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

[ryan_j]

True, but so did every other carry case.

Except for Embody.

 

[press1280]

Except for Embody.

I think everyone will agree Drake has a better chance than the cases that came before it.
Whether it actually fares better, we should know in 11 days.

 

[SilverBulletZ06]

I think everyone will agree Drake has a better chance than the cases that came before it.
Whether it actually fares better, we should know in 11 days.

I don't. I don't see SCOTUS grabbing a carry case outside of some Peruta-esque case where the state lost big and now is begging for a final review.

Kachalsky, Masciandaro, Drake, et al are going to stand, sorry to say.

 

[press1280]

Drake made SCOTUSBlog's Petitions We're Watching list.

Embody did not.

Scotusblog's "Supreme Court Challenge:Student Predictions" for Drake's petition:

In this Second Amendment petition, 47.4% of students anticipate a grant, with 44.7% predicting a denial. 5.4% of teams expect the Court to call for the views of the Solicitor General, while 2.6% think the petition will be held.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/supreme-court-challenge-student-predictions/

 

[Brooklyn]

I don't know. I always go back to the question of if a blind person can carry. Remember, without a license in some of these states, it is illegal to be in possession of a handgun outside of designated areas, like the home.

As we've seen time and time again, the mere sight of a firearm is often enough of a deterrent to crime, so I don't see why a blind person should be denied the right to carry a firearm if that firearm is unloaded or has blanks. It can't hurt anyone or be used against the blind person, but could thwart criminals. So do we deny the right to carry to the blind (or partially blind)? I don't see how their rights to self defense could be denied, especially since the blind and disabled are probably prime targets for the bad guys.

Well then why not force us all to carry unloaded guns? The criminals will not know right-- oh wait the law will tell them

If a blind person can use a weapon for self defense effectively (an empirical question ) then there is no conflict. I can practically guarantee that the court will not strike down any and all licencing -- may be they should but they will not. Even under strict scrutiny they will allow a shall issue system with objective criteria -- again that does not mean they are correct. But its what we are going to get, and maybe we cam live with it. That will depend on the time and cost needed to get the permit.

What is key is that the gov will not be able to claim that simply reducing the number of persons exercising their rights is in the interest of public safety and therefore reading the 2a out of existence is a permissible regulation.

Then they will try to make such a high bar that we will fight them on that-- hopefully armed with a standard of review.

 

[ryan_j]

I don't. I don't see SCOTUS grabbing a carry case outside of some Peruta-esque case where the state lost big and now is begging for a final review.

Kachalsky, Masciandaro, Drake, et al are going to stand, sorry to say.

I'm thinking they will hold it.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

I'm thinking they will hold it.

In reality, that could be one very long hold if it goes en banc.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

I'm thinking they will hold it.

That would make sense. They've waited this long. If they are going to address it at all, why not wait for the dust to settle in the 9th? Peruta/Richards/Baker is the elephant in the living room. Since there's still a good chance they will be ask to review any of those three cases anyway, then holding Drake would make perfect sense.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

That would make sense. They've waited this long. If they are going to address it at all, why not wait for the dust to settle in the 9th? Peruta/Richards/Baker is the elephant in the living room. Since there's still a good chance they will be ask to review any of those three cases anyway, then holding Drake would make perfect sense.

The court generally does not like to hold things between terms, is that correct?

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

The court generally does not like to hold things between terms, is that correct?

I do not know. I don't believe there's time for any of the Peruta triad to make it up this term. A Drake denial could just mean they intend to take another look after the 9th CCA cases level out and see what's left to review there. Peruta's facts may be sufficiently close to Drake so that the court could get at Drake after the fact through Peruta.

 

[Kharn]

That would make sense. They've waited this long. If they are going to address it at all, why not wait for the dust to settle in the 9th? Peruta/Richards/Baker is the elephant in the living room. Since there's still a good chance they will be ask to review any of those three cases anyway, then holding Drake would make perfect sense.

They will hold it to another conference if a Justice wants more time to research it, but otherwise they will deny it and wait for a better case. They wouldn't keep Drake waiting for months just in case a better set of circumstances come up.

 

[press1280]

They will hold it to another conference if a Justice wants more time to research it, but otherwise they will deny it and wait for a better case. They wouldn't keep Drake waiting for months just in case a better set of circumstances come up.

I think you're right. If you recall, Lane was held for months due to the petition asking to be held until the 2 NRA cases went to conference.
No one is asking for that in this case.

 

[esqappellate]

The court generally does not like to hold things between terms, is that correct?

True, as a rule, as along as it was considered during a Friday conference during the Term. There are rare exceptions. Petitions filed after that point are considered the next term.

 

[ryan_j]

So in light of all the developments with Peruta, Richards and Baker and that it won't go en banc before the conference, what do you think are the chances of a grant?

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

So in light of all the developments with Peruta, Richards and Baker and that it won't go en banc before the conference, what do you think are the chances of a grant?

Thats the million dollar question. You'll find tons of theories here but no one knows.

 

[ryan_j]

True, but I value esq's opinion.

 

[ryan_j]

Gura in Harvard Law Review

http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/04/the-second-amendment-as-a-normal-right/

 

[danb]

Gura in Harvard Law Review

http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/04/the-second-amendment-as-a-normal-right/

Thanks for posting this.

Funny how this made its way to the Harvard Law Review days before the cert petition goes to conference.

The court all but invited certiorari review relating to the publicly contentious topic of carrying handguns for self-defense, punctuating its historical exegesis of the right to bear arms with pointed criticism of Second, Third, and Fourth Circuit opinions that had upheld substantially identical “proper cause,” “justifiable need,” and “good and substantial reason” requirements, respectively. Instead, the Ninth Circuit followed the Seventh Circuit, which had struck down Illinois’ prohibition on the carrying of defensive handguns.

Challenging the Heller 5:

Professor Allen Rostron, a former Brady Center Senior Staff Attorney, had good reason to crow that “Justice Breyer’s approach” — a dissenting view on today’s Supreme Court — “appears headed for an unexpected triumph.”

 

[danb]

I just noticed, clicking on the "second amendment" category at the top, there are no less than 4 second amendment articles on Apr 11th in HLR. It looks like the last time that happened was in Nov 2008 right after Heller. Does that mean something?

"Good Cause Requirements for Carrying Guns in Public" - Joseph Blocher

"Does the Second Amendment Protect Firearms Commerce?" - David Kopel

"Peruta, the Home-Bound Second Amendment, and Fractal Originalism" - Darrell A.H. Miller

"The Second Amendment as a Normal Right" - Alan Gura

 

[ryan_j]

I just noticed, clicking on the "second amendment" category at the top, there are no less than 4 second amendment articles on Apr 11th in HLR. It looks like the last time that happened was in Nov 2008 right after Heller. Does that mean something?

"Good Cause Requirements for Carrying Guns in Public" - Joseph Blocher

"Does the Second Amendment Protect Firearms Commerce?" - David Kopel

"Peruta, the Home-Bound Second Amendment, and Fractal Originalism" - Darrell A.H. Miller

"The Second Amendment as a Normal Right" - Alan Gura

Some of these (the anti ones) are so twisted up into knots to defend the Government's position, I feel like I'm doing Yoga just reading it.