transport handguns to other locations outside the City where is is legal to possess them, such as a second upstate home; a range; or a competition out of state.  NYC's lawyer is arguing that SCOTUS should hold further briefing in abeyance as in their view, the case will become moot once the new rule is adopted and SCOTUS could not therefore grant the plaintiffs any relief.  

SCOTUS does not have to accept this position but if it does, the case will be dismissed as moot.  This might enhance the odds for certification to be granted in NJ's Rogers v. Grewal case since there is no chance that NJ will flip flop and suddenly allow concealed or open carry outside the home.

Since this is not a legislature move (bill to law) it could be retracted as soon as SCOTUS dismisses

4 minutes ago, Darrenf said:

It's the cowardly move and one most of us saw coming.

Agree it was somewhat obvious but wouldn’t call it cowardly.  No reason to allow SCOTUS to review this as the law was stupid to begin with and by allowing people to transport really doesn’t bring on much risk to the public.  They know this would have been a lost cause.  So it’s a fight not worth taking as SCOTUS will likely finally strike down the use of lower levels of scrutiny.

I wonder if this means a NYC resident can drive a gun to a NJ FFL for a sale to a NJ resident?  Avoiding shipping costs. 

I am happy to report that the Supreme Court today denied NYC's motion to put the briefing of this case on hold while it considers amending its unconstitutional ban on travel with a gun outside the five boroughs:

"Motion of respondents to hold briefing schedule in abeyance DENIED."

 

Ha! Suck it NYC!

Sorry NYC - you had 6 years to change the law.  Sux that you held out until the SC swung to conservative majority.  Now get ready for a decision that’s going to pave the way to overturn lots of infringing, anti-2A laws.

I hope Bloomberg strokes out.

Sooo further reading. Strict scrutiny is in play, but also the right outside the home.... 

 

7 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Sooo further reading. Strict scrutiny is in play, but also the right outside the home.... 

1 minute ago, DirtyDigz said:

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/59612140/welcome-to-last-week-ill-be-your-guide.jpg

Well more of a bump

On 5/10/2019 at 12:40 PM, Zeke said:

Well more of a bump

Is there any indication when this case will be heard? I tried searching for a SCOTUS schedule, but all I could find were list numbers with no indication of which cases were on each list. 

Won’t be heard until next session in the fall.  

21 hours ago, Spartiati said:

Won’t be heard until next session in the fall.  

Thank you!

What makes this case very important to win with a death blow to liberals is what is going on in Alabama with abortion.   I don't care what anyone's views on that matter are but it is what Alabama is doing to force a challenge of the constitutionally of this roe v wade  law.

 

 intentionally passing a state law that is not in line with the current federal law thus forcing a SCOTUS challenge .   if successful you can bet the anti-americans will follow shortly after or if they ever get majority of SC to overturn what ever laws they dont like.  A state like NJ will remove the 2A from every citizen knowing it will be challenged up to the SC ,  and 2A will be struck down by a liberal SC. 

 

 I know the word abortion is not in the constitution and the 2A is but they dont care.

2 hours ago, revenger said:

What makes this case very important to win with a death blow to liberals is what is going on in Alabama with abortion.   I don't care what anyone's views on that matter are but it is what Alabama is doing to force a challenge of the constitutionally of this roe v wade  law.

 

 intentionally passing a state law that is not in line with the current federal law thus forcing a SCOTUS challenge .   if successful you can bet the anti-americans will follow shortly after or if they ever get majority of SC to overturn what ever laws they dont like.  A state like NJ will remove the 2A from every citizen knowing it will be challenged up to the SC ,  and 2A will be struck down by a liberal SC. 

 

 I know the word abortion is not in the constitution and the 2A is but they dont care.

I write on every liberal forum No one is trying to take your abortions away.  We just want common sense abortion laws.  Who's not for common sense laws if it saves one child's life?  No one  needs an assault abortion. 

what are anyone's thoughts on this article.

 

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/05/u-s-justice-department-submits-brief-in-support-of-second-amendment/#axzz5oatjmc6g

 

Has the DOJ ever supported us before on any 2A matter,   I think we might be headed in the right direction.

 

correct me if I'm wrong but if the SCOTUS simply rules the 2A applies outside the home in public wouldn't that nullify ANY permit or would open carry be allowed and concealed carry need a permit?

 

The temperature in Hell must be dropping by the minute.

Score 1 for Universal Cooling.

2 hours ago, revenger said:

correct me if I'm wrong but if the SCOTUS simply rules the 2A applies outside the home in public wouldn't that nullify ANY permit or would open carry be allowed and concealed carry need a permit?

I don’t think so. Permits could still be required but they can’t be assholes about issuing them. It would turn everywhere into a “shall issue”. 

15 hours ago, revenger said:

what are anyone's thoughts on this article.

 

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/05/u-s-justice-department-submits-brief-in-support-of-second-amendment/#axzz5oatjmc6g

 

Has the DOJ ever supported us before on any 2A matter,   I think we might be headed in the right direction.

 

correct me if I'm wrong but if the SCOTUS simply rules the 2A applies outside the home in public wouldn't that nullify ANY permit or would open carry be allowed and concealed carry need a permit?

 

Here in Jersey, that would mean that the politicians would go full retard in creating roadblocks to be able to legally carry.  Someone will try to fight it and it will take years to resolve.

20 minutes ago, CMJeepster said:

Here in Jersey, that would mean that the politicians would go full retard in creating roadblocks to be able to legally carry.  Someone will try to fight it and it will take years to resolve.

Very true. But this next election we do have the opportunity to turn the worm. Almost every slime bucket in the Trenton swamp is up for re-election. If enough people were motivated we could drain that swamp and stop our orthodontically challenged governor in his tracks.