Supreme Court Takes Interest in NJ Concealed Carry Case

Reptile

NES Member
Rating - 100%
116   0   0
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
22,699
Likes
13,620
Rather rare for highest court to hear a Second Amendment case
The Supreme Court is taking an interest in a case challenging New Jersey’s strict concealed carry restrictions.

The nation’s highest court has asked New Jersey officials to respond to a legal challenge by concealed carry applicant who police say “does not have a justifiable need to carry a gun” despite managing an ATM business, according to court documents.

“While the move is not a guarantee that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the appeal, the fact that the court is requiring NJ to take a position on ANJRPC’s request is significant, and signals that the court is not willing to take any action without first hearing from both sides,” announced the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs.

Supreme Court Takes Interest in NJ Concealed Carry Case
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
2,566
Likes
953
Location
Mass
After the refusal of DC to appeal the decision striking down their scheme requiring special need hopefully this is the squashing of that nationally.
 

LittleCalm

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
3,739
Likes
2,415
Location
NH
He called for a change to libel laws so that the media would need to be more careful about hiding behind sources and running BS stories that are poorly supported by facts.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
676
Likes
922
Location
Merrimack Valley
Roberts cannot be trusted.

But we shall see.

After the Clarence Thomas news today and what Clarence said, I’m thinking he’s gotten his dander up.

Maybe. Fingers crossed.
Roberts likes to move slowly to preserve the court's reputation and legitimacy. But I don't think he'd rule against us on 2A.

The most likely "Roberts effect" on 2A rulings is a series of relatively narrow, deliberate rulings that move the ball forward, yard by yard, instead of broad, sweeping rulings. To be honest, we're probably better off that way. The rulings will have a lot more staying power if they're incremental and build upon one another.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
3,413
Likes
1,216
Location
RI - but not on the island part
Roberts likes to move slowly to preserve the court's reputation and legitimacy. But I don't think he'd rule against us on 2A.

The most likely "Roberts effect" on 2A rulings is a series of relatively narrow, deliberate rulings that move the ball forward, yard by yard, instead of broad, sweeping rulings. To be honest, we're probably better off that way. The rulings will have a lot more staying power if they're incremental and build upon one another.
And of course 10 years between each tiny little step. Yep, we will have this all straightened out in another century or two.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2005
Messages
3,602
Likes
876
Location
Mid-Coastal free Maine
I would posit that regardless of what the SCOTUS says, states like mine (CT) and the other "lost" states of NJ, NY, MA and IL et al will simply ignore the rulings or find some convoluted way around the basic tenant of the ruling. They don't care and this is dangerous.

Our form of government is predicated on the fact that the three branches of government are respected by the states. It's clear that today, this is NOT the case. Many states will NOT be told how to act. It's like a parent coming down on a petulant teenager. The first opportunity the kid will act out just as they want. What's the solution? What can SCOTUS do to reign in these anti-constitution states? They don't have powers to apply punishment as far as I know. They can't send in the police. What would the Feds do if this continues and these rogue states continue to blatantly ignore SCOTUS ?
It's my personal opinion that this country has turned a corner where individual states have learned that they can ignore what ever edicts come down from the Feds and do whatever they want because there is no punishment. Look at NY. How many YEARS have they flipped off the Peaceable Journey Laws that protect us traveling through their state? Yet no one from the Feds have hauled them up and threatened them with loss of fed funds or arrest. Nope, the lawlessness and disregard for SCOTUS and this particular President make holding their feet to the fire near impossible. Sorry to be such a downer. Oh.....btw.....should SCOTUS find AGAINST a 2A case, rest assured it'll be carved in stone and enforced to the letter of the law and then some.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
4,775
Likes
4,923
Location
NC defending a beach
I would posit that regardless of what the SCOTUS says, states like mine (CT) and the other "lost" states of NJ, NY, MA and IL et al will simply ignore the rulings or find some convoluted way around the basic tenant of the ruling. They don't care and this is dangerous.

Our form of government is predicated on the fact that the three branches of government are respected by the states. It's clear that today, this is NOT the case. Many states will NOT be told how to act. It's like a parent coming down on a petulant teenager. The first opportunity the kid will act out just as they want. What's the solution? What can SCOTUS do to reign in these anti-constitution states? They don't have powers to apply punishment as far as I know. They can't send in the police. What would the Feds do if this continues and these rogue states continue to blatantly ignore SCOTUS ?
It's my personal opinion that this country has turned a corner where individual states have learned that they can ignore what ever edicts come down from the Feds and do whatever they want because there is no punishment. Look at NY. How many YEARS have they flipped off the Peaceable Journey Laws that protect us traveling through their state? Yet no one from the Feds have hauled them up and threatened them with loss of fed funds or arrest. Nope, the lawlessness and disregard for SCOTUS and this particular President make holding their feet to the fire near impossible. Sorry to be such a downer. Oh.....btw.....should SCOTUS find AGAINST a 2A case, rest assured it'll be carved in stone and enforced to the letter of the law and then some.

What it comes down to is military intervention by the chief executive concerning the enforcement of Supreme Court rulings. And federal immigration law and so many other things.

The constitution grants every state the right to a republican form of government and the constitution grants supremacy to the federal government.

Washington had to personally march troops while president. So did Eisenhower. Wilson too, I think? Maybe it was Hoover. I forget. Only Washington personally though. Maybe I’m also forgetting other instances.

Anyways, to end the abuse from states, force will be required from the feds.

And it won’t happen.
 
Top Bottom