Ciolek v. NJ (CCW)

press1280 · Aug 15, 2019

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-114.html

This is a pro se case, the petition for Scotus seems rather short. NJ waived their response however Scotus asked for a response only days later. Oddly Scotus hasn't asked for a response (and NJ hasn't even waived) in the non pro se case of Cheeseman.

danb · Aug 15, 2019

yeah I dont get it either.

jcutonilli · Aug 15, 2019

press1280 said:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-114.html

This is a pro se case, the petition for Scotus seems rather short. NJ waived their response however Scotus asked for a response only days later. Oddly Scotus hasn't asked for a response (and NJ hasn't even waived) in the non pro se case of Cheeseman.

Maybe SCOTUS needs more than a day to determine if they want a response. It took them 5 days to determine that they wanted a response in this case. In Caetano, it took them 11 days.

press1280 · Aug 15, 2019

jcutonilli said:
Maybe SCOTUS needs more than a day to determine if they want a response. It took them 5 days to determine that they wanted a response in this case. In Caetano, it took them 11 days.

It's possible not all cases go on the same time track. NJ filed no response nor waived it in Cheeseman, so they are 2 weeks late in that case.

Here, they filed the waiver mere days after the petition was filed. Very unlike a state's attorney to file so early, even if it is only a waiver.

danb · Aug 15, 2019

jcutonilli said:
Maybe SCOTUS needs more than a day to determine if they want a response. It took them 5 days to determine that they wanted a response in this case. In Caetano, it took them 11 days.

What I dont get is why the NJ AG failed to file a waiver in one case (Cheeseman) but not this.

jcutonilli · Aug 15, 2019

press1280 said:
It's possible not all cases go on the same time track. NJ filed no response nor waived it in Cheeseman, so they are 2 weeks late in that case.

Here, they filed the waiver mere days after the petition was filed. Very unlike a state's attorney to file so early, even if it is only a waiver.

I suspect all cases go on the same track. They wait for a response, then review the case to determine if they want put it on the discuss list. They usually request a response for those cases that they may want to put on the discuss list. I suspect they need to wait to determine if a wavier was received before finishing the review because any response will help them determine the answer. In Cheeseman they likely waited a few more weeks to ensure that there was no response so the review will be delayed because of this. In this case the reply was given quickly so they could then review the case earlier to determine if they want do put it on the discuss list, which is what happened.

jcutonilli · Aug 15, 2019

danb said:
What I dont get is why the NJ AG failed to file a waiver in one case (Cheeseman) but not this.

Sometimes people drop the ball.

jcutonilli · Aug 15, 2019

danb said:
What I dont get is why the NJ AG failed to file a waiver in one case (Cheeseman) but not this.

Maybe the AG mixed up the two cases and intended to send the Cheeseman response, but sent it for this case instead.

Kharn · Aug 15, 2019

danb said:
What I dont get is why the NJ AG failed to file a waiver in one case (Cheeseman) but not this.

The case with appointed counsel goes first (pro se are appointed counsel after cert grant) and establishes crappy precedent vs the heavily backed case they intentionally sandbagged is held for GVR.

danb · Aug 15, 2019

Kharn said:
The case with appointed counsel goes first (pro se are appointed counsel after cert grant) and establishes crappy precedent vs the heavily backed case they intentionally sandbagged is held for GVR.

Not sure I follow what you mean.

press1280 · Aug 16, 2019

danb said:
Not sure I follow what you mean.

Perhaps he means NJ is trying to speed the pro se case along, hoping that it gets heard over the more professionally run case?
At this point I doubt it matters with the growing number of carry cases already being held by Scotus.

Kharn · Aug 16, 2019

press1280 said:
Perhaps he means NJ is trying to speed the pro se case along, hoping that it gets heard over the more professionally run case?
At this point I doubt it matters with the growing number of carry cases already being held by Scotus.

Correct on both counts.

Mike OTDP · Aug 16, 2019

In any event, you can bet that the first case that actually gets heard will have amicus briefs as far as the eye can see. And the main brief/oral arguments would probably be taken over by counsel provided by SAF or the NRA. Alan Gura, Paul Clement, or both.

danb · Aug 16, 2019

The US Solicitor General requested 10 minutes at oral for NYSRPA. I would expect a similar request for any other 2A case that the Supreme Court grants. Any case that the Supreme Court grants will be well argued on our side.

danb · Aug 16, 2019

Kharn said:
Correct on both counts.

press1280 said:
Perhaps he means NJ is trying to speed the pro se case along, hoping that it gets heard over the more professionally run case?
At this point I doubt it matters with the growing number of carry cases already being held by Scotus.

In Cheeseman, the counsel of record (David Jensen) is also on the Gould case as co-counsel. I thought Jensen was on another of the cases as well.

Its not clear why NJ would let Cheeseman slip since the petition says:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-27/104463/20190628130131199_Cheeseman Petition.pdf

In this Petition, we explain that—if this Court is indeed ready to resolve the lower courts’ conflict—New Jersey is the ideal State for this Court to review. It ishighly unlikely that the “need” requirement will change, as New Jersey law firmly embraces it, and change would require legislative action that is highly unlikely to occur. Moreover, New Jersey laws govern the general act of carrying a gun, not just the specific act of concealed carry, so potential distinctions based on concealment will not unduly complicate this Court’s review. Finally, there is no realistic possibility that the Supreme Court of New Jersey will take action to change the substantive parameters of the “need”requirement—to the extent it even could—as this very court turned down the opportunity to review the case at bar not even two months ago. This Petition is also the ideal vehicle for this Court to review New Jersey’s “need”-based scheme. This case was fully litigated in the courts below.

One would think that in Cheeseman NJ would file a waiver or at least cut and paste their response in Rogers. Hard to fathom why NJ dropped this.

delaware_export · Aug 16, 2019

just curious here, that folks mention pro se cases get expedited treatment.

young v hawaii was pro se the ferst several of 8 years. why did it move so slowly? (until wolfwood got involved)

press1280 · Aug 16, 2019

delaware_export said:
just curious here, that folks mention pro se cases get expedited treatment.

young v hawaii was pro se the ferst several of 8 years. why did it move so slowly? (until wolfwood got involved)

Our theory was that NJ waived their response quickly so that the pro se case would move quicker. I don't think pro se cases would normally move faster or slower than regular cases.

As far as Young, that's the 9th circuit. Nuff said.....

danb · Aug 19, 2019

Response also requested in Cheeseman.

press1280 · Aug 24, 2019

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...ris County BIO Petition Aug 22 2019 EFile.pdf

The state (represented here by Morris County) has filed their response 2 weeks early, a rare occurrence. I can't help but wonder that they are moving quickly on this case for whatever reason.
The brief is more of the same we've come to expect from NJ. No split here since you can carry at a place of business and target ranges in NJ and you can't in DC (which I think isn't the case though I could be wrong). Also, the NJ courts have upheld "justifiable need" so no need for SCOTUS to intervene.......

motorcoachdoug · Aug 25, 2019

They do not want SCOTUS to hear the case at all for they are afraid they might be the case that does away with G&S and they really do not want that to happen..

Ciolek v. NJ (CCW)

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics