. But I simply cannot envision the faintest legal doctrine they can find to override the law.
I invite you to read any court decision upholding most any gun control law.
FReegards, amigo.
They are still based upon precedent, albeit bad ones, such as Miller - I won't get into Miller, except to agree that it should NOT be anything to base gun control upon.
But if SCONJ were to rule in favor of this, I can see absolutely NO precedent. And the political opportunities for mischief would be immense. Candidate wins the primary. Candidate is getting his a** kicked in the polls in September. Just replace the candidate. It would make a complete mockery of the entire electoral process - the primary elections were created to accomodate political parties, and now a political party wants to circumvent the results OF THEIR OWN PRIMARY? Give me a break! I would hope SCONJ would not want to go there - and although I did not agree with aspects of Bush v. Gore - namely, the reliance of SCOTUS upon the concept of equal protection instead of just taking MacPherson and beating SCOFLAW over the head with it - since we now have an electoral equal protection precedent because of Bush v. Gore, it can now be applied to NJ if SCONJ sells their souls and allows Lautenberg on the ballot.