SAF files for cert in Drake (NJ may-issue)

[ryan_j]

Interesting and good point about San Diego's option to drop! BTW, she isn't such a looker! Besides, when you get a little more experience you learn that what's between their ears is more important than what's between their l*gs.

I said nothing about what's between their legs (btw I'm married, with 3 kids).

 

[swinokur]

From SAF:

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]
SAF EXPRESSES GRATITUDE FOR STRONG
AMICUS BRIEFS IN SCOTUS CERT PETITION


[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today extended its heartfelt gratitude to five groups, including two fellow gun rights organizations, for their strong amicus curiae briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court, supporting SAF’s petition for review of the New Jersey carry challenge, Drake v. Jerejian.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] “In addition to briefs filed by 19 state attorneys general and 34 members of Congress,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb noted, “our case has now gotten support from our friends at the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners Foundation, the Cato Institute and Madison Society Foundation, plus the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and the Judicial Education Project.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] “We’re encouraged by the additional boost last week of an opinion on carry outside the home by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case funded by the NRA, in which SAF submitted an amicus brief, that clearly defines the issues raised by our New Jersey lawsuit,” he added. “This was a great ruling and well written legal opinion that relied heavily on the decisions in Heller as well as SAF court victories in McDonald, Ezell and Moore. This ruling should help get the Second Amendment Foundation’s cert petition in our New Jersey Drake case on the right to carry heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. I am very excited.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Gottlieb believes the time may have finally come for the nation’s highest court to address the important issue of firearms carry outside the home. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] “Naturally,” he said, “from our perspective, the issue seems to beg for a definitive ruling that settles the question for the entire nation. We have divisive lower court opinions on a fundamental civil right that require resolution, and there’s only one place this can happen.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] “The briefs submitted in support of our effort include some of the most intelligent and well-thought-out arguments on the Second Amendment’s scope we’ve ever seen,” Gottlieb concluded. “We will be forever grateful to all of those who put so much time, effort and intellect into these briefs. They really are remarkably clear and compelling documents. [/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]< Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family >[/FONT]​

Copyright © 2013 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved.​

[FONT=&quot]Second Amendment Foundation
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Voice: 425-454-7012
Toll Free: 800-426-4302
FAX: 425-451-3959
email: InformationRequest@saf.org[/FONT]​

​

 

[ryan_j]

Sent a donation today. Also make sure you use amazon smile and set Second Amendment Foundation as your charity. Http://smile.amazon.com they get 0.5% of the purchase.

 

[Kharn]

Thanks for the heads up. Linking from the above site sent me to a SAF Summary of the Drake Petition:
http://saf.org/?p=3013

There, are some links to the Amicus':

• The amicus brief filed by 19 states is available here.
• The amicus brief filed by 34 members of congress is available here.
• The amicus brief of the Cato Institute is available here.
• The amicus brief of the National Rifle Association is available here.
• The amicus brief of the Judicial Education Project is available here.
• The amicus brief of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence is available here.
• The amicus brief of the Gun Owners Foundation is available here.

7 Amici total. Time for some light reading...

Is the Judicial Education Project's brief messed up for anyone else? Any word (I presume to be) in italics is missing for me.

 

[TopShelf]

ATTORNEYS GENERAL FROM 19 STATES FILE SCOTUS AMICUS BRIEF IN SAF CASE
http://saf.org/?p=3059

 

[Al Norris]

Kharn, all the briefs were readable to my machine - PC running Linux.

 

[ryan_j]

Scott Bach, Executive Director for ANJRPC was on Gun for Hire Radio talking about the case today.

http://www.gunforhireradio.com/podcasts/GFH_Episode_142.mp3

 

[Patrick]

But this doesn't specifically involve California, only San Diego. IIRC, both sides were basically pointing fingers at one another in District Court-San Diego saying OC should be allowed but CA law was at fault, and CA said San Diego's implementation of "good cause" was at fault.
I don't know what their budget is, but I'm not 100% convinced San Diego would seek cert(en banc definitely though).

The Sheriff gets the budget from the SD City Council, and that council is predominantly Republican. It's too late for the state to intervene.

 

[press1280]

The Sheriff gets the budget from the SD City Council, and that council is predominantly Republican. It's too late for the state to intervene.

I'm sort of hoping they pull the plug on the sheriff, only problem is if Drake doesn't get cert then we may be in for a long wait for a carry case, which could be dangerous.

 

[ryan_j]

I'm sort of hoping they pull the plug on the sheriff, only problem is if Drake doesn't get cert then we may be in for a long wait for a carry case, which could be dangerous.

There are cases in the state courts. Pantano (again in NJ) is one coming up.

Wouldn't it be ironic if NJ saves the day. The state that everyone loves to piss on and write off when it comes to gun rights.

 

[swinokur]

Well so far isn't it deserved?

 

[ryan_j]

Well so far isn't it deserved?

No, not for NJ gun owners. Blame the system, not us. If you've ever had any interaction with the Government in NJ you'd understand why. It's corrupt to the core and elections don't really matter. Fact is, NJ gun owners have been fighting back, but the system is set up with such severe penalties that if you move just an inch the wrong way you could go to prison for 10 years.

 

[Patrick]

No, not for NJ gun owners. Blame the system, not us. If you've ever had any interaction with the Government in NJ you'd understand why. It's corrupt to the core and elections don't really matter. Fact is, NJ gun owners have been fighting back, but the system is set up with such severe penalties that if you move just an inch the wrong way you could go to prison for 10 years.

I think you might have misunderstood the previous question. Trust me, we here in MD are completely in sync with your concerns regarding a headlocked state government.

NJ and MD (government) both deserve scorn, while the people doing the fighting are earning every little win they get. And yes, there is a certain irony in knowing that it will be one of us - a resident of NJ, CA, MD, etc - that works with others to permanently enshrine a right that most others take for granted.

Just don't expect free drinks in a shall-issue state for making the good fight. Most would rather mock you for putting up with it, right up until someone in their neck of the woods decides to get dumb and pass bad law. Then it's all gloom and doom. Oh well. No perspective, I guess.

 

[ryan_j]

Just don't expect free drinks in a shall-issue state for making the good fight. Most would rather mock you for putting up with it, right up until someone in their neck of the woods decides to get dumb and pass bad law. Then it's all gloom and doom. Oh well. No perspective, I guess.

Yep, I agree. It frustrates me that people say things like, "NJ (or MD) people are a bunch of sheep!" Guess what, we aint. Apart from ANJRPC suing the state several times (Drake, Revell, Aitken etc, either by itself or jointly with SAF) there are a lot of other things going on here. And yes, there is civil disobedience but I don't think we'll see it at the level required to scare the antis into caving just yet. Then you have the Bloomberg factor, because face it we are in his back yard. If he loses here, he loses big.

Honestly I don't care about accolades. What I DO care about is people supporting us in battleground states like NJ, MD, NY, CA, MA, IL etc. Out of state gun owners have been a major factor with NH helping us fend off the last round of gun bills, thanks in part to Evan Nappen who lives there. Obviously we don't expect people to pull our weight but I don't really think they should just knock us down at every turn either and criticize US personally. Criticize the Government, courts, even the police (the establishment, not the officers). Gun owners don't want gun control... maybe a few do but we don't want it.

 

[swinokur]

No, not for NJ gun owners. Blame the system, not us. If you've ever had any interaction with the Government in NJ you'd understand why. It's corrupt to the core and elections don't really matter. Fact is, NJ gun owners have been fighting back, but the system is set up with such severe penalties that if you move just an inch the wrong way you could go to prison for 10 years.

Didn't mean to insulate it was gun owners. Just the government.

Just like MD.

 

[Boxcab]

There are cases in the state courts. Pantano (again in NJ) is one coming up.

Wouldn't it be ironic if NJ saves the day. The state that everyone loves to piss on and write off when it comes to gun rights.

Those Governments that work the hardest to destroy our Rights tend to deliver the best infringement examples to take up the court systems ladder.

I have often said that it might be wiser to not fight these anti-2A law makers, but to provide fuel for their self serving fires, getting the slap downs in Court so much easier and quicker. The more egregious the law, the quicker it can be dealt with.

Some say I'm a conniving SOB.....

 

[Elliotte]

There are cases in the state courts. Pantano (again in NJ) is one coming up.

Wouldn't it be ironic if NJ saves the day. The state that everyone loves to piss on and write off when it comes to gun rights.

Those Governments that work the hardest to destroy our Rights tend to deliver the best infringement examples to take up the court systems ladder.

I have often said that it might be wiser to not fight these anti-2A law makers, but to provide fuel for their self serving fires, getting the slap downs in Court so much easier and quicker. The more egregious the law, the quicker it can be dealt with.

Some say I'm a conniving SOB.....

Exactly. Look at Heller and McDonald, where did they come from? Anti-gun bastions of DC and Chicago. The biggest wins come from cases that present the most obvious and most egregious restrictions of our rights.

 

[br3krj]

How quickly after Fridays conference will we hear whether the Court takes Drake?

 

[Patrick]

How quickly after Fridays conference will we hear whether the Court takes Drake?

Usually the following Monday. There are no briefs required. It's literally "granted" or "denied" or held over for another look. They have the option of placing poetry on their decision, but it's rare. And there are variations of all the above.

But generally you'll see grant|deny orders by mid-day Monday.

 

[krucam]

How quickly after Fridays conference will we hear whether the Court takes Drake?

Drake hasn't been set for a conference yet. See:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-827.htm

The Petition phase of Drake is only 1/3 of the way through. Petitioner Brief (+ Amici) submitted.

NJ still has a response due on 3/14.