Supreme Court Asked to Consider NJ Right to Carry Case

[NEAHS]

Looks like SAF has asked the SCOTUS to consider NJs unconstitutional carry laws. Hope they hear the case! And we have the same out come as Illinois.

http://www.thegunmag.com/supreme-cou...to-carry-case/

[Bill67]

In for updates.

[knight0334]

I doubt they will hear it until pressed into a corner.

[NEAHS]

I doubt they will hear it until pressed into a corner.

Well since NJ basically has a no issue for normal law abiding citizens. They are on the thought that SCOTUS may consider this case because of that reason. Even other May Issue states like NY & CA issue many permits to law abiding citizens. This case is saying normal citizens are being denied because they have no justifiable need for the permit ( such for job requirements ). NJ has in other court case claimed that they issue over 90% of the carry applicants. What they don't say is that 90% are people that need them for their job, and are restricted to only carry on the job. Once the carry permit holder gets home their firearm must stay in their home until they go to work the next day. So I hope you are wrong and they do take the case.

[vinnyg101]

It the SC here's this case then hell me be getting bit chilly. For them to strike down the immoral gun laws in NJ would mean hell has frozen over.

[knight0334]

Well since NJ basically has a no issue for normal law abiding citizens. They are on the thought that SCOTUS may consider this case because of that reason. Even other May Issue states like NY & CA issue many permits to law abiding citizens. This case is saying normal citizens are being denied because they have no justifiable need for the permit ( such for job requirements ). NJ has in other court case claimed that they issue over 90% of the carry applicants. What they don't say is that 90% are people that need them for their job, and are restricted to only carry on the job. Once the carry permit holder gets home their firearm must stay in their home until they go to work the next day. So I hope you are wrong and they do take the case.

They have already turned down a MD license/permit issue, I think last year. I think they also refused to hear a NYS case too.

Hell, they went 217 years before SCOTUS would decide on what the 2nd Amendment meant.

[GeneCC]

Hope this doesn't bug anyone but I think Gun Owners should be reluctant to let the US Supreme Court "legislate from the bench". If we let the Supreme Court do our legislating we are at best one Supreme Court case from disaster.

We need to convince people that owning firearms and peaceably carry them is their right. We need to get people to vote for gun friendly politicians.

We need to get people to start minding their own business. The biggest threat to guns is not rust or politicians but busy bodies who "wish to do good".

[JenniferG]

Hell, they went 217 years before SCOTUS would decide on what the 2nd Amendment meant.

It might take the people they believe they rule over to give them a proper education on Constitutional authority.

[knight0334]

It might take the people they believe they rule over to give them a proper education on Constitutional authority.

When I wake up each morning I go do my "business", light a cigarette, grab my rifle, open my front door and step out. I look both ways and don't see others doing the same. ...so, I go back up stairs, throw a pot of coffee on, and sit at my computer to do my 8hrs.

Those in high places stopped abiding by the Constitution long ago. They now rule by what will enable the government to greater extents. The only thing that will reverse the damages is REVOLUTION.

[Mitch10mm]

When I wake up each morning I go do my "business", light a cigarette, grab my rifle, open my front door and step out. I look both ways and don't see others doing the same. ...so, I go back up stairs, throw a pot of coffee on, and sit at my computer to do my 8hrs.

Those in high places stopped abiding by the Constitution long ago. They now rule by what will enable the government to greater extents. The only thing that will reverse the damages is REVOLUTION.

Me too.
Is that wrong?