Jump to content
ryan_j

9th circuit rules "good cause" for handgun permits impermissibly burdens the 2nd amendment

Recommended Posts

And  just how did SCOTUS go on Obamacare...?

 

Putting the eggs in the proverbial SCOTUS basket can as much destroy the 2A as well as advance it.......IMO....

 

Imagine if you will they here the case and say that CC is NOT valid outside the home and 'covered' under the 2A and that you must show just cause, or insert whatever language you choose....

 

Unfortunately the pendulum can and will swing both ways...

 

It's not a sure thing, but it advances the cause for sure.

 

And more importantly, "the heller five" are still on the court. 

 

 

 

Imagine if you will they here the case and say that CC is NOT valid outside the home and 'covered' under the 2A and that you must show just cause, or insert whatever language you choose....

 

Then nothing changes. NJ remains no/may issue, but I doubt Utah, Pennsylvania or even Connecticut would stop issuing permits, mostly because those other states are pro gun but they also have RKBA in their state constitutions.

 

In other words, we have nothing to lose at this point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite, but good cause exists, if  you are law abiding and want to carry for self defense without the need to demonstrate any other circumstances.

Yes, this helps the cause: The 7th and 9th circuits vs. the second, third and fourth. This opinion is also going to cause the NJ Supreme Court in the pending carry case to think long and hard about the issue as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big plus here is that 19 states have joined the fight: CLICK HERE, Ye SCALLAWAGS (and posted elsewhere).

 

Why? To ensure (to the extent that a legal decision ensures anything) that the Supremes 's decision does not diminish the hard-earned rights of free states.

 

This could turn out great. Even if it turns out bad (and becomes the end of the line, unless God chimes in) we can at least say we watched it unfold, like the Heidi game.

 

Very, very interesting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And  just how did SCOTUS go on Obamacare...?

 

 

I actually think SCOTUS got that one right.  That doesn't mean that I agree that the law is a good idea.  Their job isn't to make sure whether the law is a good idea, their job is to make sure it's legal.

 

The ACA trial was a question as to whether the government had the power to force someone to buy something with no prerequisite.  If you own a car, the government can force you to buy car insurance.  If you live in an area prone to floods, you have to get flood insurance.  But the prerequisite to the ACA was being born.  You can't choose not to be born.

 

Basically SCOTUS said that no, the government couldn't force you to buy health insurance, but the government does have the power to tax.  And what is the penalty but a tax?

 

Look, in NJ, we have nothing to lose if this goes to the supreme court.  Also note that my favorite sentence in the dissent was the one where the judge basically said that your constitutional rights are different if you live in an urban area as opposed to a rural one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 9th Cir in Peruta conducted an EXHAUSTIVE (literally) historical analysis of why the 2A applies outside the home.  I believe it is the longest and most detailed analysis of that issue in any case to date.  They overwhelmingly demonstrate why "bear" means what we know if means and what the Supreme Court already said it means -- to carry a firearm in public in case of confrontation for the purpose of self defense.

 

The court then went on to analyze whether the CA good cause requirement infringes on the right.  They concluded it does, noting the difference between burdening a right (which is permissible -- eg training requirement or background check) and DESTROYING a right -- which is the result of the de facto rejection of everyone and anyone apply for a permit under the good cause (in our state justifiable need) requirement.  The fact that a select few could get a permit -- ie retired police -- isn't good enough.  Directly spot on to our situation in NJ.  This is absolutely HUGE.  Even better than the Moore case in the 7th cir.  I would now give the odds at 75% or higher that the S Ct takes Drake and the same odds for a ruling that the NJ/CA good cause/justifiable need requirements are unconstitutional.  If the NJ legislature is paying attention and had half a brain they'd revise the NJ statute now to eliminate justifiable need to avoid the risk of a S Ct ruling.  Of course they will never do that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big plus here is that 19 states have joined the fight: CLICK HERE, Ye SCALLAWAGS (and posted elsewhere).

 

Why? To ensure (to the extent that a legal decision ensures anything) that the Supremes 's decision does not diminish the hard-earned rights of free states.

