Pope414
Active Member
I sincerely hope if the NYC case is rendered Moot the justices take Rogers. to get rejected would be like salt in the wound.
New NJ and NY carry cases filed
- Thread starter wolfwood
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Pope414
Active Member
Well tomorrow is April 19TH lets see will we get:
A) A response that is nothing but a cut and paste of Drake
B) A response that is original yet entertaining
c) A request for a 2nd extension
A) A response that is nothing but a cut and paste of Drake
B) A response that is original yet entertaining
c) A request for a 2nd extension
I wonder how they'll try to spin Wrenn or will just try and ignore it?
danb
dont be a dumbass
NJ is arrogant enough to say Wrenn was wrongly decided.
Kharn
Ultimate Member
"We're cool with Drake, let's do that again" is my bet.
Pope414
Active Member
does anybody know if NJ submitted anything or asked for another extension ? I wish I knew how to track the case thru the court
danb
dont be a dumbass
I think the deadline for getting an extension was about a week ago.
I expect them to submit the docs at the very last second, so I doubt we will see anything until Monday.
I expect them to submit the docs at the very last second, so I doubt we will see anything until Monday.
Nothing submitted thus far
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public\18-824.html
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public\18-824.html
Blacksmith101
Grumpy Old Man
- Jun 22, 2012
- 22,252
Yeah, looks like they went with "Wrenn was wrong."
It's even worse. Weak and pathetic -- claiming the circuit split is over-stated; Wrenn does not apply to NJ because our ban has been in place longer; Drake already decided everything, etc.
A day of reckoning is coming. Could be now. Could take one more justice. We'll see ...
danb
dont be a dumbass
Fantastic news!
They also went with "please take Gould instead"
lol.
and oh yeah, by the way footnote 8:
My view is that the fact that they went with a vigorous defense "Wrenn was wrong but please take Gould" raises the odds of this being granted cert and consolidated with NYSRPA. SCOTUS likes vigorous opposition esp when they are arguing "History and tradition show that state public carry laws like this one are consistent with the Second Amendment right ". I think at bare minimum this will be held pending NYSRPA.
They also went with "please take Gould instead"
lol.
and oh yeah, by the way footnote 8:
My view is that the fact that they went with a vigorous defense "Wrenn was wrong but please take Gould" raises the odds of this being granted cert and consolidated with NYSRPA. SCOTUS likes vigorous opposition esp when they are arguing "History and tradition show that state public carry laws like this one are consistent with the Second Amendment right ". I think at bare minimum this will be held pending NYSRPA.
Blacksmith101
Grumpy Old Man
- Jun 22, 2012
- 22,252
It looks to me like:
We asked for an extension hoping we could find some really really good argument but since we didn't the best we can come up with is a weak rehash of the cases that did not get cert because the mix of Justices at that time was weak on interpreting the Constitution as it was written. We really don't want to get stuck with being the case that causes anti gun carry infringements to get struck down so please please pick somebody else. And we really hope the Justices can't see through our unconvincing brief.
We asked for an extension hoping we could find some really really good argument but since we didn't the best we can come up with is a weak rehash of the cases that did not get cert because the mix of Justices at that time was weak on interpreting the Constitution as it was written. We really don't want to get stuck with being the case that causes anti gun carry infringements to get struck down so please please pick somebody else. And we really hope the Justices can't see through our unconvincing brief.
Pope414
Active Member
NYSRPA is about to be deemed moot and if that is the case this will be the 2A case the court will take ..Justices Thomas and Gorsuch undressed the court all but calling them cowards after Peruta was rejected ....Roberts does not want a repeat of that. imho
I also wonder what Herr Frosh and his minions at the MSP Lic Div are thinking after they have read what NJ submitted as well. I hope it is giving Herr Frosh some grief and a major headache after he has read what a lousy job NJ did..plus what do our legal eagles think of the reply by NJ?
There's no SCOTUS precedent I know of that allows for one law to be struck down while another identical one gets to be left in place because it was enacted earlier. NJ pulled that one out of their ass. Another problem with NJ's contention about a "95 year old law" is that open carry w/o permit was legal until 1966, and there's also evidence that suggests before 1971 that carry permits were not nearly as strictly guarded as they are now. NJ made no mention of open carry being legal until 1966, obviously hiding this fact from the court.
At this point the line has been drawn. Whether its NJ or Herr Frosh or CA, may-issue is going to be under the microscope soon. If NYSRPA moves forward and the case isn't mooted; I think all these cases go back to the lower courts for a re-do with NYSRPA as guidance.
krucam
Ultimate Member
Drake was denied Cert so this should be too...
Wrenn was wrong...
CA7 was different, total ban...
Finally, sounded like they’re daring Petitioners to do a FOIA request and get the number of issuances vs applications. That MAY be an issue if nobody bothers trying...
Wrenn was wrong...
CA7 was different, total ban...
Finally, sounded like they’re daring Petitioners to do a FOIA request and get the number of issuances vs applications. That MAY be an issue if nobody bothers trying...
I think this may have been in the Drake record. NJ can't seriously say that things have changed. Indeed, when Chris Christie tried to make things a tiny bit more lenient, that got shut down with the new legislature and governor.
It shouldn't matter though. Thomas Rogers was denied a permit for NO good reason. It shouldn't matter that someone else does or doesn't get a permit. Only in NJs warped logic would it matter what the percentages are. WHY someone is denied is the reason we're at this point.
Blacksmith101
Grumpy Old Man
- Jun 22, 2012
- 22,252
The comparison to make is how many are issued per capita compared with a similar shall issue state because people in New Jersey like people in Maryland are not going to waste their time and money applying for something they know can't get.
For example New Jersey has 1,212 active permits (2013) which is 0.01% of the population. In contrast Pennsylvania has 1,275,000 active permits (2017) which is 13% of the population.
Maryland, you all know how carry friendly they are, for comparison has 17,414 active permits which is 0.4% of the population. The state with the most number of permits is Florida 1,784,395 or 10% of the population and the state with the highest percentage is Alabama with 755,618 permits and 22% of the population.
Statistics from:
https://www.gunstocarry.com/concealed-carry-statistics/
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
Holosun DRS-NV (Digital Rifle Sight-Night Vision) In Stock (3 Viewers)- Started by MDElite
- Replies: 1
-
-
MD DNR Outdoor Recreation Survey -- Outdoorsman Responses Needed (4 Viewers)
- Started by Derwood
- Replies: 5
-
-