New NJ and NY carry cases filed

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!

    • Register Log in
    S

    Some Guy

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 26, 2017
    1,016
    This is an excellent amicus brief. I like how they say "The Second Amendment provides in part that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This guarantees not only the right to “keep” arms, such as in one’s house, but also to “bear arms,” i.e., to carry arms without reference to a specific place. If nothing more is meant than keeping arms in the home, there would be no point in including a right to bear arms. When a provision of the Bill of Rights is restricted to a house, it says so.". They then footnote that statement with "U.S. Const., Amend. III (“No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”).

    I like how they have put forth excellent facts that demonstrate how infringing on second amendment rights disproportionately affects minorities and those that cannot afford to "buy the right" (my own language here.) It's a great brief, and those that are planning on testifying or communicating with legislators this session would do well to study it.

    Hats off to the African American Gun Association, THANK YOU for speaking truths that need to be heard.
     
    S

    Some Guy

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 26, 2017
    1,016
    krucam said:
    An Amicus Brief authored by Stephen Halbrook is up, hitting on the Jim Crow (racist) era gun carry restrictions.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...nal African American Gun Association Inc..pdf
    Click to expand...

    Man, this is a good brief:

    "Today’s 42 U.S.C.§ 1983, the Act provides that any person who, under color of State law, subjects a person “to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution” is civilly liable. 17 Stat. 13 (1871)."

    and

    "...in the Jim Crow era seemingly-neutral laws imposed prohibitive fees on the
    poor and were selectively enforced in ways to deny the right of black citizens to carry arms."

    My thoughts on that one: Out goes old Jim Crow, in comes the new Jim Crow. We've got law abiding people of all colors facing prohibitive fees that price them out of self defense, and who prohibited from exercising their rights by government officials who decide if these people are entitled to their inalienable rights. All of this is being done via government writ. Many minorities are victims of the dispossession of these rights. In fact, I would suggest that minorities are the most victimized by this, and blacks in particular.

    You tell me what that is. If that ain't new Jim Crow, I don't know what is.
     
    motorcoachdoug

    motorcoachdoug

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 7, 2012
    4,542
    Right side of far left Monkey County
    Some Guy said:
    Man, this is a good brief:

    "Today’s 42 U.S.C.§ 1983, the Act provides that any person who, under color of State law, subjects a person “to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution” is civilly liable. 17 Stat. 13 (1871)."

    and

    "...in the Jim Crow era seemingly-neutral laws imposed prohibitive fees on the
    poor and were selectively enforced in ways to deny the right of black citizens to carry arms."

    My thoughts on that one: Out goes old Jim Crow, in comes the new Jim Crow. We've got law abiding people of all colors facing prohibitive fees that price them out of self defense, and who prohibited from exercising their rights by government officials who decide if these people are entitled to their inalienable rights. All of this is being done via government writ. Many minorities are victims of the dispossession of these rights. In fact, I would suggest that minorities are the most victimized by this, and blacks in particular.

    You tell me what that is. If that ain't new Jim Crow, I don't know what is.
    Click to expand...

    So can anyone think of anyway to use that against Herr Frosh and his minions?? Including the MSP LD and or chain of command? Just wondering and thinking..... hmmmmm
     
    S

    Some Guy

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 26, 2017
    1,016
    motorcoachdoug said:
    So can anyone think of anyway to use that against Herr Frosh and his minions?? Including the MSP LD and or chain of command? Just wondering and thinking..... hmmmmm
    Click to expand...

    My thoughts: Anyone planning on testifying during upcoming legislative hearings should consider referring to the text and citations from this amicus brief when describing how current and proposed legislation is another version of Jim Crow. The same is true for anyone doing advocacy and awareness directly with legislators or legislative staff.

    If anyone is advocating for others to participate in the legislative or awareness building in our communities, the content in this brief should be brought to light.

    The facts are pretty clear that minorities and low income people are and shall continue to bear the brunt and costs in lives, health and property from the usurpation and infringement of second amendment rights. The more the state takes those rights, the more these communities will continue to suffer the consequences.

    Second amendment rights advocates should not shy from this argumentation and its ancillary issues of race and disenfranchisement. Racism is racism, and it can be objectively and rationally argued that blacks and other minorities are being disenfranchised AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN when the government takes away the equal right to self defense in the home or in public spaces. We shouldn't forget that NRA members marched with Dr. King and others. The second amendment is a civil right, and this amicus brief communicates that loudly and clearly, and it communicates that this right is disproportionately being taken from minorities. We should amplify its message to ensure that minority voices will be heard in this debate.

    Again, hats off to the African American Gun Association for sharing this information with the people.
     
    S

    Some Guy

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 26, 2017
    1,016
    The second amendment is for all, not some, and not for some who aren't the right color, creed or persuasion. The link between 2nd amendment rights infringement and racism or other forms of discrimination is there. It was there a hundred and fifty years ago, and it's still here today.

    http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-ne...s-one-man-in-blackface-another-in-kkk-regalia

    http://www.wicz.com/story/39825365/...licy-could-be-an-issue-if-he-enters-2020-race

    https://reason.com/blog/2015/02/10/nanny-bloomberg-says-black-kids-cant-be
     
    motorcoachdoug

    motorcoachdoug

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 7, 2012
    4,542
    Right side of far left Monkey County
    You all know as well as I do that Herr Frosh and his minions at the MD MSP Lic Div are praying that SCOTUS does not take this case and if they did grant cert you can bet he would find a way to side with NJ in this matter as well. If he is against the little people having a concealed firearm why not have his MSP detail stop caring as well???? Its his one way to rule the little people and keep them in their place..
     
    P

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,910
    WV
    krucam said:
    Damn insomnia...

    Amicus from NJ Firearm Owners, SAF, et al is up:
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...201160948507_18-824 Amici Brief Coalition.pdf
    Click to expand...

    A great read which contains a paragraph that should ease any open vs. concealed carry tensions;

    Yet, these six States (may-issue)do not all present precisely the
    same set of circumstances. In New York and (for the
    most part) California, the only type of carry allowed is
    carry in a concealed manner.Thus, cases from either
    of these States have the potential to sidetrack to the
    question of whether States can prohibit open carry in
    favor of concealed carry—on a path like the Ninth
    Circuit took. Compare Peruta, 824 F.3d at 939 (no
    protection “in any degree” of concealed carry, even if
    concealed carry prohibited), with Norman v. State, 215
    So. 3d 18, 41 (Fla. 2017) (States can prohibit open carry
    in favor of concealed carry).
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    Gun Commander Training Maryland

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,331
    Messages
    7,277,314
    Members
    33,436
    Latest member
    DominicM

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom