PDM

I bought a mini 14 tactical that was shipped to a NJ FFL and sold to me. i know that might not be the be all and end all if NJ wants to be ridiculous, but i legally purchased this as a NJ compliant rifle. And it has ONE"evil" feature -- a flash supressor -- as far as I am concerned. So perfectly legal.

Meh. This case would have been heard after the election. Probably in the spring. And the liberal justices would not let political considerations stop them from putting a nail in the coffin of the 2a. I am guessing the Roberts’ views remained vague enough that neither side wanted to chance it. I dont think its so simple.

So why didn’t the 4 liberal justices vote to grant cert. If Roberts was clearly with them they could have put a nail in the coffin of 2A outside the home once and for all.

I'm a pretty moderate person and try to avoid sky is falling views. But I am truly worried that we are headed someplace dark. Think about everything that's happened in the space of a few months: the social and economic dislocations caused by COVID, the absolute hypocrisy and incompetence of liberal mayors and governors, the animalistic and immoral rampaging mobs utterly unchecked, demonization of police and all authority (who the hell would become a copy now??)etc, etc. Compounded by the absolute insanity of the Democrat Party -- when pieces of shit like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib are not only in congress but being listened to by the party leadership - we have an active 5th column. And on top of this, the Supreme Court abdicated its responsibility on a central issue that could at least ameliorate this situation. Yeah, this country is in deep trouble, and I'm afraid fleeing to "red states" won't provide refuge for too long.

I have been trying to digest this and really can't. For 10 years I have held out hope (in hindsight foolishly) that there would be some remedy in the courts that would at least make the situation in NJ better re carry/possession. No one was expecting constitutional carry or even major changes to the permitting system -- just the ability to get a permit even with all the hoops to jump through. Now it is clear that will never happen. Really hard to take. I am curious to hear any ANJRPC spin on this -- hard to imagine how this can still be spun.

https://www.courthousenews.com/retired-cops-sue-over-new-jersey-gun-restrictions/ It's always aggravating that retired LEO are treated as a special privileged class, but it is still a good thing that they are suing the state to void the NJ carry permit restrictions that apply to them -- they argue that they are authorized under LEOSA and don't need state permission. The more pressure on the state the better.

I'm not worried about kavanaugh. it all comes down to Roberts. And we should all be very worried about him. i think the odds of one or more of the carry cases being granted cert is close to 100%. The 4 conservative justices clearly want a 2A case. In the long run, if Robert, rules the way he should we will all be much better off. The NYC case was not ideal to begin with, and if they had ruled expansively on the merits it would have forever been tainted by the mootness issue. If Rogers v Grewal is taken let's see NJ try to moot that case. I highly doubt they will. I still hold out hope that Roberts has some integrity and will rule consistent with Heller. Or perhaps RBG will finally retire and we get another conservative.

We all huff and puff and preach to the choir when we hear these news reports because we are all so frustrated. But this case really is the perfect storm. First, the hollow point restriction is even more idiotic than your average NJ gun law. Any person allowed to carry in NJ -- basically just retired cops and security guards -- is much more effective and much less of a risk to bystanders if he carries hollow points. This isn't even arguable. Second, the critical duty he was carrying is explicitly not deemed hollow point by the NJSP. Third, he was following the law and being a good citizen in every single way: had a permit, coming back from work with gun stored properly, went out of his way to inform the police he was in possession of a firearm. Fourth, he is black and as others have mentioned I think there is probably a good chance that he was profiled. I suspect this case will be dropped quickly. If not, I expect, hope and pray that he successfully sues the town for millions and wins a wrongful prosecution, civil rights case and anything else that sticks.

Security guard arrested for possessing Critical Duty ammo. https://www.ammoland.com/2020/03/nj-carry-licensed-security-guard-arrested-so-called-hollowpoint-ammo/#axzz6FpbuLs22

I'm Jewish. and very involved in promoting self defense in the Jewish community. I don't care if the plaintiff is a neo-nazi asshole. Laws like this are far more dangerous than any neo nazi or terrorist. Now, if he actually threatened people that's a different story. If there is probable cause for a warrant and due process is followed, AND severe criminal and civil penalties for making false claims under the red flag law, then I can see some circumstances where guns could be confiscated pending a hearing to determine if any laws have been broken (just like people can be held without bail before a trial in exceptional circumstances). But this law clearly doesn't meet that standard. Don't know if it came up in the video bu the AG's office apparently published criteria that require probable cause even though the statute doesn't. That's an admission that the statute as written us unconstitutional and administrative action is not an adequate substitute.

You could try smoking a pipe. Has its own risks, but much less risk than cigarettes. Smells and tastes much better too. And its much cheaper. A tin of good pipe tobacco is around $10 for 1.75 oz, bulk is much less, and if you smoke one bowl a day a few ounces will last several weeks. You can buy a corncob pipe for $10 that will smoke like a champ and a good quality briar for under $100 that will last forever if cared for properly (or you could buy a $1000 artisan briar pipe if so inclined, and anything in between). And it can be an enjoyable hobby, rather than an addiction like cigarettes.

Well if that's the case it didn't work out too well for the justices who granted cert on that basis. Not one of those issues came up during oral argument.

This is probably the best analysis I've read. Seems likely Court will decide moot, arguably rightly so as much as we'd hope otherwise. But doesn't mean 2A is dead at the Court. The article points out a distinction between a dismissal of the petition as improvidently granted (a DIG) bc it was moot or a written decision on mootness. We should hope for the former -- it would enable the Court to hear oral argument on Rogers or another 2A case that is in limbo in the spring. https://reason.com/2019/12/03/overview-of-oral-arguments-in-nys-rifle-and-pistol-association-v-city-of-new-york/

This was and is a shit case -- too narrow and too easy to issue a very limited ruling. No idea why this is the one the justices granted cert for. A carry case like Rogers makes a lot more sense for a test case. But I wouldn't cry doomsday just yet if it is dismissed bc moot. The justices, even ones that want Heller to have teeth, must consider the legal issues involved now that the law has been repealed. Even if Roberts and Kavanaugh decide moot, doesn't mean that future 2A cases are dead in the water. I think it likely that the court will decide its moot and that we will know soon if that is the case. Breyer is really a POS -- so much for Stare Decisis. I don't think Ginsburg or Kagan will be so cavalier as to say Heller isn't binding. They will just limit it as much as possible. SotoMAYOR probably will go with Breyer. But completely ignoring Heller opens a whole can of works and bad precedent when abortion cases are heard -- if Heller can be abandoned why not Roe?

Concealed carry reciprocity has nothing to do with the Supreme Court. The Court will eventually decide the carry/possession outside the home question, probably in the NYS Rifle and Pistol Association Case. And saying they need to decide "infringements" is silly. You do realize there is nothing magical about the term "shall not be infringed" just because it only appears in the 2A? The first amendment prohibits "abridging free speech". The 4th amendment says the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures "shall not be violated". Those are also the only places those particular terms are used. And yet the 1st and 4th amendments are subject to the parameters set by the Supreme Court. Same with the Second. I really wish Second Amendment absolutists would stop throwing out the idiotic "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand" argument. The 2A is an individual right and it should be subject to strict scrutiny. But as Scalia wrote its not without limits. Some gun laws will and should pass constitutional muster. And the words "shall not be infringed" don't magically negate Marbury vs Madison and the whole concept of Supreme Court review.