# SCOTUS: NJ concealed carry challenge



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

It seems as if the SCOTUS may be interested in hearing this case. One of those "may issue" cases that the SCOTUS has been avoiding. If taken, this case would be the 3rd case that the SCOTUS would hear this year involving the 2nd amendment. I look at this as being good news.



> The U.S. Supreme Court this week asked New Jersey officials to respond to a petition filed by a state resident allied with gun rights advocates. The case, that of Thomas Rogers and the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, had been turned away by the state's own supreme court, setting the stage for the current appeal to the federal bench.
> 
> "While the move is not a guarantee that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the appeal, the fact that the court is requiring NJ to take a position on ANJRPC's request is significant, and signals that the court is not willing to take any action without first hearing from both sides," said the pro-gun organization in a statement.


https://www.guns.com/news/2019/02/20/supreme-court-signals-interest-in-new-jersey-concealed-carry-challenge?avad=224605_e1518279d&utm_source=AvantLink&utm_campaign=176117&utm_medium=ale_NA


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

The constitution and amendments today are used as top down, high from Olympia directives to states and local governments. Shall not be infringed should by this standard prohibit individual states and municipalities from enacting any firearms laws that in anyway prohibit or restrict possession, use, storage, purchase, ownership, concealed or open carry. You can not do top down for all except those you do not like.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

I reviewed a few pages of the Petition for Writ of Certeori. The ones that brought suit are trying to address the federal courts and their ignoring previous Supreme Court rulings on guns. 
My personal opinion is that the Supreme Court is about to make another monumental change, in favor of gun owners.{That will be what I will be praying for, I can tell you that.}

Since the decisions in Heller and McDonald, many lower courts have stubbornly and deliberately ignored those decisions, narrowing them to their specific facts and making a hollow mockery of the Second Amendment's promise that law-abiding citizens must be allowed "to use [firearms] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense." Heller, 554 U.S. at 630. This Court's review is necessary to correct the lower courts' resistance to its instructions. 

THOMAS R. ROGERS and the ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY RIFLE & PISTOL CLUBS, INC., Petitioners, 
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...1220135330168_Rogers v. Grewal - Petition.pdf


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Roberts is a sell out. Everyday older he gets the more he sides with liberals.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

MisterMills357 said:


> I reviewed a few pages of the Petition for Writ of Certeori. The ones that brought suit are trying to address the federal courts and their ignoring previous Supreme Court rulings on guns.
> My personal opinion is that the Supreme Court is about to make another monumental change, in favor of gun owners.{That will be what I will be praying for, I can tell you that.}
> 
> Since the decisions in Heller and McDonald, many lower courts have stubbornly and deliberately ignored those decisions, narrowing them to their specific facts and making a hollow mockery of the Second Amendment's promise that law-abiding citizens must be allowed "to use [firearms] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense." Heller, 554 U.S. at 630. This Court's review is necessary to correct the lower courts' resistance to its instructions.
> ...


I find myself kind of agreeing with you. Agreeing with the part that the SCOTUS will rule in favor 2nd amendment freedoms. This case, the NY gun case and the Alphabet Fed agency case as well. The SCOTUS has been ignoring taking as a way to avoid ruling as they should, in favor of more 2nd amendment freedoms such as all states being "shall issue" and that you are allowed to transport firearms with you outside of the home (the basis for the NY case).
My thoughts are that they would simply continue to refuse to hear 2nd amendment cases if they were not inclined to do something positive.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Smitty901 said:


> Roberts is a sell out. Everyday older he gets the more he sides with liberals.


Roberts voted in favor of Heller and McDonald. That is recent history.


----------



## gawntrail (Jan 31, 2019)

*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*

"Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe

https://guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tench_Coxe

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible." - St. George Tucker

https://guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

https://www.history.org/Almanack/people/bios/biotuck.cfm

-------

A review of the writings of the time plainly state this as an individual right. A pre-existing right (Natural Law), not something granted by government.

edit note: I cut and paste this last sentence and separated it from the quoted text to make it clear this is me and not part of the quotes.


----------

