SCOTUS Denies Cert In Concealed Carry Case

SCOTUS Denies Cert In Concealed Carry Case

This is a discussion on SCOTUS Denies Cert In Concealed Carry Case within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; This is just awful, in my view........................ Strict N.J. rule on gun permits stands, as Supreme Court refuses case (+video) - CSMonitor.com Cnon...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19
Like Tree29Likes

Thread: SCOTUS Denies Cert In Concealed Carry Case

  1. #1
    Member Array Cnon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    73

    Angry SCOTUS Denies Cert In Concealed Carry Case



  2. #2
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,982
    It is better than them ruling in favor of NJ
    Badey, Aceoky and BurgerBoy like this.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  3. #3
    Member Array Cnon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    It is better than them ruling in favor of NJ

    But I think a lower court has already done that; and another one said yes.


    Cnon

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array xXxplosive's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,819
    NJ will never have CC only for the privledged few who are Politically Connected.....just like everything else in this state.....a corrupt process.

    Don't come here......there's nothin' for ya.
    Cnon likes this.

  5. #5
    Member Array idodishez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    113
    "In dismissing their lawsuit, the federal judge declared that there is no Second Amendment right to carry a handgun outside the home."

    Ummm, WHAT??


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Cnon likes this.

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,302
    Quote Originally Posted by From the article
    The US Supreme Court declined Monday to take a case about a New Jersey law requiring residents to show a 'justifiable need' to carry a gun in public. The law's critics had hoped the high court would take the case – and rule to expand gun rights.
    And the citizen's ability to lawfully carry and not be criminalized for it is infringed, as surely if there were a complete and utter ban. And the courts simply continue to refuse to see how simple this is. It's not debatable, IMO, that the fact of infringement is exactly what's keeping this guy (and millions of others) from escaping the branding of "felon" for exercising their constitutionally-protected rights. Absurd, and infuriating.
    Navydude and Aceoky like this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  7. #7
    Member Array Cnon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by idodishez View Post
    "In dismissing their lawsuit, the federal judge declared that there is no Second Amendment right to carry a handgun outside the home."

    Ummm, WHAT??


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Yeah, you can say that again............................


    Cnon

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array cmdrdredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,037
    Justifiable need? How about not wanting to get stabbed or shot for my wallet? How about wanting to protect my family from the same? How about deterring people from random muggings, kidnappings, rapes etc. by simply the possibility that I might be armed and prepared for that? No?

    I just don't get it and never will, the lack of common sense on this issue. I mean...people who want the $20 I have on me will shoot me anyway. Are they protecting the criminal? Sometimes I think it is just that...that there is sometimes an outside influence from the criminal underground to keep these oppressive laws in place so they have power over the people who do obey the law under the guise of protecting the people from themselves.
    Cnon, ccw9mm, Aceoky and 1 others like this.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
    -Thomas Jefferson

    Laws are restrictive but sometimes necessary to maintain a civil society. Rights are nonrestrictive but are always necessary to maintain a free society.

  9. #9
    Distinguished Member
    Array oldnfat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,533
    It's a shame to have to tolerate these communists who seem to have entrenched themselves in our country. I am referring to SCOTUS.
    Exacto and Cnon like this.
    I shoot with a pistol and a Canon. We must all hang together amigos, or we will all hang separately. NRA life member.

  10. #10
    Member
    Array auditd0rk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by cmdrdredd View Post
    Justifiable need? How about not wanting to get stabbed or shot for my wallet?
    Exactly. Seems that by time you can demonstrate a "justifiable need", it's likely too late.
    Cnon, Exacto, ccw9mm and 2 others like this.
    "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -- Ronald Reagan

  11. #11
    Member Array halem1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    200
    If one is to be denied the right to carry outside the home it would seem you could sue the state for failure to "protect and serve" should harm come to you. After a few lawsuits maybe the state would change its mind. One can wish can't they?
    Cnon and NECCdude like this.

  12. #12
    Member Array randian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by auditd0rk View Post
    Exactly. Seems that by time you can demonstrate a "justifiable need", it's likely too late.
    Exactly the point of the justifiable need standard. You cannot demonstrate justifiable need unless you have already been harmed, and even then only if you have hard evidence that you will also be harmed in the future.

  13. #13
    Member Array randian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by halem1 View Post
    If one is to be denied the right to carry outside the home it would seem you could sue the state for failure to "protect and serve" should harm come to you.
    The police have no duty to protect you. Every court says so.
    Exacto likes this.

  14. #14
    VIP Member Array tdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,837
    Shows why we need to get the court stacked with judges more sympathetic to our line of reasoning.

  15. #15
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,982
    Quote Originally Posted by randian View Post
    The police have no duty to protect you. Every court says so.
    Actually it was SCOTUS that ruled on a Civil Suit that you are getting your information from. The ruling is not so dire as you make it sound. It wa dealing with 14th Amendment issues. Then again, hyperbole goes along way.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •