Cert Denied :( NJ carry permit pushed to June 11, 2020 Conference

[zogger]

While I can see SCOTUS's point about ruling on a law that has been changed, it just means that NY and NYC will find another way to screw the gun owners in NY. This will then be challenged and another suit will ensue.

I agree that no matter what SCOTUS does about NJ, NJ will find a way not to comply. DC still doesn't have a workable permit system after all these years.

 

[schutzen-jager]

reality --- N.J.

right to bear arms was omitted when NJ constitution was rewritten over a half century ago -

chief law enforcement officers for state + counties are all political appointees that serve at will of their appointers -

judges are also political appointees + not elected by voters -

there is no voter ID at all - anyone can walk into polls , give name of deceased registered voter , scribble in book + vote - no need to be a citizen or speak English to vote - voter fraud runs rampant + if there is an investigation it is carried out by political appointees -

laws will only change when government + politics are changed first -

 

[schutzen-jager]

JMHO - facts + actuality

UPDATE April 29, 2020

The Parties asking the Supreme Court to review New Jersey's "May Issue" carry permit laws filed a virtuoso Supplemental Brief on April 29, 2020:

Link to April 29, 2020 Supplemental Brief

will prove meaningless + a waste of time - past precedent in NJ will weigh more on court + judges opinions then anything else

 

[zogger]

UPDATE May 11, 2020
“Distributed for Conference of May 15, 2020.”

I hope we find out before the end of June if the Supreme Court will year this case.

Thanks for the update.

 

[bushmaster1313]

UPDATE 5.15.20
Various bloggers report that today, May 15, 2020, the Supreme Court is considering in Conference which - if any - of the TEN (10) Second Amendment/Firearms appeals that are pending will be heard on the merits. These bloggers predict that we could get important information Monday morning, May 17.

To me, the most important is the "May Issue" carry permit case out of New Jersey. The issues there are:

1) Does the 2A grant People the Right to Bear Arms (outside the home). [Bushmaster's comment: Duh!];

2) Assuming there is a Right of People to Bear Arms [Duh!], can the State force the applicant for a carry permit to show that the person has a special personalized need to exercise their Right to Bear Arms over and above the need of the general public.

IMHO, Issue (2) goes way beyond just the Second Amendment. It actually goes to the question of do we want the Government to be able to force us to show:

a) Why do YOU need to practice THAT religion;

b) Why do YOU need to read THAT newspaper;

c) Why do YOU need a lawyer more than any other accused;

d) Why does YOUR group need to assemble;

e) What is so special about YOUR need to not self-incriminate;

f) What is so special about YOUR right to vote;

g) What is so special about YOU with respect to any other fundamental right protected by the Constitution.

Stay tuned Boys and Girls

Issues that will never be decided are:
Ford or Chevy
Vanilla or Chocolate
Ginger or Maryann

 

[GaryS]

The Second Amendment has long been treated as a second-class right. It's long past time for that to stop.

 

[zogger]

Besides the point you are making, the fact that a person has to have a permit to exercise a Constitutional right is ridiculous. I doubt if any of the justices will see things this way though. Why they are scared to tackle key Constitutional issues like this I don't understand. Issues such as these are what the SCOTUS is all about.

BTW-Chevy, vanilla, Mary Ann.

 

[fordson]

Thanks for the updates.
Question: Does concern for Public Safety EVER override Constitutional rights? If so, would/could NJ argue that in the interest of public safety a licensing system and justification for such are necessary because Unlike other Constitutional right, the 2A has an immediate impact on said Public safety if the right is abused.
If this was addressed previously, point me to the response and I’ll stand down.

Chevy
Chocolate
Ginger - oh, yeah!

 

[delcrossv]

Chevy
Chocolate
Ginger - oh, yeah!

Yep. Without question.

 

[delcrossv]

Thanks for the updates.
Question: Does concern for Public Safety EVER override Constitutional rights? If so, would/could NJ argue that in the interest of public safety a licensing system and justification for such are necessary because Unlike other Constitutional right, the 2A has an immediate impact on said Public safety if the right is abused.
If this was addressed previously, point me to the response and I’ll stand down.

Yes, that's the argument they'll make- Although in States with no such restrictions there doesn't seem to be a problem.

 

[ladder13]

Let NJ get Shall Issue like every other state got it, through their Legislature.
I want the case Justice Kavanaugh is looking for, the Big One as he recently put it. NJ ain’t it, imo.
I would contribute to the case benefitting the whole country.

 

[GaryS]

NJ isn't the only state that it will help. As a side issue, if SCOTUS ever decides that shall issue is the law of the land, will that include issuing to non residents?

Justice Thomas hinted at that in one of the IL cases. He voted with the majority, but in his separate but concurring opinion would have decided it by reviving "privileges or immunities" from the 14th Amendment.

