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

[danb]

Why is it so hard to interpret what the meaning of 14 words placed in a specific order is? and require 5 specific judges to perform this? Obviously those 5 are shirking their duty...

This judicial activism has got to stop.

For just a second, let's put on our tin foil hats and look at a bigger picture... What changed since the last relist or the one before that?

Nothing. Rank speculation, but they may have done due diligence and come away unconvinced that they could reach the question or prevail on the merits given the specifics of NJ law.

 

[Patrick]

A sour disappointment, but there is some sugar in here for lemonade.

Decisions like this make Congressional action in our favor much more likely, because it energizes our community into action. The number of voters who work for self-defense civil rights nationwide has exploded the past three years, and grows more every day. This is fueled by a sense that government is letting us down, or actively looking to extinguish our civil rights.

Universal Carry requires action, not just defense. The chorus of pissed voters nationwide can force action to protect our rights, affirmatively. Congress has always played lip service to us in the past, and done some remedial defense on gun issues - stopping an AWB was an easy thing for them to do, for instance. Today we are more energized than yesterday, and that means we are closer to getting our rights protected by law, everywhere.

There are some solid 2A lawmakers in Congress, and quite a few who play simple lip-service. Now is the time to press all of them into supporting Universal Carry. Even those who play lip-service will go along to get along, if we press hard enough.

I have said here that I want the court to answer this question -- and that I would accept the answer even if it didn't go our way, because that would probably be the kind of tipping point we need to fix this nationally. One way or the other we will defend these rights - and we have multiple ways to do it. We don't need to wait years for SCOTUS to act - we can all start working now. Collectively we can fix this through Congress.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Thanks. I'll have to come up with a good introduction. I really think anything to defend the Constitution from here on will have to come from Congress. The Courts won't do it. I also fully expect them to defend the warrantless searches of all smartphones. We need a Constitutional Convention, now.

Your first post was a good intro. . Just make a intro and move on...

Welcome to MDS.

 

[Jerzee Transplant]

Not necessarily. A case from any state supreme court can be appealed to the US Supreme Court. We have one in NJ. This issue can reach them eventually. Let's hope it's soon because the Heller five aren't going to be there much longer due to age.

Would such a case go through the whole federal appeals process (dist/ circuit/ chance for enbanc) or could SCOTUS take directly?

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Would such a case go through the whole federal appeals process (dist/ circuit/ chance for enbanc) or could SCOTUS take directly?

State high court decisions are directly petitioned for final review by SCOTUS.

See "Williams vs. Md."

 

[esqappellate]

A sour disappointment, but there is some sugar in here for lemonade.

Decisions like this make Congressional action in our favor much more likely, because it energizes our community into action. The number of voters who work for self-defense civil rights nationwide has exploded the past three years, and grows more every day. This is fueled by a sense that government is letting us down, or actively looking to extinguish our civil rights.

Universal Carry requires action, not just defense. The chorus of pissed voters nationwide can force action to protect our rights, affirmatively. Congress has always played lip service to us in the past, and done some remedial defense on gun issues - stopping an AWB was an easy thing for them to do, for instance. Today we are more energized than yesterday, and that means we are closer to getting our rights protected by law, everywhere.

There are some solid 2A lawmakers in Congress, and quite a few who play simple lip-service. Now is the time to press all of them into supporting Universal Carry. Even those who play lip-service will go along to get along, if we press hard enough.

I have said here that I want the court to answer this question -- and that I would accept the answer even if it didn't go our way, because that would probably be the kind of tipping point we need to fix this nationally. One way or the other we will defend these rights - and we have multiple ways to do it. We don't need to wait years for SCOTUS to act - we can all start working now. Collectively we can fix this through Congress.

I think that is correct. We got carry in National Parks from Congress. We got FOPA from Congress. National carry might doable with the right actors, after this next election

 

[Jerzee Transplant]

Any thoughts on SCOTUS waiting (ahem)for Palmer the last true no issue (Yes I understand May Issue is defacto No Issue)

 

[Southwest Chuck]

Two possibilities:

1.) Deny Drake, knowing you have Peruta coming one way or the other. Wait to see how things play out in the 9th.

2.) There are not 5 people on the court who would vote to overturn Drake.

Both are valid and are not mutually exclusive. I think 2 (the 5th vote, anyway), is waiting for 1.

 

[danb]

Obama will veto national carry. Plain and simple. As will Billary. Not only that, the National Carry bills I have seen only make reciprocity a must and do not force states to be shall issue.

 

[press1280]

Would such a case go through the whole federal appeals process (dist/ circuit/ chance for enbanc) or could SCOTUS take directly?

Scotus can take a state supreme court (perhaps even a state appeals case if the state supremes deny review) directly. I think we may need to have more cases in the pipeline, since scotus is obviously reluctant.

 

[Mike OTDP]

Collectively we can fix this through Congress.

If anything, I would prefer a Congressional solution. It's safer. SCOTUS is really obstinate about reversing itself when they screw something up.

 

[Patrick]

Obama will veto national carry. Plain and simple. As will Billary. Not only that, the National Carry bills I have seen only make reciprocity a must and do not force states to be shall issue.

We got National Parks and AMTRAK not via a stand-alone bill, but through amendments on "must sign" bills that Obama requested (financial bills, etc.).

Universal Carry will pass when it is attached to an authorization (spending) bill that Obama must have to meet some requirement he has. I could scheme about a dozen ways to make this happen, where a veto would harm him more than letting Universal Carry pass.

I say that if Congress is serious about pushing this, they will make it a rider on a must-sign bill. I would be truly disappointed to see the "Universal Carry Act of 2015" get introduced, because there would not be enough votes to override an Obama veto. If Congress really intends to fix this, they had better do something more than showmanship (which a standalone bill would be).

A standalone bill would rile up the red meat and get out voters, but not get put into actual law due to the veto. Sorry to be so cynical, but we can no longer talk generalities with our representatives. We need to be detailed in our expectations. Our expectation is that they will do whatever it takes to get Universal Carry into practice.

Before we get too far, we should get to another thread. This one is over, anyway.

 

[vagun71]

This is my theory on why Drake was denied

Not necessarily. A case from any state supreme court can be appealed to the US Supreme Court. We have one in NJ. This issue can reach them eventually. Let's hope it's soon because the Heller five aren't going to be there much longer due to age.

The case is: In the Matter of the Application of Richard Pantano. I think that SCOTUS wants to give the NJSC a chance to weigh-in first.

 

[BattleCarrySabot]

Just want to say thanks to everyone on this thread. I've been watching it for a long time now and wouldn't be very well informed about it if you hadn't centralized so much info.

 

[T'Challa]

SCOTUS is afraid to take a carry case. IMO, the courts have become politicized. Getting them to take a carry case is like getting MD general assembly to be shall issue. Congress may be the best hope of carry because Maryland is not going for it.

 

[ryan_j]

We got National Parks and AMTRAK not via a stand-alone bill, but through amendments on "must sign" bills that Obama requested (financial bills, etc.).

Universal Carry will pass when it is attached to an authorization (spending) bill that Obama must have to meet some requirement he has. I could scheme about a dozen ways to make this happen, where a veto would harm him more than letting Universal Carry pass.

I say that if Congress is serious about pushing this, they will make it a rider on a must-sign bill. I would be truly disappointed to see the "Universal Carry Act of 2015" get introduced, because there would not be enough votes to override an Obama veto. If Congress really intends to fix this, they had better do something more than showmanship (which a standalone bill would be).

A standalone bill would rile up the red meat and get out voters, but not get put into actual law due to the veto. Sorry to be so cynical, but we can no longer talk generalities with our representatives. We need to be detailed in our expectations. Our expectation is that they will do whatever it takes to get Universal Carry into practice.

Before we get too far, we should get to another thread. This one is over, anyway.

Tack it on to a minimum wage increase bill.

 

[ryan_j]

The case is: In the Matter of the Application of Richard Pantano. I think that SCOTUS wants to give the NJSC a chance to weigh-in first.

Of course. And this case has been granted certiorari by the NJ Supreme Court, and the plaintiff has submitted his brief. We're waiting for the state to respond.

 

[danb]

Of course. And this case has been granted certiorari by the NJ Supreme Court, and the plaintiff has submitted his brief. We're waiting for the state to respond.

Why is this case materially different than the one they just denied?

 

[press1280]

Of course. And this case has been granted certiorari by the NJ Supreme Court, and the plaintiff has submitted his brief. We're waiting for the state to respond.

Which makes me wonder what the NJSC is waiting for. IIRC, Pantano briefed in January, leaving the state months to reply. Not only that but almost all cases granted before and around the time Pantano was (7-19-13) have already been heard. So were THEY waiting for Drake?

 

[vagun71]

Of course. And this case has been granted certiorari by the NJ Supreme Court, and the plaintiff has submitted his brief. We're waiting for the state to respond.

Right. And SCOTUS probably reviewed the case before making a decision in DRAKE. Because DRAKE hinges, at least in part, on the construction of and a historical analysis of NJ state law, SCOTUS probably wants to defer to the NJSC for now.

They will take a carry case within the next 2 years. If, as some believe, SCOTUS does not want to extend the RTKBA beyond the home, then they will take a case so they can say so explicitly.

They want a clean case where the issue of whether the 2nd Amendment extends beyond the home is not muddied by other stuff.