US Supreme Court - "NJ Concealed carry - denial certiori"

[gator39]

Finding very little on it now, no case number, but it was the Delaware supreme court and should very well be able to bolster the NJ argument.

It does allow that the right to keep and bear extends outside the home to all common areas of public housing property.
Shouldn't take a super lawyer to incorporate that into their argument.

[Vrez]

The one I found was 9th circuit overturning "good cause" law in California....Peruta v. San Diego. I didn't find one for Delaware.

[gator39]

Ok, I found the case I was referring to.
It deals with both the fed 2nd and the Delaware state second and is a great read and bolster of the states rights actually trumping the fed rights.
It may or may not bolster the nj case but would be great for us pa. citizens if we have a hostile regime take over the govs. mansion.
Well worth reading.
I don't know how to provide a link but here is all you need to find it.

SUPREME CRT OF STATE OF DELAWARE #403, 2013.
Jane Doe and Charles Boone VS. Wilmington Housing Authority and Fredrick S. Purnell Sr. as Executive Director of Wilmington Housing Authority.

Really great case in my opinion.

[Deleted]

^^^^^ Interesting analysis. That sounds plausible. Thanks.

So it seems the lower courts really call the shots, and if they are largely anti 2A the state is screwed.

Still, the Supreme Court should be motivated to enforce the 2A, as well as precedent from other case law when there are obvious violations, like in NJ.

I think what SCOTUS tries to say with their denials is that the individual states call the shots...as in states’ rights. Heller struck down as unconstitutional the idea of banning handguns in the home. SCOTUS ruled that doing so was a blatant violation of the second amendment. But when it comes to issues like LTCF and other similar issues, SCOTUS seems to take the "states rights" approach.

[TaePo]

Gee, a right against tyranny and crime not extending beyond your property makes for small battlefields and no way to deploy a unit greater than a squad either (family members). Hardly seems worth it.

Or are they focusing on 'handguns' and not long guns? Because that is just as egregious IMHO.

[Pilot321]

I think what SCOTUS tries to say with their denials is that the individual states call the shots...as in states’ rights. Heller struck down as unconstitutional the idea of banning handguns in the home. SCOTUS ruled that doing so was a blatant violation of the second amendment. But when it comes to issues like LTCF and other similar issues, SCOTUS seems to take the "states rights" approach.

I am ALL FOR state's rights. It is the fundamental basis for our country, and doesn't need fundamental transformation btw, but has been destroyed since 1861.

However, we have a Constitution, and the 2A, and the SCOTUS's legal job is to ENFORCE that Constitution. That is NOT happening with 2A.

[TaePo]

I think what SCOTUS tries to say with their denials is that the individual states call the shots...as in states’ rights. Heller struck down as unconstitutional the idea of banning handguns in the home. SCOTUS ruled that doing so was a blatant violation of the second amendment. But when it comes to issues like LTCF and other similar issues, SCOTUS seems to take the "states rights" approach.

I am ALL FOR state's rights. It is the fundamental basis for our country, and doesn't need fundamental transformation btw, but has been destroyed since 1861.

However, we have a Constitution, and the 2A, and the SCOTUS's legal job is to ENFORCE that Constitution. That is NOT happening with 2A.

But didn't the Supremes in Heller ask the Heller team if they wanted them to also rule on licensing and carrying outside of the home? And did the team not say, "No, thank you."?

It sounded to me like they were ready to make or extend a ruling on general carry as well. They even specifically asked if the Heller team wanted to do so or not. So it would seem they were willing to make a binding decision.

Now, what that would have been is anyone's guess, I suppose. I feel as though it would have been favorable given the circumstances. I also could be wrong in my opinion/feeling.

[press1280]

Ok, I found the case I was referring to.
It deals with both the fed 2nd and the Delaware state second and is a great read and bolster of the states rights actually trumping the fed rights.
It may or may not bolster the nj case but would be great for us pa. citizens if we have a hostile regime take over the govs. mansion.
Well worth reading.
I don't know how to provide a link but here is all you need to find it.

SUPREME CRT OF STATE OF DELAWARE #403, 2013.
Jane Doe and Charles Boone VS. Wilmington Housing Authority and Fredrick S. Purnell Sr. as Executive Director of Wilmington Housing Authority.

Really great case in my opinion.

A good case for Del. residents but not much value elsewhere, unfortunately. The Del. court ruled on primarily their own state RKBA, and not the 2A.

The folks in NJ are in a pickle, for sure. They'll have to hope Peruta or another case does get taken and wins at SCOTUS.
Then again, Pantano is at the NJ Supreme Court, and would give the state shall-issue. But I'm highly doubting it'll happen. I think it may be closer than people expect. After all, they didn't have to take the case since their lower courts aren't in any conflict (they remain solidly anti-carry).

[gator39]

A good case for Del. residents but not much value elsewhere, unfortunately. The Del. court ruled on primarily their own state RKBA, and not the 2A.

The folks in NJ are in a pickle, for sure. They'll have to hope Peruta or another case does get taken and wins at SCOTUS.
Then again, Pantano is at the NJ Supreme Court, and would give the state shall-issue. But I'm highly doubting it'll happen. I think it may be closer than people expect. After all, they didn't have to take the case since their lower courts aren't in any conflict (they remain solidly anti-carry).

I took it that the 2nd was being over ridden in favor of Delawares state constitution.
Most state constitutions are more clearly articulated than the fed constitution.
I no Pa. and Delawares are. Just depends on how NJ is written.
The feds don't seem to be fighting the Delaware ruling.

[Qtrborecrazy]

I think what SCOTUS tries to say with their denials is that the individual states call the shots...as in states’ rights. Heller struck down as unconstitutional the idea of banning handguns in the home. SCOTUS ruled that doing so was a blatant violation of the second amendment. But when it comes to issues like LTCF and other similar issues, SCOTUS seems to take the "states rights" approach.

States rights my ass, how many states are being forced to accept same sex marriage licenses from other states? How about my LTCF, its not beeling accepted in other states,WHY? With all the spying by the NSA, I wonder if they got dirt on all the clowns who sit on the SCOTUS.