Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 1st, 2019, 11:24 AM #1
Fedora Fedora is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 29
Fedora Fedora is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 29
New Jersey suit contends "justifiable need" means "all lawful purposes".

SNIP What made Cheeseman and Jillard different than the cases that came before him: Drake, Pantano, Peruta, et.al. Cheeseman’s second go at obtaining a permit to carry in the Garden State was not challenging the statute but challenging the definition of justifiable need. In their arguments, the injury claim is one that revolves around the formerly cited Heller case. In Heller, it was stated that when concerning a Constitutional Right, something called interest balancing cannot be done. What does that mean? That means that a right cannot be granted to individuals on a case by case basis. To fulfill the justifiable need statute, the original definition was such that “all lawful purposes” would meet this requirement. Not the case in New Jersey. SNIP OFF

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/06/cha...da443-21267421
Fedora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2019, 11:29 AM #2
Occam Occam is offline
Recovering Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Montgomery County
Posts: 4,733
Occam Occam is offline
Recovering Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Montgomery County
Posts: 4,733
This is much too rational. It’ll never fly.
Occam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2019, 12:16 PM #3
Fedora Fedora is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 29
Fedora Fedora is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 29
But can you imagine how easy it would be for New Jersey to incrementally reduce the number of "lawful purposes" until they approach zero?
Fedora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2019, 12:34 PM #4
Fedora Fedora is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 29
Fedora Fedora is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 29
Delete.
Double post.
Fedora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2019, 12:35 PM #5
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,344
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,344
I'm not seeing any major differences between this and the Rogers case, other than Cheeseman really didn't even try to distinguish himself from the general population, so really no chance that NJ tries to grant a permit to make the case disappear. Rogers runs an ATM business that requires him to go to high crime areas, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that they throw him a permit if it appears Scotus will take the case.
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2019, 07:23 AM #6
krucam's Avatar
krucam krucam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 8,114
krucam krucam is offline
Senior Member
krucam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 8,114
Cheeseman now showing on SCOTUS Docket:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....x9LdfxtUN5B__s

Petition: http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPD...20Petition.pdf
__________________
Mark C.

Dallas/Ft Worth, TX

Post McDonald Second Amendment Cases/Links HERE
krucam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2019, 08:59 AM #7
motorcoachdoug's Avatar
motorcoachdoug motorcoachdoug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: In Comminuest Monkey Cnty,In the NON Free state of Marylandstine
Posts: 2,712
motorcoachdoug motorcoachdoug is offline
Senior Member
motorcoachdoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: In Comminuest Monkey Cnty,In the NON Free state of Marylandstine
Posts: 2,712
Hmm I wonder if SCOTUS will take the case and how it would effect MD as well. A big question is how will NJ respond to this and I wonder if Herr Frosh and his minions at MSP lic Div will ask NJ just issue him a carry lic so the case can become moot..
motorcoachdoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2019, 09:10 AM #8
CrueChief's Avatar
CrueChief CrueChief is offline
Cocker Dad
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Napolis-ish
Posts: 1,382
CrueChief CrueChief is offline
Cocker Dad
CrueChief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Napolis-ish
Posts: 1,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorcoachdoug View Post
Hmm I wonder if SCOTUS will take the case and how it would effect MD as well. A big question is how will NJ respond to this and I wonder if Herr Frosh and his minions at MSP lic Div will ask NJ just issue him a carry lic so the case can become moot..
I hope that at a certain point this "just issue them a permit to moot the case thing," will stop working at mooting these cases.
CrueChief is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2019, 10:30 AM #9
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,344
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorcoachdoug View Post
Hmm I wonder if SCOTUS will take the case and how it would effect MD as well. A big question is how will NJ respond to this and I wonder if Herr Frosh and his minions at MSP lic Div will ask NJ just issue him a carry lic so the case can become moot..
They may ask for NJ to do this if Rogers gets cert but in this case NJ would essentially be trashing their own justifiable need standard since the plaintiff didn't make any specialized danger claims. I see ZERO chance NJ ends justifiable need for Herr Frosh's sake.
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2019, 11:25 AM #10
Fedora Fedora is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 29
Fedora Fedora is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedora View Post
In Heller, it was stated that when concerning a Constitutional Right, something called interest balancing cannot be done. What does that mean? That means that a right cannot be granted to individuals on a case by case basis. To fulfill the justifiable need statute, the original definition was such that “all lawful purposes” would meet this requirement.
With NYSRPA going sideways, a replacement is needed. Something that leads to the recognition of a general Constitutional principle not restricted in applicability to guns alone (i.e., "You now can carry your gun outside the home"). The more blanketing the principle, the better.

These two points in Cheeseman seem promising:
1: A constitutional right cannot be granted on a case by case basis, and
2: "All lawful purposes" would meet this requirement.

If SCOTUS does not take Cheeseman, it leaves the implication that the right to report news, or to not quarter soldiers in your home, exists only on a case by case basis.

Last edited by Fedora; July 3rd, 2019 at 11:29 AM. Reason: Speling
Fedora is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2019, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service