Russell v. NJ (Permit to carry a handgun)

press1280 · May 18, 2021

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public\20-1419.html

Another case is at Scotus. NJ waived their response, but now Scotus wants a response.
I really wanted the court to hear a NJ case worse than anything but we’ll see what happens.
If you read the NJ briefs in the past they’re about as arrogant as you can get. They’ve claimed that since their courts have ruled a certain way in the 1960s that Scotus doesn’t need to weigh in on the issue.

Bob A · May 18, 2021

Seems pretty insolent of NJ to waive a response.

Sort of "We do not deem any questioning of Our authority to be worthy of Our attention." Perhaps SCOTUS may feel slighted by this sort of 'tude?

Inigoes · May 18, 2021

This case fits well with the NY case. Practically the same petition.

krucam · May 18, 2021

So this case Russell, NYSRPA has Cert Granted, Young from CA9 is also pending...

Kharn · May 20, 2021

I love NJ's "cert denied is approval of our policies" and waiver of responses attitude. It will make the eventual comeuppance even more delightful.

Pope414 · May 20, 2021

Kharn said:
I love NJ's "cert denied is approval of our policies" and waiver of responses attitude. It will make the eventual comeuppance even more delightful.

after the underhanded ******** NJ pulled during Drake it would be satisfying Karma for NJ to get NutPunched on this case

press1280 · Jun 12, 2021

NJ has gotten an extension to file their reply brief. It's now due July 16th.

delaware_export · Jun 12, 2021

So two cases where nj initially waived their response. It’s a delay tactic.

Treat it like Miller (‘38, iirc) where the council didn’t show. Proceed without response and let them be Unrepresented if this is heard. If they were asked once, and didn’t reply. So be it.

“Reward” the arrogance of the state. With a ruling they really dislike. Non lawyer /rant. Excuse me.

press1280 · Jun 12, 2021

delaware_export said:
So two cases where nj initially waived their response. It’s a delay tactic.

Treat it like Miller (‘38, iirc) where the council didn’t show. Proceed without response and let them be Unrepresented if this is heard. If they were asked once, and didn’t reply. So be it.

“Reward” the arrogance of the state. With a ruling they really dislike. Non lawyer /rant. Excuse me.

In a way it doesn’t matter. Scotus will hear NYSRPA and this case likely gets remanded.

Kharn · Jun 12, 2021

delaware_export said:
So two cases where nj initially waived their response. It’s a delay tactic.

Treat it like Miller (‘38, iirc) where the council didn’t show. Proceed without response and let them be Unrepresented if this is heard. If they were asked once, and didn’t reply. So be it.

“Reward” the arrogance of the state. With a ruling they really dislike. Non lawyer /rant. Excuse me.

It would be more fun for the SC to select an amicus to represent NJ.

Alan Gura representing NJ, arguing that Paul Clement's push for due process incorporation of shall-issue is wrong. Because Dred Scott says only citizens can carry arms where ever they go, and NJ residents are taxpaying subjects. :innocent0

press1280 · Jul 17, 2021

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...urt Reply Brief and Supplemental Appendix.pdf

NJ response is up and there may be a problem here. The lower court proceedings had no mention of a 2A claim. Petitioner's claims may not have standing.
They are also arguing if SCOTUS does think he has standing, that they should wait for Corlett's outcome.

DanGuy48 · Jul 17, 2021

press1280 said:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...urt Reply Brief and Supplemental Appendix.pdf

NJ response is up and there may be a problem here. The lower court proceedings had no mention of a 2A claim. Petitioner's claims may not have standing.
They are also arguing if SCOTUS does think he has standing, that they should wait for Corlett's outcome.

Why does this (seems to me) happen so often? How can all the preparation and time be spent on something like this only to discover, oh hey, we have no standing to bring this case? WTF gives? Shouldn’t that be one of the very first concerns in formulating a case? I’m a biologist, not a lawyer, but something seems wrong.

Inigoes · Jul 17, 2021

press1280 said:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...urt Reply Brief and Supplemental Appendix.pdf

NJ response is up and there may be a problem here. The lower court proceedings had no mention of a 2A claim. Petitioner's claims may not have standing.
They are also arguing if SCOTUS does think he has standing, that they should wait for Corlett's outcome.

It was there all the long, but not front and center. NJ even pointed it out.

Petitioner’s sole reference to the Second Amend-ment through three levels of State court litigation is a passing reference in a single sentence on page 11 of his 12-page petition for certification to the New Jersey Supreme Court: “Presently at issue is the interest of justice regarding the Due Process and fundamental fairness afforded licensing applications, as well as, ul-timately, the constitutional right to keep and bear arms since the license at issue provides the means by which citizens may exercise that fundamental, indi-vidual, constitutional right.” Supp. App.68a.

There is a heck of an argument to be made: "why argue something that NJ does not recognize to even exist?".

Nobody · Jul 17, 2021

DanGuy48 said:
Why does this (seems to me) happen so often? How can all the preparation and time be spent on something like this only to discover, oh hey, we have no standing to bring this case? WTF gives? Shouldn’t that be one of the very first concerns in formulating a case? I’m a biologist, not a lawyer, but something seems wrong.

It is like trying to get out of trouble with your wife. Grasp at any straw you cab reach.

Nobody

Nobody · Jul 17, 2021

DanGuy48 said:
Why does this (seems to me) happen so often? How can all the preparation and time be spent on something like this only to discover, oh hey, we have no standing to bring this case? WTF gives? Shouldn’t that be one of the very first concerns in formulating a case? I’m a biologist, not a lawyer, but something seems wrong.

It is like trying to get out of trouble with your wife. Grasp at any straw you can reach.

Nobody

Bob A · Jul 17, 2021

Petitioner’s sole reference to the Second Amend-ment through three levels of State court litigation is a passing reference in a single sentence on page 11 of his 12-page petition for certification to the New Jersey Supreme Court: “Presently at issue[/B[ is the interest of justice regarding the Due Process and fundamental fairness afforded licensing applications, as well as, ul-timately, the constitutional right to keep and bear arms since the license at issue provides the means by which citizens may exercise that fundamental, indi-vidual, constitutional right.” Supp. App.68a.

It annoys me when lawyers, whose stock in trade is the proper use of language, would use "presently" to mean the same as "at present". "Presently" means "soon".

Go back to school, fool.

press1280 · Jul 17, 2021

DanGuy48 said:
Why does this (seems to me) happen so often? How can all the preparation and time be spent on something like this only to discover, oh hey, we have no standing to bring this case? WTF gives? Shouldn’t that be one of the very first concerns in formulating a case? I’m a biologist, not a lawyer, but something seems wrong.

This was a pro se case, I guess Nappen is helping now in this late stage

Russell v. NJ (Permit to carry a handgun)

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

όυ φροντισ

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

όυ φροντισ

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics