Supreme Court Takes Closer Look at NJ Second Amendment Case


Supreme Court Takes Closer Look at NJ Second Amendment Case
Supreme Court Takes Closer Look at NJ Second Amendment Case

Arizona -( – Rodgers v. Grewal is a New Jersey Second Amendment case that has pushed through the court system of appeals. The petitioners are asking the Supreme Court to hear the case. The legal term is to ask the Court to grant a writ of Certiorari.

The case is the next in a stream of Second Amendment cases over the last eight years. This case, like others, deals with the Second Amendment right to carry a weapon, specifically a handgun, outside of the home.

The Supreme Court has refused to hear a case on the issue for eight years. That changed on January 22, 2019, when the Court agreed to hear a case from New York Rifle & Pistol Association. In that case, the City of New York forbids pistol owners from taking a pistol outside of their home except to one of nine ranges available in New York City.  That case was granted a writ of certiorari or “cert” as it is called in legal jargon.

The New Jersey case is broader and deals with issues already raised in several appeals courts. The primary issue is whether there is *any* right to bear arms outside of the home. The Third Circuit Court of appeals had decided, in a previous case, the right to bear arms did not apply outside of the home. The only avenue left was an appeal to the Supreme Court.

  • The First, Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits have all held, in slightly varying degrees, that there is no Second Amendment right to bear arms outside of the home. 

These Circuits contain states on the East coast that remain “may issue” [ as in may never], which is to say, allow a governmental authority to deny the right to carry outside the home on the basis of need, which does not include a general need for self-defense.

  • The D.C. circuit and, currently, the Ninth Circuit, have held there is a right to bear arms outside the home, and the government cannot deny a permit to carry on the basis of need.

This makes for a split in the circuit courts. The petitioners in Rogers v. Grewal argue it is a split that needs to be fixed by the Supreme Court. From the petition:

This Court’s review is necessary in this case for three independent reasons: to resolve the direct conflict in the circuits over the constitutionality of laws like New Jersey’s, to correct the decision of the court below essentially ignoring the clear holdings of Heller and McDonald, and to end the lower courts’ open and massive resistance to those decisions.

The Supreme Court had scheduled a hearing on the case for the 19th of February, 2019.

Congress granted the Supreme Court the power to decide what cases it would hear when it set up the appeals court system in 1891. About 8,000 cases ask for a writ of certiorari in a given year. The Supreme Court accepts about 80, or one percent of those cases.

In some cases, the court desires more information about the case before it decides on accepting it or determining to hear it. The Court asked for more information about Rogers v. Grewal. From the

Feb 19 2019  Response Requested. (Due March 21, 2019)

It will be at least a month before we know if the Supreme Court decides to hear Rogers v. Grewal.  The Supreme Court is interested enough to ask for more information.  That does not mean they will listen to the case; it means they did not refuse to hear the case with the knowledge available to them at present.

The case has several aspects that make it a good candidate. But Second Amendment supporters have been disappointed several times in the last eight years.

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Walter Kelly

It is a shame that Anti-gun and 2nd Amendment Infringing laws have been allowed to violate Citizens rights for over 200 years! There needs to be a complete synopsis, filled with as many legal and situational events possible for present and future situations! These issues need to be put to rest, once and for all!


Florida Senate Bill 1722 has recently been introduced. If passed, the large social media companies such as Twitter and Facebook, will be fined $75,000 for every intentional act of censorship. It means that they will no longer be able to wipe their arses with the First Ammendment. Similar legislation must be introduced to make these politicians respect our 2A. Massive fines should be attached to those who are found guilty at their 3am Military Tribunal.


Do you remember the dialogue that came about when one of the officers refused to enter a school building during a shooting until after backup arrived? Some people called him a coward while others defended him, but what was really interesting was the conversation about whether or not he was obligated to enter. Turns out, he was not. Police are not inherently there to protect us, but to uphold the law, and only when their lives are not in danger. To me, this means the individual should maintain all necessary power to protect themselves from a rational threat with like… Read more »


What part of the Police Motto of ” To PROTECT & Serve ” mean they DON’T need to PROTECT ? So, according to your thinking — you call 911 to report someone (or more than 1 ) is in your house and you believe they are armed. Since, for whatever reason, you can’t defend yourself, you tell them your life is in danger. I guess a Police officer shouldn’t come since His life would be in danger and you’re a stranger. I guess Our Military shouldn’t protect us either. I mean, we’re strangers to them too. You’re only safe if… Read more »

Art Weaver

A little warning to foreign travelers.
There have been a few very low key cases where a US citizen was arrested in a foreign country for some minor infraction and found themselves charged with the illegal possession and use of firearms and ammunition!
Based on social media and web pages that the person has and uses guns in a manner illegal in that country!!!
So far no one has been convicted, but you can bet it’s coming…


The constitution was written for Americans to bear arms against a tyrannical government foreign or DOMESTIC. Last time I checked, I didn’t have any government in my home.


