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!
  • Fedora

    Active Member
    Dec 16, 2018
    125
    (a) The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates and renders applicable to the States Bill of Rights protections “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,” or “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 767 (alterations omitted). If a Bill of Rights protection is incorporated, there is no daylight between the federal and state conduct it prohibits or requires. Pp. 2–3.

    In another thread, Inigoes today posted SCOTUS's decision on the Timbs v Indiana asset forfeiture case, delivered by Ginsberg. I've emboldenated a portion of the judgement that might be relevant to the NJ and NY carry cases.

    Thoughts?
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    The best wish come true in any fight is to have an adversary that willingly cooperates in their own defeat.

    I am feeling a bit vindicated, now that the Court has requested a response. https://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=5460599&postcount=109 Now that the NJ can't waive, I can't help but wonder what they will say. The NJ AG ought to be removed from office for incompetence. Their response will probably prove that.

    Please lets keep the incompetent NJ AG in office for just a little longer, long enough to blow themselves up at the Supreme Court.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    In another thread, Inigoes today posted SCOTUS's decision on the Timbs v Indiana asset forfeiture case, delivered by Ginsberg. I've emboldenated a portion of the judgement that might be relevant to the NJ and NY carry cases.

    Thoughts?

    Not especially relevant since the 2A is already incorporated
     

    Fedora

    Active Member
    Dec 16, 2018
    125
    Not especially relevant since the 2A is already incorporated

    I guess I didn't do a very good job with that.

    My intention was to link 2A , an enumerated right, to “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,” and / or “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” , then to request informed speculation about applying either or both of these clauses to the 2A issue of "carry".

    Thank you for the mulligan.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    I guess I didn't do a very good job with that.

    My intention was to link 2A , an enumerated right, to “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,” and / or “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” , then to request informed speculation about applying either or both of these clauses to the 2A issue of "carry".

    Thank you for the mulligan.

    It has been. Your quote shows the case where it was done...McDonald v Chicago (2010). If read truthfully, it should carry to...carry...
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    It has been. Your quote shows the case where it was done...McDonald v Chicago (2010). If read truthfully, it should carry to...carry...

    "the right to keep and bear arms"

    "bear" is not superfluous. its not the right to keep and keep arms in your home.

    That said, I know people are all excited that the Supreme Court quoted McDonald a bunch of times in today's opinion in Timbs v Indiana (officially incorporating the 8th Amendment excessive fines clause), I just think that McDonald may be the last time the Supreme Court incorporated a right, which is why they are quoting it.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    Please, sir, may I have more time? We have other challenges going on. Response I'd like to see but wont: FO maybe if all your gun laws weren't so damn unconstitutional there would not be so many challenges. DENIED

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...r to Scott Harris re Rogers et al 3-12-19.pdf

    They will get the extension. Bummer, I was was really hoping for a good laugh in a few weeks. Now I gotta wait until Apr.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    In light of their balking at responding without a Supreme Court nudge, it would be sweet irony if denied. I remember some other party using similar lines as they've done here.

    We're busy, puh-leeze...
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    Been trying to catch up on this one. This isn't the NYC case that basically bans transport of a handgun out of/into the city, correct? That one was already granted cert. This is about NY and NJ concealed carry permits and may issue...yes?

    Sorry, it may have been answered in here somewhere, but I haven't seen it reading over the pages. This one is still under review and it might be granted cert (for I assume a hearing next year)?
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    Been trying to catch up on this one. This isn't the NYC case that basically bans transport of a handgun out of/into the city, correct? That one was already granted cert. This is about NY and NJ concealed carry permits and may issue...yes?

    Sorry, it may have been answered in here somewhere, but I haven't seen it reading over the pages. This one is still under review and it might be granted cert (for I assume a hearing next year)?
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    Please, sir, may I have more time? We have other challenges going on. Response I'd like to see but wont: FO maybe if all your gun laws weren't so damn unconstitutional there would not be so many challenges. DENIED

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...r to Scott Harris re Rogers et al 3-12-19.pdf

    They will get the extension. Bummer, I was was really hoping for a good laugh in a few weeks. Now I gotta wait until Apr.

    Such first requests for a 30 day extension for a BIO are common and always granted where there is no objection and no time pressure.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    The worst I've seen was Illinois asking for 3 or 4 extensions in a case a few years ago. The court finally had to tell them NO MAS!
     

    Blacksmith101

    Grumpy Old Man
    Jun 22, 2012
    22,154
    Been trying to catch up on this one. This isn't the NYC case that basically bans transport of a handgun out of/into the city, correct? That one was already granted cert. This is about NY and NJ concealed carry permits and may issue...yes?

    Sorry, it may have been answered in here somewhere, but I haven't seen it reading over the pages. This one is still under review and it might be granted cert (for I assume a hearing next year)?

    The original complaints are linked in posts #1 and #13.
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    No the transport case is a separate case. This is about a challenge to NY state's carry law.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,916
    Messages
    7,258,551
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom