They don't care, they'll just tell you that your opinion is noted and it will be considered in the next session.
Easy fella......
(There, THAT is 200 Pages!)
They don't care, they'll just tell you that your opinion is noted and it will be considered in the next session.
I don't believe that a court victory will do anything that a legislature passing a bill wouldn't. You guys point out that they could just repeal/modify the law. Sure. But they could also ignore court orders, outright ban ccw like Illinois, etc etc.
Or scotus could decide in the future that there is no right to carry and everybody bans carry again. Then what do you do?
Relying on the legislature isn't bad anymore then relying on the courts is bad, and they aren't taking anything you aren't giving up. Nullify. We take our rights back.
They will never outright ban CCW. Too many of them have CCW's or their non-sworn body guards have them.
It's not about licensing or permitting. They are just a vehicle to expand the definition.
AG Office felt bored and decided to inform Judge Legg of the NJ District decision, Supplemental Authority...on the former Muller v Maenz, currently called Piszczatoski v. Filko.
pfft....
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.49.0.pdf
Silver lining in that dark cloud is: Gansler's asking Juge Legg to crap or get off the pot
This state will never become shall issue.
It will not abide by any SCOTUS ruling.
Not in my lifetime.
What I plan is to carry under my constitutional right and deal with the concequeces when, and if "caught". I do not have to do ANYTHING to enjoy my 2nd A right.
Whats this about? Item 49 on docket but no downloadable documents
LOL...different circuit too!AG Office felt bored and decided to inform Judge Legg of the NJ District decision, Supplemental Authority...on the former Muller v Maenz, currently called Piszczatoski v. Filko.
pfft....
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.49.0.pdf
Even if the justifiable need requirement does burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, the Handgun Permit Law is not facially invalid as an unconstitutional burden because there is a reasonable fit between the justifiable need requirement and the government’s compelling interest in public safety.
Is there any data to refute this claim? That CC leads to less public safety? I recall it being the reverse.