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

[fightinbluhen51]

CA Supreme court asked San Diego Sheriff if he is giving up on Peruta case. If he says yes he is giving up then decision will stand and will not be appealable to SCOTUS. (The CA Attorney General will NOT be allowed to be substituted in Sheriff's place - thus allowing CA and HI to be shall issue).

I think you mean the 9th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, not CA Supreme Court...

It's hard to say what the 9th may allow. After today, my guess, depending upon what the good Sheriff says, AG will be given her intervention status, but will not receive her en banc. With 2 other cases behind the one at the forefront, why delay SCOTUS review. The cali-AG isn't going to stop (she fought to get off the case that she now wants to take over). Smart thing is to say "here you go, but be careful what you wish for).

 

[Gryphon]

The only good thing that came from the denial of Drake is that we now know SCOTUS doesn't care more about those from New Jersey than it does those of us from Merrylandistan.

 

[redeemed.man]

True, but my bet is that even those justices on the left have a modicum of common sense, and realize striking down the right to bear outside of the home (and carry) would be so repugnant to the sensibilities of the majority population (even many left leaning folks) that it would be the flash the starts the nationwide fire. If we "lost," and the left started usurping this fundamental right there would be a revolt - a nationwide revolt - not just a few folks from MD, NJ and HI whining about self-defense. My guess is they realize this, don't want to let a genie out they can't put back in the bottle, and are stalling.

Simply put, I don't blame those on the right, but those justices on the left that know they can't be intellectually honest and oppose "shall issue" without some disingenuous, distorted, inconsistent argument that reads our actual history and the framers' intentions right out of the equation. If I am right, that means they are promoting a political agenda rather than performing their given role in good faith.

You are right. I have no doubt.

 

[JPG]

I think you mean the 9th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, not CA Supreme Court...

It's hard to say what the 9th may allow. After today, my guess, depending upon what the good Sheriff says, AG will be given her intervention status, but will not receive her en banc. With 2 other cases behind the one at the forefront, why delay SCOTUS review. The cali-AG isn't going to stop (she fought to get off the case that she now wants to take over). Smart thing is to say "here you go, but be careful what you wish for).

IANL - My tin foil is on too tight. I thought the 9th made a decision and the Sheriff was asking for en banc. If no en banc then the sheriff could have appealed to the SCOTUS (which lead me to believe that the SCOTUS would not have to hear Drake or Peruta - two cases the 2A community was banking on being heard).

 

[abean4187]

The only good thing that came from the denial of Drake is that we now know SCOTUS doesn't care more about those from New Jersey than it does those of us from Merrylandistan.

Another good thing is that now I know that instead of spending my money on a CCW permit/gun (I also do not have an HQL yet), I should instead use my money to purchase Monadnock’s new autolock II baton.

 

[BeoBill]

NJSC will absolutely side with the state. However the appellate courts have had some surprising results lately, but the NJSC is well beyond activist.

And I think THAT's the strategy the Supremes are taking; "Let the Districts sort it out on an individual basis." That way pro-2A districts can rule to keep their states satisfied, anti-2A districts can do the same, and the Supremes don't get their hands tied either way.

 

[Elliotte]

I think that is correct. We got carry in National Parks from Congress. We got FOPA from Congress. National carry might doable with the right actors, after this next election

And with FOPA came the Hughes Amendment and no new transferable MGs

 

[DefenderOfConservatism]

And I think THAT's the strategy the Supremes are taking; "Let the Districts sort it out on an individual basis." That way pro-2A districts can rule to keep their states satisfied, anti-2A districts can do the same, and the Supremes don't get their hands tied either way.

As a matter of Constitutional law, that's a pretty terrible policy.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

IANL - My tin foil is on too tight. I thought the 9th made a decision and the Sheriff was asking for en banc. If no en banc then the sheriff could have appealed to the SCOTUS (which lead me to believe that the SCOTUS would not have to hear Drake or Peruta - two cases the 2A community was banking on being heard).

You need to get up to speed. SD Sheriff has bowed out. 9th circuit has ordered some replies from the sheriff. CA AG Harris wants back in the fight after arguing her way out of it, has requested intervenor status for en banc request.

Peruta (i.e. Baker/Richards) is at least a year, maybe two behind Drake. It is uncertain what form (if any) a certiorari petition will take, or even which (if any) of the 3 related cases will be procedurally possible to appeal.

 

[MDFF2008]

The most effective argument that the anti-gun folks make is when they compare having a gun to driving a car. It isn't enough for us to say: driving a car is a privilege, having a gun is a right. That is true and it sounds good, but it doesn't mean squat to most people. The average American is either as much or more dependent upon having a car as they are on having a firearm (or two or three....).

And because everyone has had to deal with going through a "check" to get a driver's license and has to register their cars, the frame of reference works against us.

Not really, it falls flat in more than 1 way.

1.) You can have a car on private property unregistered, untagged and without a license.

2.) While you do need a license to drive on the public road, I did not have to show Good Reason why I need to drive, I simply apply, meet the objective criteria, and get a license.


The car analogy may be an effective counter to constitutional carry arguments, but not to the rest.

 

[vagun71]

Not really, it falls flat in more than 1 way.

1.) You can have a car on private property unregistered, untagged and without a license.

2.) While you do need a license to drive on the public road, I did not have to show Good Reason why I need to drive, I simply apply, meet the objective criteria, and get a license.


The car analogy may be an effective counter to constitutional carry arguments, but not to the rest.

I wasn't arguing the merits of the argument. I was simply pointing out that it is an effective argument because it utilizes an analogy to something that is often common experience (having a car and driver's license) to articulate a position to people who often have limited, if any, experience in firearms.

It is a brutally effective advocacy tactic--relate the unknown to the known. This technique works to the tee. Most people instinctively understand that Americans have a right to have guns. Most people also instinctively--even if wrongly--believe that they have a "right" to their car.

If you have to take more than 30 seconds to explain something or make an argument to a mass audience, you've already lost.

 

[Kharn]

Not really, it falls flat in more than 1 way.

1.) You can have a car on private property unregistered, untagged and without a license.

2.) While you do need a license to drive on the public road, I did not have to show Good Reason why I need to drive, I simply apply, meet the objective criteria, and get a license.


The car analogy may be an effective counter to constitutional carry arguments, but not to the rest.

You can't have an unregistered car in baltimore, they cut my friend's fence lock and towed a car out of his backyard since it didn't have plates, it wasn't visible from the street or the neighbors without climbing the fence.

 

[ryan_j]

And I think THAT's the strategy the Supremes are taking; "Let the Districts sort it out on an individual basis." That way pro-2A districts can rule to keep their states satisfied, anti-2A districts can do the same, and the Supremes don't get their hands tied either way.

They can't do that.

Besides the circuits are not along pro or anti lines. These are the circuits with may-issue cases. Red is may-issue carry, green is shall-issue (or no permit required). In practice, not actual statute.

1st circuit - MA, ME, NH, RI - Hightower
2nd circuit - NY, CT, VT - Kachalsky
3rd circuit - NJ, PA, DE - Drake (ex Piszczatoski ex Muller)
4th circuit - MD, VA, NC, SC, WV - Woollard
9th circuit - AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI, ID, MP, MT, NV, OR, WA - Peruta, Richards, Baker

One other fallacy that I see persisting in the interwebs is that if SCT remains silent, that status quo stays and if SCOTUS upholds may-issue, that any state can go may-issue as a result. False. Without shall-issue or 2A outside the home being affirmed as a right, any state can already go may-issue. In fact any state can go no RKBA outside the home, except in the 7th circuit where they have binding precedent.

 

[Kharn]

IIRC there's a new lawsuit in MA, Hightower turned into a bunch of poo when everyone discovered the plantiff had massive baggage when they got to the appeals court so the case was bounced on non-2A grounds.

 

[ryan_j]

Gura's reaction: http://www.examiner.com/article/scotus-declines-to-take-drake-challenge-to-new-jersey-ccw-law

 

[DefenderOfConservatism]

http://www.burlingtoncountytimes.co...cle_853fcad6-e8d9-5d81-b621-f0c9691c8e9b.html

"Norcross was among the three Democrats who voted in favor of the reduced ammunition limit. He cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to let stand New Jersey’s requirement that gun owners demonstrate a “justifiable need” in order to carry firearms in public.

Several residents as well as the Second Amendment Foundation and the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs had sued, claiming the law was unconstitutional. The high court announced Monday it would not take up the case and would leave in place a ruling from the 3rd U.S. Court of Appeals, which found that states have the right to apply a “justifiable need” requirement for permits to carry guns in public areas.

