Posted on 02/27/2019 4:42:17 AM PST by marktwain
Rodgers v. Grewal is a New Jersey Second Amendment case that has pushed through the court system of appeals. The petitioners are asking the Supreme Court to hear the case. The legal term is to ask the Court to grant a writ of Certiorari.
The case is the next in a stream of Second Amendment cases over the last eight years. This case, like others, deals with the Second Amendment right to carry a weapon, specifically a handgun, outside of the home.
The Supreme Court has refused to hear a case on the issue for eight years. That changed on January 22, 2019, when the Court agreed to hear a case from New York Rifle & Pistol Association. In that case, the City of New York forbids pistol owners from taking a pistol outside of their home except to one of nine ranges available in New York City. That case was granted a writ of certiorari or “cert” as it is called in legal jargon.
The New Jersey case is broader and deals with issues already raised in several appeals courts. The primary issue is whether there is *any* right to bear arms outside of the home. The Third Circuit Court of appeals had decided, in a previous case, the right to bear arms did not apply outside of the home. The only avenue left was an appeal to the Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Yeah the forefathers meant for you to only have your gun IN THE HOUSE.
So you could have your gun in one hand and your #### in the other.
Maybe they meant for free speech to only occur in the house. There is no logical reason to say the absurdity applies to one and not the other.
SMH
—bflr—
“...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Case closed.
[[This case, like others, deals with the Second Amendment right to carry a weapon, specifically a handgun, outside of the home. ]]
Where i the 2n’d A does it say you can’t carry outside the home?
Over there, in the emanations and penumbras.
The case is called "Caetano v Massachusetts" and the argument that Massachusetts lawyers made,which was called "frivolous" in the SCOTUS ruling,was the very same one that the Massachusetts Supreme Court made in upholding the law before appeals reached the Federal courts.
Funny how abortion is settled law, but the 2nd Amendment is up for debate.
The effort failed. But Justice Stevens wrote that he helped persuade Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who was in the majority, to ask for “some important changes” to Justice Scalia’s opinion. A passage in the opinion, which Justice Scalia had plainly added to secure a fifth vote, said the decision “should not be taken to cast doubt” on many kinds of gun control laws.
First, because it was a unanimous decision, and second, because it made clear that the Second Amendment is not limited to a particular technology.
Because the case did not involve firearms, it is ignored by many.
Shall not be infringed
SMH
It’s amazing all the arguments and nonsense for a LOONNGG time over a VERY cut and dry amendment.
There were no “except”s in the constitution.
People were NUTS then too. There were duels where folks died. There were massacres with guns. SOMEBODY somewhere used a gun out of haste or rage at the time.
I’m sure all the signers knew of these occurrences yet NONE asked for an “except” clause.
HOW CUT AND DRY CAN YOU GET?!
Too bad RBG isn’t gone and replaced by Trump. I don’t trust Roberts
“Maybe they meant for free speech to only occur in the house.”
The left is pushing to keep religion exclusive to the church house, so why should this come as a surprise? Any Christian who wants to exercise his God given rights best just stay at home.
Clearly the intent of the Framers was for the word "bear" to mean from the bedroom to the kitchen.
But we won’t.
“Pray loud and carry a big stick” will have to be our new motto.
“Too bad RBG isn’t gone and replaced by Trump. I don’t trust Roberts”
I was really hoping RBG was replaced before another 2nd case went to the SC. I felt we had to endure these encroachments on the state levels until then. Roberts is going to screw us.
“Pray loud and carry a big stick”
I like it. I also say: “Turning the other cheek does not mean I won’t shoot back.”
Now that our government has legalized murder of those who can’t defend themselves, they are coming after those of us who can defend ourselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.