Skip to comments.Supreme Court Takes Closer Look at NJ Second Amendment Case
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 ...
Liberals treat the RKBA as if were a second class right.
“Now that our government has legalized murder of those who cant defend themselves, they are coming after those of us who can defend ourselves.”
Post of the day! Give this man an internet.
The decision only dealt with the question of whether stun guns were "arms" under 2A.
Thanks for the comeback, DoodleBob.
I see your point, and acknowledge that there is some danger in raising the REAL meaning of the Second Amendment to the SCOTUS at this time.
HST at some point, these local/state/federal laws restricting We the People’s Constitutional right have got to be adjudicated by SCOTUS.
Otherwise, we’ll be nickeled and dimed to the point of being totally disarmed, which is the LIEberal objective, of course.
We have to take the chance that Constitutional Carry will eventually be the law of the land, and I am all in with that!
I just had another thought — General Patton famously said:
“Never take counsel of your fears.”
To NOT force the issue forward a cop-out, IMHO. Let us get the issue on the table, debate it, get a court ruling and move on!
“I’m of the opinion that Roberts is “owned”. “
I think so also. His obamacare ruling is ample evidence of that.
Roberts is compromised as were most of the court under Obama.
So you can only possibly protect stuff and people inside the house...?
2a doesnt let you protect stuff and people outside your house, on your land?
2a doesnt let you protect stuff and people whe you go about your daily life in the real world?
Then we better disarm cops because they derive their armed capability from 2a as well.
Well, Wyatt Earp certainly ignored that one. (:-)
Earp’s laws were to prevent transient cowboys from carrying guns in town, so soon after the Civil War.
Once when Hurricane Bill tried to bust out one of his men from the Wichita jail he came with his men armed to the teeth.
Someone rang the city alarm bell, and the only man trying to prevent the breakout was backed up by about thirty or forty armed citizens of Wichita. Bill backed off, and for months every weed patch turned up a discarded cowboy’s gun.
Funny how abortion is settled law, but the 2nd Amendment is up for debate.
To put a fine point on this topic, let's follow Gen MacArthur in WWII, specifically Operation Cartwheel. Mac always, ALWAYS, fought to win. But in these plans circa March 1943, he delayed the capture of the Japanese base at Rabaul until 1944 because...
My strategic conception for the Pacific Theater, which I outlined after the Papuan Campaign and have since consistently advocated, contemplates massive strokes against only main strategic objectives, utilizing surprise and air-ground striking power supported and assisted by the fleet. This is the very opposite of what is termed "island hopping" which is the gradual pushing back of the enemy by direct frontal pressure with the consequent heavy casualties which will certainly be involved. Key points must of course be taken but a wise choice of such will obviate the need for storming the mass of islands now in enemy possession. "Island hopping" with extravagant losses and slow progress...is not my idea of how to end the war as soon and as cheaply as possible. New conditions require for solution and new weapons require for maximum application new and imaginative methods. Wars are never won in the past.
The concealed carry gains at the state level have been achieved via massive strokes against only main strategic objectives, utilizing surprise and air-ground striking power supported and assisted by the fleet. Yes...NJ and other states lacking a state constitutional guarantee to KABA are suffering. But their liberation via a SCOTUS case with this current group of justices is, IMHO, akin to a direct assault on Rabaul in 1943.
Discretion is, of course, the better part of valor.
The sadness is that somehow, someway, the swamp co-opted Chief Justice Roberts, and he, being a good politician, once bought, stays bought. Damn shame, that!
Best to wait this one out until the court is reconstituted in the image of the Founders!
Somebody with the flu needs to cough on RBG and Sotomeyer.
Somebody with the flu needs to cough on RBG and Sotomeyer.
Amen! Agree 100%.
Yep, nothing new under the sun. (:<)
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.