Supreme Court Asked To Consider SAF Right To Carry Case

[mrjarrell]

The Second Amendment Foundation is going after New Jersey's lack of any real Right to Carry. Good for Mr. Gura. Hope this one goes as well as his others have. The people of New Jersey could find themselves as a Shall Issue state, if things go well. That would just kill the politicians in Jersey.

Supreme Court Asked to Consider SAF Right to Carry Case | TheGunMag -

 

[KG1]

This is the next step in the right to "bear" arms. Should'nt a right to "bear" arms equally apply outside the home on the grounds of self defense? It has already been established via Heller that the right exists within the home.

I see no difference.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

“What other constitutional right is confined to one’s house?

I certainly wish them success but it's always a gamble to place hope in the SCOTUS ruling constitutionally.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Should'nt a right to "bear" arms equally apply outside the home on the grounds of self defense? It has already been established via Heller that the right exists within the home.

Yes, Scalia references bearing arms outside the home but not in sensitive areas--jail, courthouses, etc.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I have a problem with Justice Scalia's statement you reference here, Kirk. Specifically, I'm not aware of any legal definition of what constitutes a "sensitive area". Other than joking references to the location at which one's legs meet one's body, is there some legal term of art that defines which areas those may be? You reference jail and courthouses, but there are courthouses (one, anyway, of which I'm aware) that do not prohibit firearms within them. Some state Capitols forbid, others do not; is one more sensitive than another?

I'm not being a smarta** here... I mean the question literally: Is there some legal definition of what constitutes a secure place?

Blessings,
Bill

Yes, Scalia references bearing arms outside the home but not in sensitive areas--jail, courthouses, etc.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Is there some legal definition of what constitutes a secure place?

Scalia's dicta references "sensitive areas", not secure areas. "Secure" places are defined in federal law. Are you asking about "sensitive areas" or "secure places"? You are mixing terms and I don't want to confuse anyone.

Professor Volokh and his crew have been writing on sensitive areas since Heller. Perhaps start there (Volokh Conspiracy): What is a ?sensitive place?? | Josh Blackman's Blog

I thought University of Denver had a law review article on it. Let me check.

EDIT: There are more than several law review articles just on this issue. As well, the usual suspects--Kopel, Halbrook, Reynolds, etc.--have written academic and popular articles on this question.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Sorry, it was late and I used the wrong term. "Sensitive areas" is the term in question. Also, the dicta are.... what, exactly? His notes? his comments? Just his thoughts that led to the writing of the opinion? I know generally that they include the latter, but while indicative, are not a binding opinion, correct?
Thanks for the reference to Blackman's blog... I'll go read there. The question still remains if "sensitive areas" are defined (especially prior to Heller) in fed. law, however.

Blessings,
Bill

Scalia's dicta references "sensitive areas", not secure areas. "Secure" places are defined in federal law. Are you asking about "sensitive areas" or "secure places"? You are mixing terms and I don't want to confuse anyone.

Professor Volokh and his crew have been writing on sensitive areas since Heller. Perhaps start there (Volokh Conspiracy): What is a ?sensitive place?? | Josh Blackman's Blog

I thought University of Denver had a law review article on it. Let me check.

EDIT: There are more than several law review articles just on this issue. As well, the usual suspects--Kopel, Halbrook, Reynolds, etc.--have written academic and popular articles on this question.

 

[MisterChester]

If SCOTUS ruled against the current law, Christie will join with dems and spearhead even more gun regulations.

 

[MisterChester]

The Second Amendment Foundation is going after New Jersey's lack of any real Right to Carry. Good for Mr. Gura. Hope this one goes as well as his others have. The people of New Jersey could find themselves as a Shall Issue state, if things go well. That would just kill the politicians in Jersey.

Supreme Court Asked to Consider SAF Right to Carry Case | TheGunMag -

It wouldn't make a huge difference if it simply became "shall issue", because not many people would pass the requirements anyway.

 

[Mark 1911]

I wish them success. A favorable ruling for NJ would be a success for all of us.

 

[Mark 1911]

If SCOTUS ruled against the current law, Christie will join with dems and spearhead even more gun regulations.

If it looks like a dem and talks like a dem and smells like a dem then....

 

[KG1]

If it looks like a dem and talks like a dem and smells like a dem then....

It's a duck.

 

[mrjarrell]

If it looks like a dem and talks like a dem and smells like a dem then....

It could be a socialist. Or a commie. Or any one of many republicrats out there.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

This is really exciting news. Gura really lays out the need for 'clarification' and then makes a damning case against New Jersey's restrictions on carry - and restrictions on carry as a whole. I fully expect the S.Ct. to accept certiorari and then expand Heller, especially with the very well exposited bait that Gura has laid down.

 

[Twangbanger]

I hope we get the correct ruling very, very soon. The court is 5-4, and you cannot depend on there being a "conservative" majority again, ever. The country is moving more blue in every Presidential election, and that's who appoints SC Justices. We are one retirement away from never winning a single SC gun case, EVER again.

I would hate to see the courts backtrack on carry weapons. That is the one issue that has ignited gun ownership and freedom-loving 2A fervor in many people who were raised outside the traditional rural gun environment. Without CCW, we'd be back in the days of "Constitutional hunting rights" and "sporting arms interpretations"...and we'd be losing our asses big-time.

Glad to see SAF is pushing this. We need the right case, and we need it SOON. Halfway through Shrillary's first (or is that, third?) term may be too late.

 

[KW730]

First they have to take the case, let's hope they do before we start hoping for a certain judgement.