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

[swinokur]

Vagun71, welcome to MDS.

 

[ryan_j]

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

It isn't. However this covers the "we don't want to hear from Alan Gura anymore" argument since counsel is Evan Nappen, not Alan Gura.

 

[swinokur]

Is SCOTUS this petty?

 

[vagun71]

It isn't. However this covers the "we don't want to hear from Alan Gura anymore" argument since counsel is Evan Nappen, not Alan Gura.

And it is the first real chance for the NJSC to weigh in on the Second Amendment since Heller. That is kind of a big deal and why SCOTUS might be waiting.

 

[danb]

It isn't. However this covers the "we don't want to hear from Alan Gura anymore" argument since counsel is Evan Nappen, not Alan Gura.

Reading though the Drake briefs I started to wonder if the case was "muddled with other stuff" because the AG brief talked about the whole permitting scheme. I found them confusing. Do you think that's a possibility?

 

[vagun71]

Reading though the Drake briefs I started to wonder if the case was "muddled with other stuff" because the AG brief talked about the whole permitting scheme. I found them confusing. Do you think that's a possibility?

Yes. And all the more reason to let the NJSC have a shot at the issue first.

 

[Inigoes]

Is SCOTUS this petty?

Appears so! Doesn't it?

 

[danb]

Yes. And all the more reason to let the NJSC have a shot at the issue first.

Is there something specific that stuck out as muddling the case?

 

[Gryphon]

I started to post earlier with my thoughts and speculation (upon being disappointed again), but pulled it because there are just too many options and too many variables. The whole process with SCOTUS, i.e. Woollard, Drake, and all the others in past and present line up, is worse than getting sucked into watching "Lost" for two seasons only to find out there really was no plot (or ending) to begin with, and the writers were just making sh*t up week by week to keep you on the hook until they eventually ran out of material.

 

[ryan_j]

Appears so! Doesn't it?

I wouldn't say they are petty, but it could be that they don't want all the groundbreaking decisions coming from one lawyer?

 

[Inigoes]

I wouldn't say they are petty, but it could be that they don't want all the groundbreaking decisions coming from one lawyer?

How does shallow sound?

 

[Mr H]

I think someone touched on it earlier, but I'm beginning to think that there is a pattern emerging, where SCOTUS is not looking to get into interpretations and applications of State Law at the local level, especially where there is no compelling National interest.

There is now no state that is "no issue"... all the rest is interpretation for the states to decide, until the splits get to a point where they would have no choice but to intervene.

As for National Issue...

Would Moore be the best to use as a recent supporting case?

 

[Inigoes]

I think someone touched on it earlier, but I'm beginning to think that there is a pattern emerging, where SCOTUS is not looking to get into interpretations and applications of State Law at the local level, especially where there is no compelling National interest.

There is now no state that is "no issue"... all the rest is interpretation for the states to decide, until the splits get to a point where they would have no choice but to intervene.

As for National Issue...

Would Moore be the best to use as a recent supporting case?

HI is practically no issue.

 

[ryan_j]

NJ is practically no issue. 1195 permits excluding retired police.

 

[Mr H]

Fully aware of HI and NJ's reality, thus, the quotes...

I'm speaking from a technical perspective.

 

[Inigoes]

Fully aware of HI and NJ's reality, thus, the quotes...

I'm speaking from a technical perspective.

NJ court's added the good cause by mandate. Purely from a law standpoint, no NJ laws were repealed.

HI has the exceptional circumstance written into the law. Once the Baker case get's remanded back to the lower court, the law will be struck down.

 

[danb]

I started to post earlier with my thoughts and speculation (upon being disappointed again), but pulled it because there are just too many options and too many variables. The whole process with SCOTUS, i.e. Woollard, Drake, and all the others in past and present line up, is worse than getting sucked into watching "Lost" for two seasons only to find out there really was no plot (or ending) to begin with, and the writers were just making sh*t up week by week to keep you on the hook until they eventually ran out of material.

True, but we got much closer than ever with several relists (they denied Embody outright). The fact that all the cert grants come from the relist pool now, strongly suggests that they wanted to take the case but found something in the due diligence that made it a worse than expected vehicle. I wonder what it could be.

 

[DefenderOfConservatism]

The Republicans could easily have pushed through national carry reciprocity and federal gun preemption when they controlled Congress and the White House from 2000-2006. They chose not to. They are interested in only posturing, and it will remain that way unless we force them to be responsible.

 

[DC-W]

Sucks, but SCOTUS could have accepted it and ruled against us completely. That'd be far, far worse.

 

[ironpony]

Is there another date to wait for, is it Monday again?