SCOTUS Holding New Jersey Carry Case Pending Decision In Another Gun Case?

Supreme Court Continues to Reschedule Concealed Carry Case
SCOTUS Holding New Jersey Carry Case Pending Decision In Another Gun Case?

New Jersey – -(AmmoLand.com)- May 29, 2019. The United States Supreme Court took no action on Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs's (ANJRPC) challenge to New Jersey's carry law in the Rogers v. Grewal case. Since then, the high court has relisted other cases for consideration at its next conference on May 30, but it has NOT relisted the Rogers case. It has also neither agreed to hear the case, nor declined to hear it. Accordingly, we conclude that the most likely explanation is that Rogers is being held by the Supreme Court pending their decision in another case – a common practice by the Supreme Court.

The most likely case Rogers is being held for is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York City, a case concerning NYC's attempts to control what its residents do with firearms outside the home, including outside NYC itself. The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear that case. It is expected to be argued in the Fall, with a decision most likely in the Spring.

If indeed the Supreme Court is holding Rogers for the NYC case, it would mean that the Court probably anticipates that the decision in the NYC case will impact Rogers in some manner. Once the NYC case is decided, we anticipate that the Supreme Court would then decide how to handle Rogers going forward, perhaps agreeing to hear the case, or perhaps sending the case back to the lower courts to be decided in accordance with the ruling in the NYC case.

In any event, we believe that the holding of Rogers is ultimately a serious and positive sign — a sign that the high court intends to finally and definitively address critical Second Amendment issues, including right to carry. But instead of doing it in one sweeping case, it appears that it is going to occur through several cases over a slightly longer period of time. Rogers appears to be one of those cases.

If our analysis is correct, there will not be further word on Rogers from the Supreme Court until after the NYC case is decided. Gun owners need to remain patient as the legal process continues to unfold.

Please watch for further updates and alerts.

SUPPORT THE LAWSUIT CLICK HERE TO DONATE!

Please forward this article to every gun owner you know, and if you don’t already receive alerts from ANJRPC, please subscribe to our free email alerts for the latest Second Amendment breaking news and action alerts.


Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol ClubsAbout ANJRPC: The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs is the official New Jersey affiliate of the NRA, and is New Jersey’s oldest, largest, and most effective Second Amendment advocacy organization. www.anjrpc.org

  • 18
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    8 Comment threads
    10 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    13 Comment authors
    BillyTexas CharlieJevinTim McQuadeJohn P Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    John P
    Guest
    John P

    Kevin,
    What most New Jerseyans don’t realize is that,
    The New Jersey Constitution contains no provisions relating to the keeping or bearing of arms.

    Tim McQuade
    Guest
    Tim McQuade

    ARTICLE I
    RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES

    1. All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

    How does one defend and protect himself and property without arms?

    Billy
    Guest
    Billy

    And what New Jersey doesn’t realize is that it is a constituent of the United States of America, and as such is bound by the United States Constitution.

    Rattlerjake
    Guest
    Rattlerjake

    This whole system is bassackwards! Our forefathers should have been smart enough to make the SCOTUS responsible for deciding whether a law is constitutional or not BEFORE it can be enacted and enforced. This would prevent 99% of all laws from ever being written. Instead the system has become a monster where the fed, states, cities, and counties create unconstitutional laws, some of which require fees to be paid, that stay in force until an individual or an organization can afford to fight it to the SCOTUS. And even when the case is won, the fed, states, cities, or counties… Read more »

    John P.
    Guest
    John P.

    Jake, the answer is simple. That practice would be unconstitutional from the get-go. We have 3 co-equal branches, so you couldn’t have one check on the other. Courts are appellate in nature, so you have to proceed after something is decided.
    Another screw-up the forefathers made is putting the Amendment process going thru the Legislature with no Presidential input. That is the reason that we can’t get term limits, the Amendment would have to go through Congress!

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @John P, You are correct. The founders presumed that every senator and representative would know the Constitution, and not create statutes contrary to the Constitution. There was no need for the S.Ct’s input regarding Constitutionality.
    The founders could not conceive of a senator or representative that was not conversant with the Constitution and loyal to the people of the United States.
    It was the parties demanding first loyalty from their members that destroyed those presumptions of loyalty to Constitution and nation. Restore the Republic.

    Heed the Call-up
    Guest
    Heed the Call-up

    Kevin, Virginia is still a good state, and we certainly can use more people that believe in our Constitutional rights. We have OC without any licensing/permits, and it is a “Shall Issue” CC state. We do not have magazine restrictions on handguns if you have a CHP (Concealed Handgun Permit); it doesn’t need to be carried CC, you just need the permit. However, without a CHP, the mag limit is 20 rounds for handguns in public, typically more than the standard capacity of most handgun magazines.

    MICHAEL A CROGNALE
    Guest
    MICHAEL A CROGNALE

    Not quite. The law actually says that if you insert a 20 round mag in a rifle it becomes a banned assault rifle. It does provide a defense if you have the CCW.

    Heed the Call-up
    Guest
    Heed the Call-up

    Michael, that’s only if you are carrying it in public. I have yet to see anyone carry a rifle in public. Do you ever carry a rifle in public for self-defense? I also have never seen anyone in the general public carry a handgun OC either – except once – and I am well-aware of my surroundings and others when in public. And as you stated, and as I did, if you have a CHP that code section does not apply to you. We are a “Shall Issue” state and fees are low. A number of counties only charge $15… Read more »

    Texas Charlie
    Guest
    Texas Charlie

    “Do you ever carry a rifle in public for self-defense?” I have never had a need to use my EDC pistol, but that does not mean the need will never arise. If/when it does, I want to be able to carry as much ammo as I think I will need; not as much ammo as some politician thinks I will need. It’s my life and it’s my liberty, and I want to be able to defend it as I see fit.

    Aardvark
    Guest
    Aardvark

    This could very well be a backup case if SCOTUS finds it needs to dismiss NYSRPA v. New York City. The NYPD is currently implementing rules changes to allow transport of handguns outside the city. In addition, the New York State legislature is currently working on bill S-6151 (https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s6151) to allow premises licensees to legally transport unloaded locked handguns to ranges. As such, it pretty much renders the NYSRPA case moot but does leave New York’s overall draconian laws in place. Having this New Jersey suit as a backup seems like a good idea.

    John P
    Guest
    John P

    Except it says nothing about NJ. There are only 7 ranges in NYC. The numbers of NYC shooters makes this impractically to say the least.

    Jevin
    Guest
    Jevin

    I’ve already read that SCOTUS is still going ahead with that case out of Zoo York that they’ve already granted certiorari to. It’s a little too late for NY legislators to pull that case after realizing it may very well open up a Pandora’s box against anti gun legislation across the country and with the asinine basis of the law their almost certain to lose. How broad SCOTUS rules is yet to be seen though.

    willy d
    Guest
    willy d

    Kevin, just watch where you move to as it is a sticky wick out there on trying to relocate, some states are changing faster than you think and is being hidden, Pa is one that has had the virus attack, and my friends there say it is getting worse, happy in Missouri!!!!!!!

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Kevin, Texas is calling!

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    In the mean time, and while we wait, President Trump has nominated an anti-gunner to lead the ATF. His name is Chuck Canterbury, and he is the president of the anti-gun Fraternal Order of Police. Sadly, Canterbury has a long track record that should concern gun owners: He’s testified before Congress to support anti-gunners like Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Attorney General Eric Holder. Under his watch, the FOP backed Congressional measures to expand the unconstitutional and failing NICS system — which is the same system where 95% of the initial denials are false positives. And on the state… Read more »

    David
    Guest
    David

    “the ANJRPC case mainly examines whether a ‘justifiable need’ or a ‘proper reason’ to be issued a permit is constitutional, considering the rulings of a decade ago in Heller and MacDonald. Essentially, such rules require a unique defined threat or threats to establish that an individual cannot be suitably protected by law enforcement alone”

    Umm – the SCotUS has ruled that law enforcement is under no mandate to protect anyone from crime. So how can a jurisdiction require that an individual demonstrate a special exemption from a policy that they are not entitled to?

    Kevin
    Guest
    Kevin

    It sounds like good news, but I’ve been in this god awful state my entire life & now I’m just a year away from moving outta here to a state where my constitutionally protected rights are respected! I don’t believe citizens rights will ever be respected here in NJ nor will anyone be held accountable for stripping NJ citizens of their rights.

    In NJ, you a criminal for practicing your 2nd Ammendment unless you do so in a very narrow window with permission from government. But at least we get to pay extremely high taxes!

    Awful place.