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 ...
Caetano IS more important!
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Caetano should trump any and all state’s anti-2A laws:
“In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that, although stun guns are unusual in nature and were not common during the enactment of the Second Amendment, they are included in the Second Amendment’s protections. To hold otherwise would be inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that Second Amendment protections extend to arms that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
“Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. filed a concurring opinion in which he reiterated the importance of access to self-defense and the rights afforded by the Second Amendment. Justice Clarence Thomas joined in the concurring opinion.” (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-10078)
A “For the People” slam dunk?
In the best of all possible worlds, SCOTUS could, in one fell swoop, negate ALL anti-2A laws!
Life, liberty, and pursuing happiness are NOT in the designs of Marx and Lennin, nor in the globalists!
““...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Case closed.”
seems odd they want us to believe we are so much more advanced, learned, civilized in the USA then way back at the founding, yet the founders and people of that era knew what words meant while today a portion of the country cannot understand simple words and need definitions or more words added to understand their meaning.
The founders saw no need to have to spell out “at all times”, or “Outside the home” or “while traveling about the country”
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Case closed.
From the article: “The primary issue is whether there is *any* right to bear arms outside of the home."
So, what they are trying to clarify legally is whether or not bearing arms outside the home is part of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”. (Seems obvious to me, but…) If it’s not part of the right, forbidding it is not an infringement of the right.
I’ve said for quite some time we need to concentrate more on the meaning, extent, scope and so forth of the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and stop knee jerk responding with “shall not be infringed”.
Again, if it’s not part of the right, forbidding it is not an infringement of the right.
Boy Jesus made our life hard with that one.
But then he kind of lost it in the Temple when they were using it as a capitalist venture instead of a Holy Place.
I am not smart enough or studied enough on the bible to interpret he who lives by the sword and turn the other cheek.
I thought the McDonald case established the right to bear arms outside the home? In fact, I believe it was the basis for forcing illanoy to finally enact concealed carry.
No, McDonald did not clearly establish the right to bear arms outside the home.
It was the Seventh Circuit in Moore v. Madigan.
That case followed McDonald, which established that the Second Amendment applied to the states.
But, Moore v. Madigan helps establish the split in the Circuits.
I’m encouraged with a Kavanaugh replacing Kennedy, but we can’t start to feel comfortable until President Trump gets to replace at least one of the Gang of Four. As it is now, anybody - like Roberts for example - getting the least bit wobbly can have disastrous consequences.
Yup, it’s obvious the founding fathers assumed that hunting would be done mostly inhouse./sarc
Exactly. From Roosevelt to Reagan, the primary requirement for any jurist appointed to the Supreme Court was that they were a reliable Progressive, whether Democrat or Republican.
Reagan tried to break that mold by appointing Judge Bork, a strict constructionist. The left went berserk, and ever since, has shown their true colors by fighting any strict constructionist tooth and nail, while pushing through rabid Progressives at every chance.
Now, due to the Bush presidencies and President Trump, we are on the cusp of the first Originalist and Textualist Supreme Court in 84 years.
It is why the Left is going bonkers.
Probably 80% of the Federal government is unconstitutional.
Progressivism's foundation is based on the Constitution as being outdated and irrelevant.
Having worked many years in NYC which is patently hostile to concealed carry (unless you are connected), I would have LOVED for legal acknowledgement of the right to carry in states hostile to freedom. But I must admit, for all those years I was disarmed by the state, I rarely wished for SCOTUS to rule on the 2nd Amendment's guarantee of concealed-carry, or whether or not such a guarantee trumps state law via the 14th Amendment.
Why? Because most states already have very generous (that is, Normal and proper) concealed carry laws today. There are only a handful of states where the citizenry is disarmed outside of their homes....it sucks for them, but do we want to bet the farm for those states? I am NOT confident that SCOTUS would rule correctly and, if we lose in a 5-4 ruling with a ghastly anti-carry opinion written by Roberts, then those states' concealed carry protections MAY be in jeopardy.
I feel for my brethren Deplorables in blue "may issue" states. But I would rather suffer the sporadic injustices of "may issue" statism when there ARE many surrounding states that permit freedom, than gamble and lose at the federal/SCOTUS level.
Those freedoms are under constant attack through various means. Most particularly by paid for, slyly worded, referendum bankrolled by out of state billionaires.
Unfortunately, many states are at risk.
We must move forward to actively protect our Second Amendment rights.
Another positive tool are the state constitutions. There are only six states that do not have a right to keep and bear arms protection of some sort.
Some of those are quite weak, others are strong.
Iowa is one of the six, and has a strong state movement to place a strong RKBA amendment in place.
For decades the leftist gun-grabbers have insisted that the 2nd applies only to organized militias.
So I guess they think militias operate only inside private homes.
Federal protections where they exist should also be vigorously defended and expanded where prudential. But, call me a coward, I am not willing to risk the gains made at state levels to help six states' residents UNTIL I feel more confident that sanity would reign at the SCOTUS level. Indeed, Heller was a 5-4 decision...too close for my liking. I feel pretty good that Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh would rule with fidelity. The four statists would rule against. While Roberts was on "our side" for Heller, post-Obamacare I don't feel good....if RBG retires and we get a good one in there, my opinion may change.
We’ve come a long way at destroying personal rights since the SCOTUS ruled, in 1857, that one of the rights of citizens is “To keep and carry arms wherever they went.”
This was the Dred Scott case in which it was “proven” that blacks in bondage were not citizens even if in a “free” state, so such rights did not apply to them.
Years ago, the “Colonies” had laws requiring citizens traveling to carry firearms for protection. They also were required to bring them to church on Sunday, and do militia drills after church.
How much the rights of the past have been destroyed.
But only if you have a carry permit to move it between rooms.
I feel for my brethren Deplorables in blue "may issue" states. But I would rather suffer the sporadic injustices of "may issue" statism when there ARE many surrounding states that permit freedom, than gamble and lose at the federal/SCOTUS level.
I'm of the opinion that Roberts is "owned".
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.