Jump to content

press1280

Members
  • Posts

    311
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by press1280

  1. Non resident carry will be filed in numerous states very soon, IL being one of them. The training requirements of 16 hours would likely be challenged but it's hard to say if those are successful. SCOTUS said the training requirements are fine, but where would they draw the line between what's fine and excessive and burdensome? The best way IMO is to look at firearm accident stats in states with zero training requirements (since training won't turn a good person bad and vise versa). If the state can show a correlation then it could be found constitutional. But if they say it's "common sense" with nothing else, then it may get shot down.
  2. Looking more closely at this petition, apparently a 2A claim wasn't made until late in the process, so I wouldn't read much from this denial other than lack of standing. There is another NJ case in the pipeline somewhere which is waiting on the NYSRPA opinion.
  3. I wouldn't hold your breath yet. I'm sure this will be appealed en banc and the 4th Circuit is still pretty hostile.
  4. There’s a good chance this question will be answered in the upcoming SCOTUS case
  5. This one will almost certainly go to conference and will not be heard from again until NYSRPA is decided.
  6. Always wondered why discovery would be needed in a case like this, seems clear cut?
  7. Curious if there is a lawsuit in the works for a non-resident (preferably from a border state resident) to sue as they are effectively banned from carrying in IL? I would think this would be some easy, low hanging fruit.
  8. There's no evidence of this, and in fact because they also denied cert in Drake (where in NJ there's no doubt OCing a long gun in public is illegal with few exceptions), That leads me to believe that wasn't why cert was denied here.Perhaps they denied it because because obtaining a license to carry is as much of a privilege as getting a license to drive is. I think it's it's highly unlikely the court would pass on shall-issue because there's a licensing component involved. That would mean they should have passed on Heller since the license to own wasn't challenged. It's more likely the vote is so close neither side wants to stick their neck out on this, at least yet.
  9. There's no evidence of this, and in fact because they also denied cert in Drake (where in NJ there's no doubt OCing a long gun in public is illegal with few exceptions), That leads me to believe that wasn't why cert was denied here.
  10. I couldn't find OC of a long gun mentioned in the opinion, I know AG Gansler did throw it out there, more or less to give the court an out. It didn't matter though, they were prepared to rule for MD with whatever BS they could dream up.
  11. Assuming NYC is correct and the fee is somewhat close to the actual costs (the CA2 ruling kept saying no one was really disputing it), the problem with letting something like this stand is that what other states/localities may try is to create a system of multiple, redundant background checks, neighbor interviews, exc, and pay 6 figure salaries to the people processing them. They'll then be able to charge who knows, 1000$ or upwards as long as it can be somewhat proven that's how much the actual cost is. I think nominal fees are quite well understood, but if SCOTUS lets this by then we'll almost have to sue to remove the permit requirement(or have it 100 percent paid by the state).
  12. I don't either, HOWEVER, the case is pretty darn narrow. There's no "outside the home" for a squeamish judge to bail out on, and it would be pretty limited to the few juristictions around NYC (maybe other places that charge high fees for ownership). There's also a broader context here of charging for the exercise of fundamental rights. It also gives SCOTUS a chance to slowly define the 2A without causing a huge splash (striking down may-issue overturns the laws of 7 or 8 states). The problems with this case, IMO, are how to define nominal vs. excessive fees. Another problem is the case may be so narrow that we get another watered down opinion which even with a win limits fees, and the lower courts continue with their following of the Heller dissent. One more thing: Assuming SCOTUS takes this case, I hope that won't mean the court will basically shut down and assume they've done their 2A duty and keep refusing cases for several more years. If they have to take a case next term, I'd rather Peruta be the one. But beggars can't be choosers.
  13. It amazes me how few people have actually read the Heller decision... District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, (2008) Robertson v Baldwin 165 U.S. 275 (1897) " .....the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;.." " In Nunn v.State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at 251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol "publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns. Ibid." Yes it is all dicta, but if they didn't mean it, they wouldn't have said it. They laid it all out nicely, yet the NRA and SAF/Alan Gura seem to think that concealed carry is the way to go. This wasn't a CCW case. NJ doesn't distinguish between open and concealed carry. I think the various orgs have been quite clear they're seeking for their clients to be able to carry, period. They apply for the CCW license to establish standing.
  14. Already being discussed here: http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=40261 Drake is still the plaintiff, but Jerejian has been substituted for Filko.
  15. They need to drop the part about someone's home state requirements being similiar. That should only be for reciprocity, not non-res licenses.
  16. It'll be real interesting if Aguilar loses. You then have the Illinois supremes splitting with CA7, and a sure appeal to SCOTUS. WHile Aguilar is not a good plaintiff, the law itself is simple in that its a total ban. Scotus may want this over a may-issue case.
×
×
  • Create New...