Supreme Court signals interest in New Jersey concealed carry challenge
- Thread starter livingston
- Start date
Shadow2
6.5 Creedmoor
The fact this law every existed blows my mind. That it took this long to get shot down even more disturbing.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
i seen it .. thought i was dreaming .. was just waiting to see if someone else seen it ..
SCOTUS does uphold most of the Constitution, it's the 2a they have problem with. It shouldn't be a surprise that Constitution was upheld in non-2A case.
Assuming NY case will be won and NJ case will be taken and won. It doesn't make one iota of difference in rolling back what we got stuck with since Heller and McDonald, which were presented to us as huge victories. Gaining an inch after losing a foot is not winning. If SCOTUS truly supports 2a, they should take up the case that makes a real difference (like the SAFE act) not these local extremes that effect a small percentage of gun owners and will be offset by other extreme ordinances. They can do that at much faster rate then SCOTUS will take to undo them.
Assuming NY case will be won and NJ case will be taken and won. It doesn't make one iota of difference in rolling back what we got stuck with since Heller and McDonald, which were presented to us as huge victories. Gaining an inch after losing a foot is not winning. If SCOTUS truly supports 2a, they should take up the case that makes a real difference (like the SAFE act) not these local extremes that effect a small percentage of gun owners and will be offset by other extreme ordinances. They can do that at much faster rate then SCOTUS will take to undo them.
You don’t understand the supreme court at all if you really mean that.
If SCOTUS rules in any of these pending cases to strike down anything unless it is decided using strict scrutiny, then I might get a bit excited. Of course, we would probably then have to go back to court (taking a few more years) to relitigate to get those laws off the books, with the states fighting us every inch of the way.
For example, look at Federal Judge Skretny's ruling years ago that struck down the 7 round limit in NY(UN)SAFE in the western counties upstate: here we are years later, and there are STILL people (at last count in Erie County there were 23 cases) charged with violating that provision. Prosecutors are just now starting to agree to drop those charges, and not bring them again. Wayne County's DA is the last one to finally agree to that, just recently. And what happens when a new DA is elected, and decides to be a jerk and keep charging people with that?
For example, look at Federal Judge Skretny's ruling years ago that struck down the 7 round limit in NY(UN)SAFE in the western counties upstate: here we are years later, and there are STILL people (at last count in Erie County there were 23 cases) charged with violating that provision. Prosecutors are just now starting to agree to drop those charges, and not bring them again. Wayne County's DA is the last one to finally agree to that, just recently. And what happens when a new DA is elected, and decides to be a jerk and keep charging people with that?
Different rules regarding that court. That aspect has been discussed here at length.
With the cases now heading to SCOTUS, I would really hope that SCOTUS would vote in our favor. But Robert's really does worry me. It would be tremendous IF they struck down May Issue and Justifiable Need requirements.
I wonder if the NYC residents can win their case, and if so, what effect it might have for others. Could it strike down NYC's 5 county special rules, and allow anyone with a NY permit to carry in the city? IDK. After all, if they ruled that they could take their guns outside the city (upstate), then we should be able to take ours there, since the laws should be an equal two way street IMHO.
IF SCOTUS struck down May Issue, would that effectively gut NY's (and the other anti states) gun laws? Would the Sullivan Act, and subsequent decisions (Kachalsky) go away? Or would NY and the other states affected fight us tooth and nail in the courts for years to come?
Personally, I think it will be a fight for years to come if they lose.
I wonder if the NYC residents can win their case, and if so, what effect it might have for others. Could it strike down NYC's 5 county special rules, and allow anyone with a NY permit to carry in the city? IDK. After all, if they ruled that they could take their guns outside the city (upstate), then we should be able to take ours there, since the laws should be an equal two way street IMHO.
IF SCOTUS struck down May Issue, would that effectively gut NY's (and the other anti states) gun laws? Would the Sullivan Act, and subsequent decisions (Kachalsky) go away? Or would NY and the other states affected fight us tooth and nail in the courts for years to come?
Personally, I think it will be a fight for years to come if they lose.
Last edited:
You are too optemistic without a reason. In the past their gun cases decisions were very nerrow and didnt have an effect on anything beyond the actual case. They are not going to create gun rights revolution. If you think that then you ignore past record and reality.
ProgSpear
.338 Win Mag
The key issue on these “minor” cases is that strict scrutiny should be established as the standard for any 2A case.
My opinion is optimistic, but regardless of the outcome I understand the process and possibilities. You always push a dour viewpoint that overlooks (or just fails to understand) how the court works at even a basic level.
That alone would be a major win if they rule narrowly on the NYSRPA case because all crap district court rulings are being decided with much lower scrutiny levels.
If they take the NJ case, it could possibly take down the whole permitting system here. Accepting that case would be much better news than the good news we already got!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
No matter what is ruled, NY will ignore it just like it ignores the 2nd Circuit's decision and just like it ignores SCOTUS.
Heller or McDonald (can't remember which one exactly) was supposed to take down the whole permitting system just to own. It was ruled that the right to keep handguns in the home should not be infringed. (I'm paraphrasing.)
And what exactly does NY do? Exactly that. In New York City you can't get a handgun unless you go through a ridiculous process of getting a premises permit that'll be denied if you have too many parking tickets or a minor offense years ago even though you can pass a NICS check.
Upstate, the same shit happens depending on the county with the carry permit that you need just to have it in the home.
I'm both places, you can't just go to the store, pass a NICS check and take the handgun home. You have to show "Just Cause." to own a handgun. That goes against those two decisions.
Nothing means anything anymore. It's just a circus complete with complicit clowns in black robes allowing it to happen and the American public are too stupid to see that they are being fooled.
Heller or McDonald (can't remember which one exactly) was supposed to take down the whole permitting system just to own. It was ruled that the right to keep handguns in the home should not be infringed. (I'm paraphrasing.)
And what exactly does NY do? Exactly that. In New York City you can't get a handgun unless you go through a ridiculous process of getting a premises permit that'll be denied if you have too many parking tickets or a minor offense years ago even though you can pass a NICS check.
Upstate, the same shit happens depending on the county with the carry permit that you need just to have it in the home.
I'm both places, you can't just go to the store, pass a NICS check and take the handgun home. You have to show "Just Cause." to own a handgun. That goes against those two decisions.
Nothing means anything anymore. It's just a circus complete with complicit clowns in black robes allowing it to happen and the American public are too stupid to see that they are being fooled.
Last edited:
I know well how the system works, i actually cited decisions from the past. Your arguments are based on wishful thinking.
ProgSpear
.338 Win Mag
I fully agree that the regime throughout NYS is in direct contravention of the express wording in the 2A, but the source of this cancer is NYC, as they are the originators of the "Sullivan Act" of 1911, which presumably was upheld by the 2nd Circuit in Kachalsky v. Cacace (2012). If the NYC regime could be subjected to strict scrutiny, I doubt that it would be upheld today by SCOTUS.
From the following Wiki entry found at Kachalsky v. Cacace - Wikipedia (emphasis added)
"Judge Siebel found that, in applying intermediate scrutiny, the "proper cause" requirement promotes and is substantially related to the government's strong interest in public safety and crime prevention, and thus, while it is conceded to be an infringement of the Plaintiffs' Constitutional rights, it is constitutional and may stand."
Attachments
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Yes and the McDonald decision which is from a higher court contradicts that but nothing is done about it.
ProgSpear
.338 Win Mag
Right you are, and timing is everything. This quote is from the same wiki I cited above, note the second sentence; (again, I added emphasis)
At the time, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals had held that the decisions made in District of Columbia v. Heller did not apply to the States as the Second Amendment had not been incorporated to the States. However, in June 2010, the Supreme Court's decision in McDonald overturned this decision and held that the Second Amendment did constitute a limitation on States' powers.[1]
To put this bluntly, post McDonald, Kachalsky would (should?) have fallen on our side, and would break the back of Sullivan.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Should have but didn't. That goes to show the circus and bamboozlery that courts have become. I have no faith whatsoever in the courts. That goes for the 2 other branches of government too.
It's all a sham at this point. I think that anyone who still holds faith in the courts is playing themselves a fool whether by ignorance or just hope because they have nothing else.
It's all a sham at this point. I think that anyone who still holds faith in the courts is playing themselves a fool whether by ignorance or just hope because they have nothing else.