Sorry. All the excitement over cert for the NY case left me confused.
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:
Sorry. All the excitement over cert for the NY case left me confused.
krucam
Ultimate Member
NJ has waived their right to respond in this case. Something tells me it will be short lived as all any Justice has to do is give a "Response Requested"...
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
That being the case, Mark, why might NJ have done it? Perhaps a delaying tactic, but to what end?
There's a lot to this legal stuff that leaves me at loose ends.
My take is that it's partially a delay tactic, and maybe an attempt at downplaying the case. Their way of telling SCOTUS, "We aren't wasting our time with this so neither should you."
Kind of ballsy considering there's an undeniable split on the table. But I expect it from NJ.
Kind of ballsy considering there's an undeniable split on the table. But I expect it from NJ.
Pope414
Active Member
Here is a reach... Maybe they are afraid if they delay with Justice RBG in poor health they risk losing her vote to judge Amy Coney Barrett
Mods could you please delete this post I hit post by mistake ..thanks
Mods could you please delete this post I hit post by mistake ..thanks
Last edited:
Pope414
Active Member
Here is a reach... Maybe they are afraid if they delay with Justice RBG in poor health they risk losing her vote to judge Amy Coney Barrett . Does this put Rogers into confrence rotation?
Not sure what you mean by putting Rogers into conference rotation. All cases go to conference.
They should be afraid. RBG getting replaced by someone like Thomas Hardiman pretty much guarantees "justifiable need" is dead.
Not to mention that Herr Frosh and his minions at the MSP Lic Division would have a massive fit and go into a tail spin and rotate as well. Some of the DemoRATS in the MGA might have a MI as well. I wont name any names in the MGA but a lady from Monkey County and a couple of very senior members as well.....
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
That being the case, Mark, why might NJ have done it? Perhaps a delaying tactic, but to what end?
There's a lot to this legal stuff that leaves me at loose ends.
Mostly because NJ AG is an idiot. The petition presents a square split in the circuits. That, by any measure, is NOT the kind of case that you waive a response as anyone who ever litigates in the SCT would have told them. They just sacrificed their credibility. A good thing.
danb
dont be a dumbass
For those who do not remember, Drake v Filko (Drake v Jerejian) (3rd circuit, NJ) was the one carry case that got relisted when Kennedy was on the court. Drake was an an obscenely bad opinion, pretty far out there. I always suspected that the court wanted to take it, but there were procedural or other issues with the case that prevented the court from taking it. It got relisted 3 times.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/drake-v-jerejian/
This was NJ response at the time: http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/NJ_AG_Brief_Opposing_Sup_Ct_.pdf
To be fair to NJ, I think that if they responded, much of their earlier response would be cut and paste. In their response they spent a lot of time arguing that the NJ law was "longstanding" so they probably will simply argue that bans on public carry are part of the history and tradition of the 2nd amendment.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/drake-v-jerejian/
This was NJ response at the time: http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/NJ_AG_Brief_Opposing_Sup_Ct_.pdf
To be fair to NJ, I think that if they responded, much of their earlier response would be cut and paste. In their response they spent a lot of time arguing that the NJ law was "longstanding" so they probably will simply argue that bans on public carry are part of the history and tradition of the 2nd amendment.
krucam
Ultimate Member
And that their own state court gave approval AND more circuits agreed with them. So it must be constitutional.
Pope414
Active Member
I'm sorry I may have misspoke. What I ment by rotation is passed around to be concidered for cert. In confrence
Also remember N.J A.G office are some sneaky underhanded bastards. Remember when Drake was headed to the SCOTUS they sent a case to the NJSC ( Pantelano) then argued to the SCOTUS that a identical case was before the NJSC and because of that cert should be denied...and when SCOTUS denied cert a few weeks later the NJSC dismisses Pantelano only saying it was improvidently granted and dismissed the case.
....I wonder if the SCOTUS will remember how NJ played them for fools with Drake ....they were pretty proud of the okie-doke they pulled off to dodge Drake..guess they never thought Rogers(Drake jr) would bring them back to the SCOTUS
Also remember N.J A.G office are some sneaky underhanded bastards. Remember when Drake was headed to the SCOTUS they sent a case to the NJSC ( Pantelano) then argued to the SCOTUS that a identical case was before the NJSC and because of that cert should be denied...and when SCOTUS denied cert a few weeks later the NJSC dismisses Pantelano only saying it was improvidently granted and dismissed the case.
....I wonder if the SCOTUS will remember how NJ played them for fools with Drake ....they were pretty proud of the okie-doke they pulled off to dodge Drake..guess they never thought Rogers(Drake jr) would bring them back to the SCOTUS
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Tell us what you REALLY think, Esq....
Sometimes, it's so obvious that only plain language will do.....
Pope414
Active Member
I can't agree more Esq. that's why I referred to the NJAG as a "sneaky underhanded bastards" ....wouldn't it be poetic justice after all the underhanded shit the New Jersey attorney general has done that it would be New Jersey torpedoes justifiable need / good cause
- Aug 29, 2016
- 763
I'm okay with justifiable need for guns as long as we get to impose the same thing on women killing their babies and men buggering other men in the arse.
What was it Shakespeare said about methinking thou dost protest too much? This topic seems to be REALLY on your mind. Like, all the time. We get it. You're scared of it or something. Maybe you can let it go for your next dozen posts or so?
My apologies, mods, if this is too personal a reference to another member's style. But it has to be said (again).
danb
dont be a dumbass
no, it needs to be said.
This is Maryland, there are lot of gun owners who are gay or lesbian, some law enforcement. I know quite a few myself. MDS needs to inclusive or will die. Simply not enough neckbeards and OFWG left.
Gay bashing will not be tolerated here. Everyone is welcome at MDS. Bye. Jerk.
Pope414
Active Member
Esq. I just had to laugh. I clicked on the link to the waiver and noticed the attorney representing the state of N.J had some trouble spelling January. When my daughter was 5 she had better penmanship. Now I know why they declined ....the attorney general ran out of crayons .
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
-
Montgomery County Gun Buyback: Interfaith GVP Network Aims to Hit $30,000 Goal by April 20 (7 Viewers)- Latest: RFBfromDE
-
-
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
Sign up on our online store and earn 1000 points- Started by J_Gunslinger
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-