Jump to content
IGNORED

Supreme Court going to hear a 2A case...


not on the rug

Recommended Posts

I just read this on CNN in response to concealed carry in NJ.

Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Jersey -- prohibit openly carrying long guns, but not handguns. In the remaining states, people are generally allowed to openly carry firearms, although some states require a permit or license to do so.

I find this hard to believe in this state.  Can anyone confirm in NJ we have the right to open carry a handgun but not a long gun?

Elite Pure, CBE Tek Hybrid, 10" B-Stinger stabilizer, Limbdriver rest , Alpine Soft Loc 5 Quiver, Muzzy 100 4 bld, Slick Trick Viper Trick Red Head Gator broadheads, Beman ICS Hunter 400 28" ,Scott Quick Shot release, Vortex 8.5X50 Vultures  :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know, you can not carry a handgun AT ALL in NJ without a carry permit. Without a permit, the only time you can even have one with you is in your home, place of business, and traveling to/from places like a range or gunsmith (and probably some other unusual exemptions like a civil war re-enactment or you are a collector going to a show or some such thing). In short, don't carry a handgun in NJ.

I believe in NJ you CAN openly carry an unloaded long gun WITH an FID in your possession - but I wouldn't try it ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This case is a HUGE deal that will most definitely affect NJ law.

And, no, you cannot carry a pistol in NJ unless you are a cop or a retired cop.  No one else has the right because of the unattainable "justifiable need" requirement to carry a pistol.  NJ also has a case pending in front of the SCOTUS for exactly the same thing.

I have been following these cases closely and reading the filings in front of the courts.  I can almost guarantee that the SCOTUS won't resolve this issue, they lack the courage to do it.  What they will do is instruct the lower courts to use strict scrutiny when evaluating the government's arguments.  Then they'll send the case back to the district court to rule again on it.  The same will apply to the NJ case.

If by some act of God they actually rule that "justifiable need" is unconstitutional, it would change the laws of seven (or is it nine) states overnight.  It also doesn't mean that people in NJ will be able to get a CCP the next day.  NJ will put some other BS scheme in place that is wholly unconstitutional knowing that it'll take years to get to the SCOTUS again; and in the meantime people in NJ will have no ability to protect themselves outside of their homes.

That's why I think the courts will say at a minimum that the 2A does apply outside of the home and that lower courts need to apply strict scrutiny to the state laws.  "Justifiable need" should fail strict scrutiny (it should also fail intermedia scrutiny) but that only means states have to fix that part of the permitting process.  States could still loosen this requirement and make it difficult.

But it is refreshing to see the SCOTUS start addressing some of these longstanding and outstanding issues.

This PDF was filed as an amicus brief to the NJ lawsuit.  It's an excellent read if you have the stomach for legal filings:  https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.anjrpc.org/resource/resmgr/legal_motions___briefs/filed_brief_mazahreh.pdf

 

Sapere aude.

Audeamus.

When you cannot measure, your knowledge is meager and unsatisfactory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Haskell_Hunter said:

This case is a HUGE deal that will most definitely affect NJ law.

And, no, you cannot carry a pistol in NJ unless you are a cop or a retired cop.  No one else has the right because of the unattainable "justifiable need" requirement to carry a pistol.  NJ also has a case pending in front of the SCOTUS for exactly the same thing.

I have been following these cases closely and reading the filings in front of the courts.  I can almost guarantee that the SCOTUS won't resolve this issue, they lack the courage to do it.  What they will do is instruct the lower courts to use strict scrutiny when evaluating the government's arguments.  Then they'll send the case back to the district court to rule again on it.  The same will apply to the NJ case.

If by some act of God they actually rule that "justifiable need" is unconstitutional, it would change the laws of seven (or is it nine) states overnight.  It also doesn't mean that people in NJ will be able to get a CCP the next day.  NJ will put some other BS scheme in place that is wholly unconstitutional knowing that it'll take years to get to the SCOTUS again; and in the meantime people in NJ will have no ability to protect themselves outside of their homes.

That's why I think the courts will say at a minimum that the 2A does apply outside of the home and that lower courts need to apply strict scrutiny to the state laws.  "Justifiable need" should fail strict scrutiny (it should also fail intermedia scrutiny) but that only means states have to fix that part of the permitting process.  States could still loosen this requirement and make it difficult.

But it is refreshing to see the SCOTUS start addressing some of these longstanding and outstanding issues.

This PDF was filed as an amicus brief to the NJ lawsuit.  It's an excellent read if you have the stomach for legal filings:  https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.anjrpc.org/resource/resmgr/legal_motions___briefs/filed_brief_mazahreh.pdf

 

Good post.......

ESTATESALESBYOLGA.COM    ALWAYS BUYING ANTIQUE AND VINTAGE ITEMS  CALL 908 868 8236 MIKE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my wife went to cabelas on their way back from hersey park yesterday and cabelas is making you check your firearms at the door. they were zip tying the triggers/actions and when you leave you get your firearm back. signs were on the door as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Haskell_Hunter said:

Really, really, good article on what happened when the SCOTUS considered this case.

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/04/26/making-sense-of-the-limited-cert-grant-in-nys-rifle-pistol-association-v-corlett/

Technical and legal discussion.

He admits to being jaded and that does come through. Count me as more an optimist on this. I think the two newest conservative Justices are more behind this than we know today. They have a score to settle, and what better issue than 2A given the left’s abandonment of policing our cities leaving citizens and illegals alike to protect themselves while watching gun crimes soar in those lawless cities.  I see a broader interpretation coming.  Hope it’s not just rose colored glasses 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bucksnbows said:

He admits to being jaded and that does come through. Count me as more an optimist on this. I think the two newest conservative Justices are more behind this than we know today. They have a score to settle, and what better issue than 2A given the left’s abandonment of policing our cities leaving citizens and illegals alike to protect themselves while watching gun crimes soar in those lawless cities.  I see a broader interpretation coming.  Hope it’s not just rose colored glasses 

 

I would love to see the last two justices stick it to the libbies with a hard ruling on this one.  They actually have the numbers to do it, and Rodgers the Coward wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

I am not as optimistic as you are.

Sapere aude.

Audeamus.

When you cannot measure, your knowledge is meager and unsatisfactory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...