U.S. Supreme Court Asked To Consider New Jersey Right To Carry Case

Jan 10, 2014 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: AmmoLand

The Second Amendment Foundation and Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs today asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the appeal in the challenge to New Jersey's unconstitutional carry laws.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of30
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jan 09

Glen Cove, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jan 10, 2014
 
My gut feeling is the Supreme Court is going to turn this down too like they did with Woollard v. Sheridan in Maryland and Kachalsky v. Cacase in New York. There just does not seem to be any interest on the part of the court to clarify exactly what the limits are with regards to the Heller and MacDonald rulings. Yes you have the right to own a firearm but whether or not you can have anything more modern than a flintlock (and in New York City even that is questionable) is still begging for a decision. Also the issue as to whether or not intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny applies to Second Amendment cases. So far, the courts seem to be lining up under intermediate scrutiny which basically says you can forget about the clause "shall not be infringed" and replace it with "may be infringed any time the state so desires for whatever reason they come up with".

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jan 10, 2014
 
Eventually the court will have to accept a case. And with the vast number of people becoming aware of their rights again. They are going to have a rule in such a manner as to pacify the public. They shall be FORCED to rule Constitutionally. And retract their prior 'opinions' that did NOT address "shall NOT be infringed". For the history of the court itself is against them:

Valid U.S. Supreme Court decisions:

"...The Territory being a part of the United States, the Government and the citizen both enter it under the authority of the Constitution, with their respective rights defined and marked out; and the Federal Government [60 U.S. 393, 450] can exercise no power over his person or property, beyond what that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny any right which it has reserved.

"A reference to a few of the provisions of the Constitution will illustrate this proposition.

"For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.

"Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.

"These powers, and others, in relation to rights of person, which it is not necessary here to enumerate, are, in express and positive terms, denied to the General Government; and the rights of private property have been guarded with equal care...."--Mr. Chief Justice TANEY, U.S. Supreme Court, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).

"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States."--U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."--Miranda vs. Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court, 384 US 436, 491,(1966).

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jan 12, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Scalia fuckedup when he lied and said the 2nd amendment gave States the power to regulate our weapons. Big hypocrisy. The original intent of the amendment was to stop the Federal Govt from regulating our weapons, until the 14th amendment came, and later the scheme of incorporation.

The amendment is ONE sentence. Scalia says it contains all kinds of govt regulations on our weapons. Disgusting.

If the 2nd amendment is a States' rights issue, then so are all the other Bill of Rights. And that is bullshit.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jan 12, 2014
 
2ndAmRight wrote:
"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government..." --U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)..
So State or local laws can NOT violate the second amendment. It's right there in plain English.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jan 13, 2014
 
Bob2bob too wrote:
<quoted text>
So State or local laws can NOT violate the second amendment. It's right there in plain English.
So, were New Jersey's carry laws written and passed by the U.S. Congress? No. They CAN'T violate the Second Amendment.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jan 13, 2014
 
Bob2bob too wrote:
<quoted text>
So State or local laws can NOT violate the second amendment. It's right there in plain English.
No doubt. it was right there from the very beginning back in 1791. And even prior to that, it was the right of all British 'subjects'.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jan 13, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
No doubt. it was right there from the very beginning back in 1791. And even prior to that, it was the right of all British 'subjects'.
Whatever "it" is, the Second Amendment is only a restriction on the U.S. Congress. New Jerseys carry laws weren't written and passed by the U.S. Congress.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jan 14, 2014
 
Bob2bob too wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever "it" is, the Second Amendment is only a restriction on the U.S. Congress. New Jerseys carry laws weren't written and passed by the U.S. Congress.
And you are sorely mistaken. The 2nd amendment, as all other rights, were intended to secure our rights from ALL government interference. One of the specific stated purposes for creation of the federal government. Was to SECURE our liberties.

"From among the rights retained by our policy, we have selected those of self defence or bearing arms, of conscience, and of free inquiry, for two purposes; one, to shew the vast superiority of our policy, in being able to keep natural rights necessary for liberty and happiness, out of the hands of governments; the other, to shew that this ability is the effect of its principles, and beyond the reach of Mr. Adams’s system, or of any other, unable to reserve to the people, and to withhold from governments, a variety of rights."--John Taylor, Revolutionary Soldier and U.S. Senator,(1792 – 94, 1803, 1822 – 24).[An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States: Section the Sixth; THE GOOD MORAL PRINCIPLES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES,(1814).]

We The People have been scammed by our local, state, and federal governments. Our rights exist whether our hired servants agree with them or not. And the only reason they have gotten away with their perversions. Is because We The People have allowed them to.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jan 14, 2014
 
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
The 2nd amendment.... were intended to secure our rights from ALL government interference.
This is what YOU posted: "This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government..." --U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)..

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jan 14, 2014
 
Bob2bob too wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what YOU posted: "This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government..." --U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)..
I was posting U.S.S.C. decisions that had acknowledged the right to arms. The Dred Scott case makes the distinction quite clear. Concerning that the right cannot be infringed upon by the states and federal government.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jan 20, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
I was posting U.S.S.C. decisions that had acknowledged the right to arms. The Dred Scott case makes the distinction quite clear. Concerning that the right cannot be infringed upon by the states and federal government.
So now you want to ignore this?

"This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government..." --U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)..

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jan 20, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
And you are sorely mistaken. The 2nd amendment, as all other rights, were intended to secure our rights from ALL government interference..
"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances.”—Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jan 20, 2014
 
Bob2bob too wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you want to ignore this?
"This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government..." --U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)..
Overturned, since the right has been "incorporated".[Even though it was originally incorporated in 1791.]

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jan 20, 2014
 
Bob2bob too wrote:
<quoted text>
"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances.”—Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788.
"The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted."--Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787 letter to William S. Smith.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jan 20, 2014
 
Bob2bob too wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you want to ignore this?
"This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government..." --U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)..
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION or ABUSE of its powers, that further DECLARATORY and RESTRICTIVE clauses should be added: And as EXTENDING the ground of PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the Government, will BEST ENSURE the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, ALL, or any of which Articles, when RATIFIED by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be VALID to ALL INTENTS and PURPOSES, as PART of the said Constitution; viz.]

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution....

...Amendment II

DECLARATORY clause;

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,

RESTRICTIVE clause;

the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, shall NOT be infringed.

Take a hike.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jan 20, 2014
 
Bob2bob too wrote:
<quoted text>
"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances.”—Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788.
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by ANY rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, EITHER should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a RESTRAINT ON BOTH."--William Rawle, A View of the Constitution, 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829).(Appointed by President George Washington as U.S. District Attorney for Pennsylvania in 1791).

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jan 20, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
"The prohibition is general. No clause........
So this guy was right in his commentary several decades later but Thomas Jefferson was wrong?

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jan 20, 2014
 
You guys can argue until the cows come home.

Look to the decisions regarding Washington, D.C. and Chicago as to what the SCOTUS might decide.

Illinois has had concealed carry forced on the state by the courts. Same for Washington.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jan 21, 2014
 
Bob2bob too wrote:
<quoted text>
So this guy was right in his commentary several decades later but Thomas Jefferson was wrong?
No, more like >you< are wrong in everything that you contend.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jan 21, 2014
 
2ndAmrght wrote:
<quoted text>
the Constitution is only a general guide and subject to interpretation depending on the times and political climate. That's why we have a supreme court and legislatures. Hillbilly's can shoot themselves up in the back woods all they want. No one gives a rats a-$$.
WRONG, traitor:

"Those then who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered, in court as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only law.

"This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions ... It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath, which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

"That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions--a written Constitution--would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the Constitution."

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void."--Chief Justice Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S.(Cranch) 137, 174,176.]

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of30
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••