@Martin…But you sure do have an ever increasing tyrannical gov OUTSIDE your home.

Steven Everett

If any States law should be challenged its New Jersey’s.You have to be well connected to even be granted a carry permit.A State of what 4 million people and less then 500 permits where issued if that ain’t stepping on our rights then I don’t know what is

john Starks

amen to that .jersey is a police state Moved out of there a few years back. Property taxes pay bloated policece sslaries and pensions .The municipalties constantly have roadblocks and traps as revenue generators. they coopted thecrerrorist laws to check tegistrayions on all passing motorists snd they regularly abuse Rico laws..Good riddance.


States as in shall issue ones, and not to mention the many new counties identifying as gun sanctuary sites, plus the elected Sheriffs’ saying they won’t enforce gun control passed and proposed in their jurisdictions are where you should be. No I’m not capitulating. The elitiest, socialist running major urban environments will not change or stop scheming to stop our constitutional right(s). They don’t care or abide by SCOTUS rulings- cases in point Chicago and DC. So move to where you can, are protected. When the inevitable happens in those cities/areas we will be able to stand our ground protecting… Read more »


I have a better idea. Since they feel that they don’t have to comply with the US Constitution and Supreme Court decisions, how about if all the NJ, NY, Conn., residents just flipped the bird at their unconstitutional laws. Oh ! That’s right, they did and they will. I wonder if they got the message yet that the citizens will not comply, and that the idea of 3am military tribunals for these TRAITOROUS, FELONIOUS PERJURORS is just catching on. Expect them. At a time when a NATIONAL EMERGENCY has been declared because we are being invaded by raping, murdering, drug… Read more »

Douglas G

This is GREAT! The NY case could actually only be decided on the validity of NY law and not as a 2nd A case. That’s happened before and done the country no good. Straightening out the circuits and their willful disregard for Heller and MacDonald will be huge and best for the whole country, no question. It is and will remain a 2ndA case and it better serves the interests of the Supreme Court.

Mr. Bill

Does the first amendment only apply inside your home?

Angelo DePalma

They will somehow find a way to deny NJ residents the plain language right to keep and BEAR arms. The second amendment does not specify a place or venue, nor does any other amendment. I’d love to hear some snarky lawyer argue that granting blacks the right to vote does “not apply to the states.” Nor does a right to trial, or attorney, speech, etc. Total legalese fiction.

Patriot guy

New Jersey, a whole another country run by power crazed politicians who want to ban all your guns and tell you that you don’t have have a right to defend yourself(hey, just like in England!). I can’t believe that New Jersey makes it a felony to own a high capacity magazine! How can they regulate the 2nd amendment and private property? Say, isn’t New Jersey the headquarters of the Mafia? I wonder how many of these politicians have mob figures for friends and campaign donors? And how many of these New Jersey politicians serve cocaine and other drugs (that they… Read more »

Joey Bagadoughnuts

There is no mob



Tommy Gunn

There a group of concerned businessmen

Get Out

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the laws passed by Congress and the executive orders passed by the President. If they are not constitutional, then they have the right to shoot down the law.

Some of them have problems understanding and interpreting the constitution, hence B.S. gun control.

Texas Charlie

Justice Ginsberg has been an active opponent of the 2 Amendment. Justice Ginsberg has also not been in the public eye for quite some time now. The People should demand “Proof of Life” of Ginsberg for no other reason than to uphold the integrity of the Supreme Court.

Richard G. Combs

A week ago, when the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in Timbs v. Indiana that the 8th Amendment’s excessive fines clause applies to the states, Ginsburg wrote the court’s opinion. I suspect that Thomas assigned it to her to provide both proof of life and proof of competence.


It’s time to see how this new court is going to lean! Constitution or Socialist! The balls in your court (pun intended) SCOTUS!

Vincent Brady

Prohibiting guns outside of the home is illogical and a clear violation of the 2nd. You must transport a gun to your home from the store in the first place, and what happens when you change residences? You wish to practice? Forget that!
Clearly a violation of “shall not be infringed” that blind man can see.

John Timmins

The same old dumbass democraps still trying to deny the constitutional rights of the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, their complete ignorance of the law makes me wonder how they ever even made it out of high school. Who knows, maybe in the future they will all burn in hell, GOD WILLING, since it is a GOD given RIGHT to protect one’s self from tyranny, and democraps.