unknown
Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2011
- Messages
- 12,505
You mean they violate the Second Amendment.
SCOTUS strikes down anti carry NY gun law
- Thread starter Anti Federalist
- Start date
-
- Tags
- gun rights supreme court
You mean they violate the Second Amendment.
Anti Federalist
Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 117,677
I'm from New Jersey, bought my first guns there and it was the injustices associated that prompted me into a lifetime of political hellraising.
Line 3 in the NJ concealed carry permit requirement is the single reason why nobody outside of the wealthy or politically connected could obtain a permit to carry.
I tried multiple times.
It was the repealing of a similar law in Florida that resulted in the "Shall Issue" permit system in Florida that then swept across the nation, followed by Constitutional Carry.
This ruling is almost 40 years behind the curve, but still overall a great victory.
NJ Drops ‘Justifiable Need’ Requirement for Concealed Carry Following SCOTUS 2A Ruling
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...justifiable-need-requirement-concealed-carry/
AWR HAWKINS 24 Jun 2022
New Jersey’s acting Attorney General Matthew Platkin issued a June 24, 2022, directive to “All Law Enforcement Chief Executives and County Prosecutors.”
Platkin’s directive is titled, “Directive Clarifying Requirements for Carrying of Firearms in Public.”
The directive says:
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that impacts New Jersey’s permitting law but does not eliminate our overall permitting requirements. Under current New Jersey law, an individual can obtain a carry permit only if they can demonstrate to the reviewing officer that the applicant satisfies mandatory statutory requirements: (1) is “not subject to any of the disabilities which would prevent him or her from obtaining a permit to purchase a handgun or a firearms purchaser identification card,” (2) is “thoroughly familiar with the safe handling and use of handguns,” and (3) “[h]as demonstrated a justifiable need to carry a handgun.”…The decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen prevents us from continuing to require a demonstration of justifiable need in order to carry a firearm, but it does not prevent us from enforcing the other requirements in our law.
In the section on reviewing concealed carry permit applications, Platkin’s directive says:
In reviewing an individual’s application for a permit to carry, the applicable law enforcement agency shall continue to ensure that the applicant satisfies all of the criteria of N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4d and N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.4, except that the applicant need not submit a written certification of justifiable need to carry a handgun.
Platkin’s directive ends, “This Directive shall take effect immediately and remain in force and effect unless and until it is repealed, amended, or superseded by Order of the Attorney General.”
Breitbart News reported that SCOTUS’s ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen struck down New York’s proper cause requirement for concealed carry permit issuance.
In the majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”
Line 3 in the NJ concealed carry permit requirement is the single reason why nobody outside of the wealthy or politically connected could obtain a permit to carry.
I tried multiple times.
It was the repealing of a similar law in Florida that resulted in the "Shall Issue" permit system in Florida that then swept across the nation, followed by Constitutional Carry.
This ruling is almost 40 years behind the curve, but still overall a great victory.
NJ Drops ‘Justifiable Need’ Requirement for Concealed Carry Following SCOTUS 2A Ruling
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...justifiable-need-requirement-concealed-carry/
AWR HAWKINS 24 Jun 2022
New Jersey’s acting Attorney General Matthew Platkin issued a June 24, 2022, directive to “All Law Enforcement Chief Executives and County Prosecutors.”
Platkin’s directive is titled, “Directive Clarifying Requirements for Carrying of Firearms in Public.”
The directive says:
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that impacts New Jersey’s permitting law but does not eliminate our overall permitting requirements. Under current New Jersey law, an individual can obtain a carry permit only if they can demonstrate to the reviewing officer that the applicant satisfies mandatory statutory requirements: (1) is “not subject to any of the disabilities which would prevent him or her from obtaining a permit to purchase a handgun or a firearms purchaser identification card,” (2) is “thoroughly familiar with the safe handling and use of handguns,” and (3) “[h]as demonstrated a justifiable need to carry a handgun.”…The decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen prevents us from continuing to require a demonstration of justifiable need in order to carry a firearm, but it does not prevent us from enforcing the other requirements in our law.
In the section on reviewing concealed carry permit applications, Platkin’s directive says:
In reviewing an individual’s application for a permit to carry, the applicable law enforcement agency shall continue to ensure that the applicant satisfies all of the criteria of N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4d and N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.4, except that the applicant need not submit a written certification of justifiable need to carry a handgun.
Platkin’s directive ends, “This Directive shall take effect immediately and remain in force and effect unless and until it is repealed, amended, or superseded by Order of the Attorney General.”
Breitbart News reported that SCOTUS’s ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen struck down New York’s proper cause requirement for concealed carry permit issuance.
In the majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”
Swordsmyth
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
- Messages
- 74,737
Next up: Red Flag laws
Feeling irrationally angry after an argument with his wife in 2015, the police were called on firearm owner Edward Caniglia to perform a welfare check. He agreed to undergo a psychiatric evaluation at the hospital to determine suicidality on the condition that police not confiscate his guns.
