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

Ragnar said:

What are the chances the SCOTUS will take this up?

Click to expand...

Inigoes said:

Good, if NJ loses in the lower courts.

If the citizenry loses in the lower courts, not so much.

Click to expand...

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]U.S. SUPREME COURT ASKED TO CONSIDER [/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]SAF, ANJRPC RIGHT TO CARRY CASE [/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]BELLEVUE, WA - The Second Amendment Foundation and Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs today asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the appeal in the challenge to New Jersey's unconstitutional carry laws. The case is Drake v. Jerejian .[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Prepared by attorneys Alan Gura (who won Second Amendment victories in the groundbreaking Heller and McDonald cases) and David Jensen, today's petition is the latest effort to bring a right-to-carry case before the high court and is the next step in the process of resolving the differing opinions of lower courts on the right to bear arms for personal protection outside the home.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] "The right to self-defense is sacrosanct," said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, "yet has been disparaged and denied to all but an elite few in states like New Jersey. Individuals and families should not be deprived of the right to defend themselves and we intend to change that."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] "This case could resolve the right to carry issue not only for New Jersey, but for the entire nation," added ANJRPC Executive Director Scott Bach. "So far the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear the issue in other cases, but this case may be different due to the extreme nature of New Jersey's law, which effectively denies law-abiding citizens their fundamental right to self-defense outside the home."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] "The petition is an exceptional piece of legal work that is well worth taking the time to read," Bach, an attorney, noted. "It extensively documents the differing of opinions of lower courts throughout the nation that need to be reconciled, and observes: The notion that carrying handguns outside the home is conduct falling outside the scope of the Second Amendment's guarantee' simply cannot be squared with Heller[H]istory, consensus, and simple common sense do not remotely support New Jersey's law, a relatively modern and intensely controversial regulation that exists in only a small handful of states'."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] "It is time for the high court to clarify that the right to bear arms does not stop at someone's front door," Gottlieb observed. "What other constitutional right is confined to one's house? The Second Amendment was never meant to be encumbered with such a limitation, and it cannot possibly be interpreted that way, but it will take a Supreme Court ruling to convince lower courts and anti-gunners, and put this debate to rest."[/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. In addition to the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; New Orleans; Chicago and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and numerous amicus briefs holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.[/FONT]

​

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]​

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

Copyright © 2014 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​

Click to expand...

press1280 said:

Had to start a new thread since the name of the case has changed yet again.

SAF press release: http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=471

Petition: http://saf.org/legal.action/drake_cert_petition_filed.pdf

Will read now

Click to expand...

kcbrown said:

SCOTUS will very likely deny cert, because what is being asked here is really little different than what was asked before.

But, of course, it is not absolutely certain they will deny cert, only highly likely, IMO.

I hope I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

On July 1, 2011, Chief Justice Roberts assigned a
senior judge from the Northern District of New York
to the District of Columbia, in order to alleviate the
delay in Palmer and other unduly protracted cases.
But not much has changed. The district court ignored
a consent motion to expedite the proceedings, per 28
U.S.C. § 1657(a), filed on the case’s fourth anniversary.
On October 21, 2013, Palmer plaintiffs petitioned
the D.C. Circuit for a writ of mandamus to
compel a decision. See, e.g., Will v. Calvert Fire Ins.
Co., 437 U.S. 655, 661-62 (1978) (mandamus available
where “a district court persistently and without
reason refuses to adjudicate a case properly before
it”). But on December 16, 2013, the D.C. Circuit
denied the petition. Although the relevant facts are
simple and undisputed, and plaintiffs complain of a
total prohibition of a fundamental right preserving an
interest in self-defense, the court did not believe
waiting over four years for a decision is “so egregious
or unreasonable as to warrant” mandamus. In re
Palmer, No. 13-5317 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 16, 2013).

Click to expand...

press1280 said:

The one thing that hasn't changed is there's still no split in that "need" hasn't been ruled unconstitutional, which may be why your pessimism is well founded.
The rulings we have are all over the map as far as reasoning and standards go-but is this something that typically trigger a cert grant?

Click to expand...

fightinbluhen51 said:

What is pathetic is that this rational basis crap is now flying in the lower courts (CA7 exception rather than rule) with mags and modern sporting rifles (see NY).

We are on a dangerous course.

Click to expand...

krucam said:

I enjoyed the jab at the DC District (Palmer v DC). Although the Writ of Mandamus was recently denied by DC Circuit, the "jab" will heard by CJ Roberts through this Petition. Reminder that CJ Roberts relieved the original Judge in Palmer back in 2011 to "expedite" the case....

Click to expand...

(mandamus available
where “a district court persistently and without reason refuses to adjudicate a case properly before it”). But on December 16, 2013, the D.C. Circuit
denied the petition. Although the relevant facts are simple and undisputed, and plaintiffs complain of a total prohibition of a fundamental right preserving an interest in self-defense, the court did not believe waiting over four years for a decision is “so egregious or unreasonable as to warrant” mandamus. In re Palmer, No. 13-5317 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 16, 2013).

Click to expand...