Norcross said the same reasoning applies to limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines.

“It’s a justifiable need. I vote yes,” he said."

And therein lies the problem. With every case the Supreme Court declines to grant cert on, liberal politicians are emboldened nationwide, as the Supreme Court is signaling that any 2nd Amendment constraints on the power of the government is illusory. If the state can require a justifiable need to "bear" a firearm, why not to purchase one in the home? Why not to buy a >10 round magazine? Why not to buy a weapon with a scary black pistol grip? The Supreme Court MUST rule that Heller and MacDonald actually have teeth, and that a standard of review must be used that meaningfully restricts the government, or the left will continue its assault.

 

[jrosenberger]

IIRC there's a new lawsuit in MA, Hightower turned into a bunch of poo when everyone discovered the plantiff had massive baggage when they got to the appeals court so the case was bounced on non-2A grounds.

Yup. It's called Davis v Grimes. http://comm2a.org/index.php/41-projects/current-projects/102-davis

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

Yup. It's called Davis v Grimes. http://comm2a.org/index.php/41-projects/current-projects/102-davis

Interesting.

 

[ryan_j]

http://www.burlingtoncountytimes.co...cle_853fcad6-e8d9-5d81-b621-f0c9691c8e9b.html

"Norcross was among the three Democrats who voted in favor of the reduced ammunition limit. He cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to let stand New Jersey’s requirement that gun owners demonstrate a “justifiable need” in order to carry firearms in public.

Several residents as well as the Second Amendment Foundation and the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs had sued, claiming the law was unconstitutional. The high court announced Monday it would not take up the case and would leave in place a ruling from the 3rd U.S. Court of Appeals, which found that states have the right to apply a “justifiable need” requirement for permits to carry guns in public areas.

Norcross said the same reasoning applies to limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines.

“It’s a justifiable need. I vote yes,” he said."

And therein lies the problem. With every case the Supreme Court declines to grant cert on, liberal politicians are emboldened nationwide, as the Supreme Court is signaling that any 2nd Amendment constraints on the power of the government is illusory. If the state can require a justifiable need to "bear" a firearm, why not to purchase one in the home? Why not to buy a >10 round magazine? Why not to buy a weapon with a scary black pistol grip? The Supreme Court MUST rule that Heller and MacDonald actually have teeth, and that a standard of review must be used that meaningfully restricts the government, or the left will continue its assault.

That vote was scheduled for today anyway and they were going to vote yes anyway. This is NJ. They don't care. They could pass all the anti gun laws they want to and the blue I-95 corridor would ensure their reelection. They also know that it is likely that Christie will veto it. It's all politics to make him look bad.

 

[aireyc]

http://www.burlingtoncountytimes.co...cle_853fcad6-e8d9-5d81-b621-f0c9691c8e9b.html

"Norcross was among the three Democrats who voted in favor of the reduced ammunition limit. He cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to let stand New Jersey’s requirement that gun owners demonstrate a “justifiable need” in order to carry firearms in public.

Several residents as well as the Second Amendment Foundation and the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs had sued, claiming the law was unconstitutional. The high court announced Monday it would not take up the case and would leave in place a ruling from the 3rd U.S. Court of Appeals, which found that states have the right to apply a “justifiable need” requirement for permits to carry guns in public areas.

Norcross said the same reasoning applies to limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines.

“It’s a justifiable need. I vote yes,” he said."

And therein lies the problem. With every case the Supreme Court declines to grant cert on, liberal politicians are emboldened nationwide, as the Supreme Court is signaling that any 2nd Amendment constraints on the power of the government is illusory. If the state can require a justifiable need to "bear" a firearm, why not to purchase one in the home? Why not to buy a >10 round magazine? Why not to buy a weapon with a scary black pistol grip? The Supreme Court MUST rule that Heller and MacDonald actually have teeth, and that a standard of review must be used that meaningfully restricts the government, or the left will continue its assault.

Quoting from the article: "On the same day the U.S. Supreme Court upheld New Jersey’s stringent law restricting most gun owners from arming themselves with weapons outside their homes."

NO, SCOTUS did NOT uphold the stringent law. I'm so sick and tired of these morons making garbage statements like that. Denying cert is NOT the same as upholding a law.