Upon returning to his home, however, Caniglia found that the police had unconstitutionally searched his house and seized his firearms.
For the first time in 13 years, the Court upheld both privacy and gun rights, this time unanimously. Caniglia v. Strom’s 9-0 decision has the potential to create lasting effects and set precedent as powerful as was DC v. Heller in 2008.
Incredibly, after Caniglia sued the officers, the First District court ruled in favor of the police officers and incorrectly claimed the seizure was justified under a “community caretaking exception” to the Fourth Amendment. In essence, the court tried to equate the police stopping to help a disabled vehicle on the side of the road to an illegal search of a private residence.
Caniglia appealed his case until it was received by the Supreme Court in 2021. Justice Thomas succinctly expressed the majority opinion of all nine justices that such an overt violation of the Fourth Amendment was obviously unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court rightly protected the sanctity of the home on May 17th’s landmark decision. The First District court’s inadequately reasoned “caretaking exception” is an example of a ruse often used by the state when individual rights prevent it from getting what it wants.
This reaffirmation of both privacy and Second Amendment rights should give pause to advocates of red flag laws. Posing as defenders of public safety, red flag laws bypass the Second and Fourth Amendments while simultaneously abolishing due process.
Libertas Institute consistently defends both Second and Fourth Amendment rights and has previously fought against red flag laws, which have been proposed in Utah as recently as 2020.
Within the context of red flag laws, a person may call on the police to conduct a warrantless intrusion into their neighbor’s home to illegally seize their firearms under the slightest suspicion that a firearm owner may pose some public danger. Only after proving their innocence before a court where they have been presumed guilty of pre-crime can the law-abiding citizen possibly retrieve their property.
If Caniglia v. Strom teaches us anything, it is that the government cannot justify itself around the Fourth Amendment to invade private residences based on fear or gut feeling.
The court’s decision serves as a reminder that the public must continually call out unconstitutional practices and push back the encroaching vines of arbitrary government intervention in order to retain their rights.
Without a valid warrant, a person’s home remains a sanctuary, “free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.”
https://libertas.org/personal-freedom/supreme-court-ruling-delegitimizes-red-flag-laws/
Feeling irrationally angry after an argument with his wife in 2015, the police were called on firearm owner Edward Caniglia to perform a welfare check. He agreed to undergo a psychiatric evaluation at the hospital to determine suicidality on the condition that police not confiscate his guns.
Upon returning to his home, however, Caniglia found that the police had unconstitutionally searched his house and seized his firearms.
For the first time in 13 years, the Court upheld both privacy and gun rights, this time unanimously. Caniglia v. Strom’s 9-0 decision has the potential to create lasting effects and set precedent as powerful as was DC v. Heller in 2008.
Incredibly, after Caniglia sued the officers, the First District court ruled in favor of the police officers and incorrectly claimed the seizure was justified under a “community caretaking exception” to the Fourth Amendment. In essence, the court tried to equate the police stopping to help a disabled vehicle on the side of the road to an illegal search of a private residence.
Caniglia appealed his case until it was received by the Supreme Court in 2021. Justice Thomas succinctly expressed the majority opinion of all nine justices that such an overt violation of the Fourth Amendment was obviously unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court rightly protected the sanctity of the home on May 17th’s landmark decision. The First District court’s inadequately reasoned “caretaking exception” is an example of a ruse often used by the state when individual rights prevent it from getting what it wants.
This reaffirmation of both privacy and Second Amendment rights should give pause to advocates of red flag laws. Posing as defenders of public safety, red flag laws bypass the Second and Fourth Amendments while simultaneously abolishing due process.
Libertas Institute consistently defends both Second and Fourth Amendment rights and has previously fought against red flag laws, which have been proposed in Utah as recently as 2020.
Within the context of red flag laws, a person may call on the police to conduct a warrantless intrusion into their neighbor’s home to illegally seize their firearms under the slightest suspicion that a firearm owner may pose some public danger. Only after proving their innocence before a court where they have been presumed guilty of pre-crime can the law-abiding citizen possibly retrieve their property.
If Caniglia v. Strom teaches us anything, it is that the government cannot justify itself around the Fourth Amendment to invade private residences based on fear or gut feeling.
The court’s decision serves as a reminder that the public must continually call out unconstitutional practices and push back the encroaching vines of arbitrary government intervention in order to retain their rights.
Without a valid warrant, a person’s home remains a sanctuary, “free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.”
https://libertas.org/personal-freedom/supreme-court-ruling-delegitimizes-red-flag-laws/
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,023
They did indeed try to worm their way around it.
And now they get to choke on it some more:
[bold emphasis added]
THREAD: NY - judge strikes down the "vampire rule" [FPC lawsuit]
Similar threads
