Poper
Member
Court finds NJ law requiring "justifiable need" unconstitutional and plaintiffs are awarded reasonable attorney's fees! Another win on the back of NYSRPA vs Bruen!
NJ Gunowners Win!
- Thread starter Poper
- Start date
- Status
CapnMac
Member
Excellent news for NJ.
Does not bode well for the NY CCIA.
Does not bode well for the NY CCIA.
No, folks need to pay more attention. As a push back to Bruen, NY passed the CCIA which eliminated useful carry in the state. NJ is on the way to do the same - https://www.politico.com/news/2022/...un-bill-in-response-to-supreme-court-00061693
Thus, in NY it became easier in theory (but not implemented yet) to get a permit without a reason but much harder because of added hurdles. The lower court judge did/and might issue a restraining order on the new law but it is pretty clear that the 2nd Circuit Three Judge panel will take the state's court on appeal and it is unknown if they will restrain or remove the law. If they did the latter, it goes to full 2nd Circuit which is very gun unfriendly. The state in mining history to find precedents to support the new restrictions, such as the church/house of worship ban. The history precedent sounds good but is open to legal weed battles and loopholes that will take a long time. Then off to Scotus and it's not clear if Clarence really gets it about practical carry issues and they can issue an unambiguous ruling as compared to blather which sounds good and turns out bad. Heller was like that in part.
In any case, the new law will stay in effect through this very long process as the courts tend to let a new law stay in effect.
Long story short, NJ may go this way - and this victory becomes a pragmatic disaster as the new permits will be expensive and can't be used.
Will Clarence understand this, this time? Who knows. Will they take years? Most people think 3 to 5 years.
Thus, in NY it became easier in theory (but not implemented yet) to get a permit without a reason but much harder because of added hurdles. The lower court judge did/and might issue a restraining order on the new law but it is pretty clear that the 2nd Circuit Three Judge panel will take the state's court on appeal and it is unknown if they will restrain or remove the law. If they did the latter, it goes to full 2nd Circuit which is very gun unfriendly. The state in mining history to find precedents to support the new restrictions, such as the church/house of worship ban. The history precedent sounds good but is open to legal weed battles and loopholes that will take a long time. Then off to Scotus and it's not clear if Clarence really gets it about practical carry issues and they can issue an unambiguous ruling as compared to blather which sounds good and turns out bad. Heller was like that in part.
In any case, the new law will stay in effect through this very long process as the courts tend to let a new law stay in effect.
Long story short, NJ may go this way - and this victory becomes a pragmatic disaster as the new permits will be expensive and can't be used.
Will Clarence understand this, this time? Who knows. Will they take years? Most people think 3 to 5 years.
Jim Watson
Member
They fear we might protect ourselves against their minions.
Vulgar crime is not a real concern to Our Leaders except as an excuse for repression.
Vulgar crime is not a real concern to Our Leaders except as an excuse for repression.
OP
OP
Poper
Member
Well, I found it interesting enough that the state of NJ was ordered to pay the plaintiff's reasonable attorneys' fees. In the written decision, the court makes note that much of the plaintiffs arguments were not disputed by the defendant.
Also, the court applied the historical law precedent as per SCOTUS in Bruen.
Agreed that it may take some time for each of these cases to wind their way through the system. Still a win is a win and the more of them we get the stronger we (the 2A supporting citizens) are.
I'll take one of these wins any day.
Last edited:
pharmer
Member
NJ is a "nanny state." They create a chaotic environment where the predators rule and then offer .gov "protection." Quite common in some, mostly coastal states. Joe
rambo2_981
Member
Now how about CC reciprocity between NJ and PA? I’m tired of remembering to remove my pistol from the car when I drive across a bridge to NJ.
Insignificant bill
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2019
- Messages
- 1,219
It's about control of us. Absolute rule is what is on the agenda.
Mark_Mark
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2021
- Messages
- 18,066
But why? Can’t they just chill out and go get a hobby or something! Founding fathers were clear! leave me alone and let me be.
Insignificant bill
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2019
- Messages
- 1,219
Because they are power hungry and don't care what we want.
LiveLife
Member
May happen sooner than later with round two of Miller v Bonta and Duncan v Bonta post Bruen ruling - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12437061
To me, it's either we win at 9th Circuit or the Supreme Court ... Now or later.
Mark_Mark
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2021
- Messages
- 18,066
I’ll have a Cold one to that!!!May happen sooner than later with round two of Miller v Bonta and Duncan v Bonta post Bruen ruling - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12437061
To me, it's either we win at 9th Circuit or the Supreme Court ... Now or later.
don’t forget the backlash coming when Americans realized that we are turning into Canada
JN01
Member
From the NYSRPA vs Bruen decision:
"New York's proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public."
"But expanding the category of "sensitive places" simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of "sensitive places" too broadly. Respondents' argument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms in self-defense that we discuss in detail below. See Part III-B, infra. Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a "sensitive place" simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department."
Sounds quite clear to me. The NY law is not a "loophole", the legislators are blatantly ignoring the ruling because they don't like it. If a government has no respect for the rule of law, it will be impossible, no matter how unambiguously written it is, for the SCOTUS to author an opinion that such people will not defy if they have a mind to.
Last edited:
LiveLife
Member
Words of district judge Benitez I can absolutely picture justice Thomas saying - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12437128
... In the end, the Bill of Rights is not a list of suggestions or guidelines for social balancing. The Bill of Rights prevents the tyranny of the majority from taking away the rights of a minority. When a state nibbles on Constitutional rights, who protects the minorities? The federal courts ... The Second Amendment is about America’s freedom: the freedom to protect oneself, family, home, and homeland ... assault weapon ban disrespects that freedom. (Page 91)
... Government is not free to impose its own new policy choices on American citizens where Constitutional rights are concerned ... The Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy. (Page 92)
... Government is not free to impose its own new policy choices on American citizens where Constitutional rights are concerned ... The Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy. (Page 92)
It is all very good to quote Clarence. However, the law will probably pass and take a long time to be quashed.
One can’t predict what provisions will survive. Three cheers naivety happened after Heller.
Also the Manhattan quote doesn’t get it as the specific sensitive places to have precedent and the opt in is not a location ban but a consent ban that took out every almost every business, making the permit useless.
One can’t predict what provisions will survive. Three cheers naivety happened after Heller.
Also the Manhattan quote doesn’t get it as the specific sensitive places to have precedent and the opt in is not a location ban but a consent ban that took out every almost every business, making the permit useless.
JN01
Member
Yes, it keeps citizens from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public, contrary to Bruen and therefore, unconstitutional.
SCOTUS usually only rules on the questions put before them by the litigants and are reluctant to provide a larger scope in their decisions. Perhaps this is to prevent the appearance of legislating from the bench.
What language do you think would be all encompassing that would prevent the anti gun extremists from trying to get around or obstruct the decision? If you don't like Scalia or Thomas, who would do better?
SCOTUS usually only rules on the questions put before them by the litigants and are reluctant to provide a larger scope in their decisions. Perhaps this is to prevent the appearance of legislating from the bench.
What language do you think would be all encompassing that would prevent the anti gun extremists from trying to get around or obstruct the decision? If you don't like Scalia or Thomas, who would do better?
OP
OP
Poper
Member
- Status
Similar threads