Let NJ get Shall Issue like every other state got it, through their Legislature.
I want the case Justice Kavanaugh is looking for, the Big One as he recently put it. NJ ain’t it, imo.
I would contribute to the case benefitting the whole country.

 

[schutzen-jager]

Washington D.C. + Chicago supreme court decisions have not helped them much at all , much less others , it has been years since decisions have been rendered there with no effect on other states at all -

 

[steelslaver]

Thanks for the updates.
Question: Does concern for Public Safety EVER override Constitutional rights? If so, would/could NJ argue that in the interest of public safety a licensing system and justification for such are necessary because Unlike other Constitutional right, the 2A has an immediate impact on said Public safety if the right is abused.
If this was addressed previously, point me to the response and I’ll stand down.

Chevy
Chocolate
Ginger - oh, yeah!

Public safety can be raised. But, then we kill way more people with cars than guns and nobody has to show a need for to drive and the right to drive is not protected by an amendment.

The 2nd is pretty clear, and the intent of the framers is also, no matter how much some want to confuse the issue. I believe the day is coming when the right to keep and BEAR arms will be affirmed for all the citizens.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Washington D.C. + Chicago supreme court decisions have not helped them much at all , much less others , it has been years since decisions have been rendered there with no effect on other states at all -

Cook County had 74,000 carry permits in 2018.

That’s 3 out of every 200 people.
Discount kids and the very elderly, it’s probably one in fifty.

New Jersey had 496 carry permits in 2015 out of 8 million.

 

[schutzen-jager]

Cook County had 74,000 carry permits in 2018.

That’s 3 out of every 200 people.
Discount kids and the very elderly, it’s probably one in fifty.

New Jersey had 496 carry permits in 2015 out of 8 million.

FYI - did not mention Cook County at all , but Chicago - - your NJ. figures does not include retired LEO's - state law can be stricter but cannot conflict with federal law - Supreme court can rule on permits , but states can still rule on what is required + what restrictions , parameters , + costs are necessary to obtain them - only a major change in government will change anything here in NJ. -

 

[bushmaster1313]

the fact that a person has to have a permit to exercise a Constitutional right is ridiculous.

IMHO a permit to exercise a Constitutional right is fine if the baseline is that the permits must be granted fairly, without invasion of privacy, and at minimal cost. For example, Freedom of Assembly is a fundamental Constitutional right, but we do not want ten different groups showing up at the same place at the same time for a parade.

What is ridiculous is for the government to force a law-abiding citizen to prove that they have good and sufficient reason why they should be permitted to exercise a right guaranteed in the Constitution.

 

[fordson]

IMHO a permit to exercise a Constitutional right is fine if the baseline is that the permits must be granted fairly, without invasion of privacy, and at minimal cost. For example, Freedom of Assembly is a fundamental Constitutional right, but we do not want ten different groups showing up at the same place at the same time for a parade.

What is ridiculous is for the government to force a law-abiding citizen to prove that they have good and sufficient reason why they should be permitted to exercise a right guaranteed in the Constitution.

This is the crux of the opposition’s position, isn’t it? That the 2A does not address rights to firearm ownership outside the home (and barely, reluctantly have the rights to firearms inside the home). So, if the 2A is not recognized as a Right by a State, then from their view point, one needs to justify to the state Why one need to exercise this “Right” outside your home? Throw in “concerns for Public Safety” and that’s their position.
When, if ever or under what conditions, does Public Safety override Constitutional Rights? Refer to my original question in post #28.

 

[GaryS]

No grants today. The "Beers" case was sent back to the Third Circuit with orders to moot as Beers is no longer a PP. Beers v. Barr involved a person who was a PP because of an involuntary commitment for mental health care.

None of the other 2A cases were denied, which is good.

Next Tuesday will be the next release of orders as Monday is a holiday.

 

[schutzen-jager]

poor analogy

IMHO a permit to exercise a Constitutional right is fine if the baseline is that the permits must be granted fairly, without invasion of privacy, and at minimal cost. For example, Freedom of Assembly is a fundamental Constitutional right, but we do not want ten different groups showing up at the same place at the same time for a parade.

What is ridiculous is for the government to force a law-abiding citizen to prove that they have good and sufficient reason why they should be permitted to exercise a right guaranteed in the Constitution.

abundance of things in bill of rights require permits - parades , speeches in public places , parking permits on public lots , political rallies , + etc. - nothing in the bill of rights or constitution states that guaranteed rights are free + without restrictions - any power that is not absolutely guaranteed in constitution are relegated to the states as long as they do not conflict with federal law - until there is a major change in government + politics no court ruling will change anything with out decades of appeals + political litigation -