 

This could turn out great. Even if it turns out bad (and becomes the end of the line, unless God chimes in) we can at least say we watched it unfold, like the Heidi game.

 

Very, very interesting. 

 

When do we file our CCW apps?  :)

 

 

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — Wyoming is leading a coalition of 19 states asking the U.S. Supreme Court to let them submit a brief supporting a New Jersey man's challenge to that state's concealed weapons law.

 

Wyoming is among the most pro-gun states in the nation. Although Wyoming still issues concealed carry permits to its citizens, the state in 2011 changed its laws to allow concealed carry without a permit.

 

Dayam.  Go Wyoming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember guys, this was remanded to the lower court. That doesn't mean people get to carry in Kali just yet. It also doesn't mean they won't appeal for en-banc and the 9th en-banc will likely return a different verdict.

 

It is good news, but don't pop the champagne just yet, not even that California champagne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before people start buying Holsters, and asking when to apply, Everyone needs to start their NJ CCW purchase fund account.

This is NJ A CCW will probably cost $500.00 plus what ever stipulations would be added to apply for A permit. Still always A lot of ways to put major kinks in things.

Just Sayin!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the NJ legislature is paying attention and had half a brain they'd revise the NJ statute now to eliminate justifiable need to avoid the risk of a S Ct ruling.  Of course they will never do that.

 

This is indeed cause for cautious optimism, possibly the best news we have gotten on this subject in a long, long time.

 

But I see no reason for our legislature to feel the need to get ahead of this. I would envision them going down kicking and screaming, only if/when they are forced to do so by the courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before people start buying Holsters, and asking when to apply, Everyone needs to start their NJ CCW purchase fund account.

This is NJ A CCW will probably cost $500.00 plus what ever stipulations would be added to apply for A permit. Still always A lot of ways to put major kinks in things.

Just Sayin!

Nope. Remember, right now we exist under an authority that does not recognize carry as a right, and thus they can do what they want to it.

 

If scotus forces them to recognize it, they can't place undue burden. In our neck of the woods, that currently sits at about $6.

 

If there weren't bigger fish to fry, I'd say setting up a class and going after the current fees might be worthwhile. I mean after all, the bs they encumber us with is for the publics benefit so they say. Then let the whole of the public foot the bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a lengthy interview today and might be going back into overseeing 100+ retail banking locations. Being able to use my occupation as reasonable would be awesome. The other issue is crossing state lines between NYC / NY / NJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 If the NJ legislature is paying attention and had half a brain they'd revise the NJ statute now to eliminate justifiable need to avoid the risk of a S Ct ruling.  Of course they will never do that. 

 

It would be nice but you have to remember that we are in the minority - only about 14% of NJ Jersey residents own guns.  Why would a legislator stick his neck out for 14% of the people and risk being branded as "in the pocket" of the NRA?

 

There was one person on another forum who said that if Shall Issue was granted in NJ there would be a stamped of new gun application.  That just isn't true.  Cows that are used to barbed wire eventually learn to avoid the poles.  If a strand of wire falls down, the cows don't rush out of their enclosure because they see the polls as dangerous.

 

Well, NJ residents are kind of like those cows.  Most of them live in a world where guns just aren't in their orbit.  They don't own a gun and don't know anybody who owns a gun, and don't have any desire to own a gun.  If NJ became shall issue tomorrow, there would be no mad rush for new pistol permits - I honestly don't think anyone would notice except us.  Heck, if you could buy a gun with straight NICS tomorrow, there would be no rush on guns either - the poles are still up.  You know who would buy a gun?  That friend you took shooting once who has had his FID application on his kitchen table for the past eight months because he is too lazy to fill it out.

 

There is no pent-up public demand for this in NJ.  So why would a legislator risk being ousted in a primary just to pass a law?  The answer is that he wouldn't.  It's more politically expedient to have CCW forced upon us so he can wring his hands and say "there was nothing I could do."

 

They don't have half a brain.  They are working with 100% of their brain and they know that at the end of the day they are accountable to the soccer mom who is scared of guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...