ANJRPC v Grewal Cert Petition

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!
  • jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Another Paul Clement case I see...

    He is the counsel of record for the petition. David Thompson (Cooper and Kirk) litigated the preliminary injunction in the circuit court, while John Sweeny (Bradley) litigated the merits in the circuit court
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,359
    SoMD / West PA
    I do not see cert being approved. The SCOTUS has been avoiding technical 2A cases. They want the bigger questions, IMHO.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    I do not see cert being approved. The SCOTUS has been avoiding technical 2A cases. They want the bigger questions, IMHO.

    My prediction-it’ll go to conference and then not a peep (no re lists no nothing) until NYSRPA is handed down.
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    I think NJ inadvertently tee'd up the perfect case for magazines.
    Gerwal can pontificate about ARs and 30 round magazines or drums, but Clement can stick to pistols going from 15 to 10 rounds in the home to carry the day.

    It also gives Roberts an out to claim it's a Takings issue and that they do not need to reach the 2A issue...
     

    Decoy

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 2, 2007
    4,926
    Dystopia
    24 states urge Supreme Court to take case challenging NJ large-capacity magazine ban

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/states-urge-supreme-court-case-challenging-nj-magazine-ban

    giphy.gif
     

    JMangle

    Handsome Engineer
    May 11, 2008
    816
    Mississippi
    Nj has waived their response. Pretty sure scotus will ask for a reply soon.

    Lawyer folks - why does it matter? I could care less what NJ says. And if they don't want to make an argument, I really don't care about that either.

    Does SCOTUS just want the 'i's dotted?
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Lawyer folks - why does it matter? I could care less what NJ says. And if they don't want to make an argument, I really don't care about that either.

    Does SCOTUS just want the 'i's dotted?

    Yes, however, if the court doesn't ask for a response then the case is almost sure to be denied outright. The response request indicates a level of interest.

    Also, since they already agreed to hear another 2A case, it's in our interest to have this case be sent back down to the lower courts for a re-do with new guidance from the case they decide (NYSRPA).
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    This case will be denied cert on both points. There is no self-defense damage, ie, the core right, and all one has to do is register their 15rd magazines, so there's no valid taking claim. Big waste of money, though I'm sure Clement could care less.


    No. 20-1507

    In the Supreme Court of the United States

    ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY RIFLE &PISTOL CLUBS,INC.;AND BLAKE ELLMAN Petitioners,
    v.
    ANDREW J.BRUCK, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY, ET. AL., Respondents.

    ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

    BRIEF IN OPPOSITION



    "The Act gave owners of the affected subset of magazines 180 days to comply with the new limit. It also provided multiple avenues for them to come into compliance. First, all owners could “[t]ransfer the ... magazine to any person or firm lawfully entitled to own or possess that firearm or magazine.” Second, owners could “[r]ender the ... magazine inoperable or permanently modify a large capacity magazine to accept 10 rounds or less.” Third, they could “[v]oluntarily surrender ... the magazine.” N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-19.And finally, owners of firearms with magazine capacities of more than ten rounds that were “incapable of being modified to accommodate 10 or less rounds” just had to register them within a year. See id., § 2C:39-20(a). Thus, “a citizen who owns a gun, thirty rounds of ammunition, and two fifteen-round magazines prior to the LCM law’s enactment will be permitted to retain his gun, ammunition, and three ten-round magazines. The LCM law restricts the amount of ammunition one magazine can hold.” Pet. App. 122."
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    This case will be denied cert on both points. There is no self-defense damage, ie, the core right, and all one has to do is register their 15rd magazines, so there's no valid taking claim. Big waste of money, though I'm sure Clement could care less.


    No. 20-1507

    In the Supreme Court of the United States

    ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY RIFLE &PISTOL CLUBS,INC.;AND BLAKE ELLMAN Petitioners,
    v.
    ANDREW J.BRUCK, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY, ET. AL., Respondents.

    ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

    BRIEF IN OPPOSITION



    "The Act gave owners of the affected subset of magazines 180 days to comply with the new limit. It also provided multiple avenues for them to come into compliance. First, all owners could “[t]ransfer the ... magazine to any person or firm lawfully entitled to own or possess that firearm or magazine.” Second, owners could “[r]ender the ... magazine inoperable or permanently modify a large capacity magazine to accept 10 rounds or less.” Third, they could “[v]oluntarily surrender ... the magazine.” N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-19.And finally, owners of firearms with magazine capacities of more than ten rounds that were “incapable of being modified to accommodate 10 or less rounds” just had to register them within a year. See id., § 2C:39-20(a). Thus, “a citizen who owns a gun, thirty rounds of ammunition, and two fifteen-round magazines prior to the LCM law’s enactment will be permitted to retain his gun, ammunition, and three ten-round magazines. The LCM law restricts the amount of ammunition one magazine can hold.” Pet. App. 122."

    You continue to demonstrate a lack of understanding about standing (ie damages). The plaintiff/petitioners certainly do have standing as it was not an issue raised by the lower courts or the defendants.

    This case is just like all of the other 2A cases that have been brought. They complain that the lower court is not following Heller/2A, but don't really articulate why. They may deny cert for the same reason they denied all of the other cases. They did not really articulate why the lower courts keep getting it wrong.

    I suspect that SCOTUS may begin to hold cases in anticipation of a NYSRPA v Bruen opinion. This case may be one of these cases that they hold. SCOTUS granted five cases today and will release the denials on Monday. There is a conference next Friday 10/8 so we will also find out on Monday if they are going to start holding cases.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    You continue to demonstrate a lack of understanding about standing (ie damages). The plaintiff/petitioners certainly do have standing as it was not an issue raised by the lower courts or the defendants.

    That's funny, as that's exactly what the defendants are trying to convince the court. That being, that the plaintiffs are not having their 2nd Amendment rights violated by their magazine capacity limitation. And they're not, as they can still defend themselves with a 10rd magazine. Because they can exercise self defense, the core right protected under the 2nd Amendment, as far as the SCOTUS is concerned, there isn't an injury to ones constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But, you obviously think there's a damage, so please explain exactly what that damage is. How are plaintiffs not able to exercise their right to self defense with 10rd magazines?


    This case is just like all of the other 2A cases that have been brought. They complain that the lower court is not following Heller/2A, but don't really articulate why. They may deny cert for the same reason they denied all of the other cases. They did not really articulate why the lower courts keep getting it wrong.

    Think as you will, I'm siding with Justice Brandeis and that isn't why they denied all those other cases. Yup, it's a complicated explanation isn't it. Commonly used magazines, that are a function of commonly used firearms.


    I suspect that SCOTUS may begin to hold cases in anticipation of a NYSRPA v Bruen opinion. This case may be one of these cases that they hold. SCOTUS granted five cases today and will release the denials on Monday. There is a conference next Friday 10/8 so we will also find out on Monday if they are going to start holding cases.

    This case has nothing in common with the license application case, and here, they'll deny certiorari for lack of a constitutional injury on both points.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,947
    Marylandstan
    It's a complicated explanation isn't it. \
    Commonly used magazines, that are a function of commonly used firearms.

    They'll deny certiorari for lack of a constitutional injury on both points. No, don't think so!
    U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez did rule!

    “public safety interests may not eviscerate the Second Amendment,”

    10 round magazines DO Limit the 2nd Amendment. Again,"Shall Not be Infringed".

    Judge Benitez ruled that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are “arms” under the U.S. Constitution. He also said the California law: “burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state.”

    http://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/

    https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...f-John-Cutonilli-ISO-Plaintiffs-Appellees.pdf

    READ.. Jcutonilli "Conclusion".
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,918
    Messages
    7,258,691
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom