SCOTUS Moots NYC 2A Case, Could Hear New Jersey Carry Challenge

New Jersey State Flag NRA ILA
While the SCOTUS shot down a recent challenge to handgun laws, this may open up an opportunity for an ANJRPC case.

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- April 28, 2020. Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a long-pending NYC Second Amendment challenge was mooted by law changes made after the case was filed. The decision ends speculation that the High Court might use the NYC case to establish new rules applicable to all Second Amendment cases in the future. It also means that ANJRPC’s pending challenge to NJ’s unconstitutional carry law could be the next Second Amendment case to be heard by the Supreme Court.

ANJRPC’s carry law challenge has been “held” by the Supreme Court for many months, meaning that the High Court did not decline to hear the appeal, but did not agree to hear it either. It was speculated that the Court may have first wanted to create new general rules in the pending NYC case, before either hearing pending Second Amendment cases directly or sending them back down to the lower courts for decision under the new rules. Now that the NYC case has been found moot, new rules are no longer forthcoming anytime soon in that case, and the door has been opened to the possibility that the High Court will directly hear one of the pending Second Amendment cases it has been “holding.” That includes ANJRPC’s challenge to NJ’s unconstitutional carry law, which effectively prevents average citizens from exercising their right to defend themselves with firearms outside the home.

ANJRPC is monitoring the situation closely and will issue further alerts as developments unfold.



Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs

About Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs:The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. is the official NRA State Association in New Jersey. Our mission is to implement all of the programs and activities at the state level that the NRA does at the national level. This mission includes the following: To support and defend the constitutional rights of the people to keep and bear arms. To take immediate action against any legislation at the local, state and federal level that would infringe upon these rights. Visit: www.anjrpc.org

Subscribe
Notify of
27 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
CommonSense4America
CommonSense4America
1 year ago

The SCOTUS is about as worthless as Teats on a Nun. They dodge issues better than the Texas two step. They know the issue/intent of the lawsuit and don’t want to absolve the issue. What cowards and becoming more and more irrelevant.

Wass
Wass
1 year ago

USA and Finky. I am grateful that you didn’t dismiss my suggestion on the rulings by SCOTUS on it’s face. My reasoning was simple: Nearly all juries require a unanimous vote by jurors. Why should the court be different? Surely, the vetting which goes into the selection of justices should be as stringent or more so than jurors. The issue is conformity to the US Constitution. Rulings therefrom are of such vital; importance that splits in the court undermine faith in government.

chocopot
chocopot
1 year ago

I will once again ask the question I have been asking, literally, for decades: Mistaken and politically-motivated Court decisions notwithstanding, where in the language of The Second Amendment can anyone find any provision for restrictions, exceptions, and limitations? Anyone? If the answer is “there is none,” and that is, indeed, the answer, then why are there currently more than 22,000 gun control laws on the books at the federal, state, and local levels in this nation that clearly violate The Second Amendment? Anyone?

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  chocopot

@cho, You have the correct answer, why do you keep asking the same question? Can we move on to other questions, now, like, “What do we do about politicians trying to diminish our Civil Rights?”

chocopot
chocopot
1 year ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Okay, I’m with you. “What do we do about politicians trying to diminish our Civil Rights?” I don’t know. I’m in NJ. I vote against idiots like Phil Murphy, dictator of New Jersey. But what can I do about the fools around me who vote for him? He campaigned on raising our already ridiculously high taxes to the moon, on creating a sanctuary state, and on using taxpayer funds to create even more giveaway programs than we already have for the dregs and the leeches so he could buy their votes with tax money. And yet the fools around me… Read more »

uncle dudley
uncle dudley
1 year ago

Something to ponder….Attorneys or Lawyers make their living off the misery of others.
The SCOTUS is no different.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  uncle dudley

@ud, Medical doctors, plumbers, electricians, and other trades persons can fit in that statement, too. The statement is just too vague and oversimplified.

Finnky
Finnky
1 year ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

@WB – Best lawyer jokes I’ve ever heard came from my divorce lawyer. Yes he made money off my misery – in process of helping me through that life stage and on to happier times. I was an easy client and he in term did the legal mumbo jumbo I wouldn’t have known how to file. Win-win. Agree about doctors, plumbers, etc. Whether you can do the work yourself or not they’ve generally got the tools and experience to do it quicker and easier – you pay them to save your own time – excluding doctors for the most part.… Read more »

Knute
Knute
1 year ago
Reply to  uncle dudley

Uncle Dudley) Exactly right! And all judges, including the highest ranking ones, are all attorneys to boot! The only thing slightly wrong is that attorney is not the same word as lawyer. They are not interchangeable terms, even though damn few know the difference. An “attorney” is a just lawyer that has taken a secret oath (here come the secret societies again…as usual since they run everything from behind the scenes. But pay no attention to the wizard behind the curtain) to the International Bar Association. They swear fealty to this foreign organization (IBA, headquartered next to Buckingham Palace in… Read more »

Knute
Knute
1 year ago
Reply to  Knute

USA) I might not have said it before, but the same back atcha! It is so nice to have someone to talk with who has the same level of base knowledge. This is a day wherein instead of knowledge, most people have extremely strong, but baseless, opinions. Or, one could call them “people of the lie”! But sheeple is a whole lot shorter 🙂 Looking back on it, I owe The Truth About Guns (but lies about EVERYTHING else 🙂 ) dot com a big debt of gratitude for banning me. I might never have found this site if they… Read more »

Knute
Knute
1 year ago
Reply to  Knute

That’s it exactly. The British Crown did not give up after their failure at Yorktown. All they did was go covert, and started buying up congressmen to retake control that way. King George himself said as much to Parliament when they were voting on a new tax levy, to raise another army to take the colonies back by force. He told them there was no need to, as plans were already in place to get them back via other means. So the levy failed and the army did not come. Buying congresmen with titles of nobility came instead. In his… Read more »

Knute
Knute
1 year ago
Reply to  Knute

What do you think the sheep will say about this… months from now when they’re starving? Will they blame Shad Sullivan? For trying to help them out ? I’ll bet they will!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=128&v=T2ortQpF-5I&feature=emb_logo

dodge4me
dodge4me
1 year ago

TYRANTS!!! All judges should all be removed, they can’t even understand the Constitution. All of congress, federal, state and local governments, also all judges and lawyers. None of them honor their OATHS of office. They are all TRAITORS. We the PEOPLE never gain on rights, we only keep losing! Seems they have all conspired for job security until all our freedoms are gone. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  dodge4me

d4e, Really? Do you even know all the judges and lawyers?

ShooterOne
ShooterOne
1 year ago

The Second Amendment states very clearly “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. It is very clear to me, what I don’t understand is why the Supreme Court does not just come out with a ruling that the Second Amendment shall stand as written including “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.

Do they not have the courage? Is there another reason?

ARM UP AND CARRY ON.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  ShooterOne

, It is clear to everyone. It was written to be clear. The reason that they don’t rule simply and directly is because they have, along with all the other politicians, bureaucrats, and party elites, turned government into a money making proposition.

It is all about who is going to live in the big house and who is going to live in the little house; who will rule and who will labor; who gets the gold and who gets to grovel.

Knute
Knute
1 year ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

As well as the difference between lawyers and attorneys. I learned this one from Websters Collegiate Dictionary all the way back in the 1980’s in college. I looked up both attorney and lawyer. Both had two definitions. The first was attorney means lawyer and lawyer means attorney. But as usual, the devil is in the details. The second, and much more meaningful definition of “lawyer” was “One who studies the law of whatever Country he is part if”. But the second definition of “attorney” is particularly telling: “One empowered to ACT FOR ANOTHER”! That should be enough to make it… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Knute

@USA, Everyone says stuff like that … until they need an attorney.

Knute
Knute
1 year ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

If you think you need an attorney, look up “Lawyer”. Likely THAT is what you are actually looking for.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

@USA, Attorneys are already listed in Martindale-Hubbel.

Wass
Wass
1 year ago

There needs to be a clambering for reform of the US Supreme Court. Firstly, the constitution needs amending to require that all rulings require unanimous voting by the justices. Far too many awful rulings, Dred Scott, and ACA (2012), for example, were divided. Such reform would mandate that only constitutionalists will be appointed to the court, obviating a cabal of non-constitutionalists like the present situation. Lastly, there needs to be an age limit for justices. I don’t think I need go into an explanation for that. That one justice out of nine can determine the outcome of a ruling, is… Read more »

Finnky
Finnky
1 year ago
Reply to  Wass

– Clearly you do not understand the concept of majority decisions. Requiring unanimous agreement on any ruling would mean that any single justice could prevent the court from ruling on anything. Exactly the outcome you claim to be attempting to avoid.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Wass

@Wass, We need not amend the Constitution to reform the S. Ct. We need to amend the Judiciary Act. The courts have become political and have become legislators in spite of the founding fathers best efforts. We can change all that by changing the Judiciary Act. For example: removal for having any other financial interest beyond the judges’ paycheck. Removal for violating the judges’ oath of office. Background investigations before, during, and after conformation. Removal for participating in politics in any way no matter how minor. Removal for misinterpretation of the Constitution or a statute. Term limit. Age limit. Have… Read more »

uncle dudley
uncle dudley
1 year ago

It’s very simple to me what the SCOTUS needs to do.
Hold their oath of office up that they took to defend the constitution.
The second amendment says Shall Not Be Infringed.
We have laws on the books for people who break the law with guns so enforce them and leave the second amendment as written by the founders.

ShooterOne
ShooterOne
1 year ago
Reply to  uncle dudley

Should have read this before I wrote mine. I promise no plagiarism was intended LOL

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago

Most disappointing that the S. Ct. would let the NY state legislature idiots get over on them. The S. Ct. is still a majority of libtards.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

@USA, Well, actually we played no roll in putting any of those justices on the bench. Someone, however, did get fooled.