NJ AG asks Supremes NOT to take on Drake

[JackDaWack 2,895]

what is the reason for the 2a protecting firearms rights in your home? why wouldn't it be the same for outside the home? Does your right begin and end at the door to your house?

[Fred2 367]

what is the reason for the 2a protecting firearms rights in your home? why wouldn't it be the same for outside the home? Does your right begin and end at the door to your house?

The founding fathers were very concerned that the US would be attacked by a hostile government, and wanted to make sure that we were able to fight back from the safety of our homes.

[ryan_j 0]

The supreme Court of PA (I'm not sure about DE) I believe has already ruled carrying a firearm in public is protected by the state constitution

 

So just because the 3rd ruled its not by the 2nd amendment that won't change a thing in PA because their constitution supposedly grants more protection

 

Am I wrong I'm thinking this?

 

You're correct.

 

The PA state supreme court ruled based on the PA constitution. 

This is why most states have nothing to worry about. Their state constitutions either have RKBA or the state itself has laws that have popular support, or both of those things. 

[ryan_j 0]

what is the reason for the 2a protecting firearms rights in your home? why wouldn't it be the same for outside the home? Does your right begin and end at the door to your house?

 

Especially since the 2A refers to "a well regulated militia." Can't do militia stuff in my home. 

[Big Jay 0]

So where exactly do we stand on this? When will SCOTUS decide whether or not to hear the case? I try keeping up with this but i hear something different all the time.

[n4p226r 105]

i heard between april and june.  oral arguments would be much later than that.  decision would be later than that.  then NJ gets like 17 years to come up with a plan. and by then walking dead really happens so it doesn't matter

[ryan_j 0]

It will probably be in conference of the 28th and we will know the following Monday.

[Jeff 13]

Thought I looked on scotusblog and it wasn't listed for the week of the 28th.

[Big Jay 0]

Just checked. It's under "Petitions not set for conference"

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/petitions-were-watching/

 

EDIT: FYI For those following this, it's known as Drake v. Jerejian

 

This is interesting piece for those who haven't seen it

 

http://www.cato.org/publications/legal-briefs/drake-v-jerejian

[stevek 0]

Just curious…why is nobody taking Christie to task for this? She is his AG, so presumably this brief has his tacit approval. 

[maintenanceguy 510]

Since this case in under the SCOTUS "petitions not set for conference" list, does that mean it's not scheduled yet or that they won't even hear whether to hear the case.

 

I personally don't think it will be heard.   1) The constitution is so absolutely clear that there is a guaranteed right to both keep AND to bear arms.   Any court that says otherwise is intentionally lying.   2) The justices, like lots of other people might be fine with people having a gun at home but not out in public.   There may be enough of them that feel this way that they would rather just not deal with that question.

[Vlad G 345]

Just curious…why is nobody taking Christie to task for this? She is his AG, so presumably this brief has his tacit approval.

Because we can't, if we want to be logically consistent and not be called hypocrites. The executive branch is required to enforce the law passed the legislative, even if it disagrees with it (which they probably don't). That includes the AG defending the law in court. Doing anything else would be just like how the White House ignores so many laws on the books right now and we complain about that.

[n4p226r 105]

Just curious…why is nobody taking Christie to task for this? She is his AG, so presumably this brief has his tacit approval. 

to be fair.  it is their job to defend the law even if they don't agree with it.  its not their fault they came up with a bullshit explanation why the law is constitutional and the judges agreed.  its the judges fault

[n4p226r 105]

Because we can't, if we want to be logically consistent and not be called hypocrites. The executive branch is required to enforce the law passed the legislative, even if it disagrees with it (which they probably don't). That includes the AG defending the law in court. Doing anything else would be just like how the White House ignores so many laws on the books right now and we complain about that.

Exactly. Unfortunately one of the lower courts didn't side with us. Then if they didn't appeal we would really know.

[Big Jay 0]

Since this case in under the SCOTUS "petitions not set for conference" list, does that mean it's not scheduled yet or that they won't even hear whether to hear the case.

 

I personally don't think it will be heard.   1) The constitution is so absolutely clear that there is a guaranteed right to both keep AND to bear arms.   Any court that says otherwise is intentionally lying.   2) The justices, like lots of other people might be fine with people having a gun at home but not out in public.   There may be enough of them that feel this way that they would rather just not deal with that question.

 

A lot of people are saying it won't be heard because SCOTUS shot down 3 other petitions prior to this. However, these three petitions were:

 

NRA Petitiioning that handguns could be sold to persons under 21

Petition that handguns shouldn't be restricted to purchase in ones home state

NRA Petitioning that persons under 21 should be allowed to carry a pistol in Texas

 

However, if you look at the above 3, it's all about acquiring and allowing new people to obtain handguns.

 

I personally think Drake v. Jerejian is a much broader petition.

 

I think it stands a BETTER chance of being heard vs. the prior 3. Do i think it will be heard? I'm skeptical. After all...we live in NJ.

 

And i think petition not set for conference just means they haven't scheduled a conference to present it for decision on hearing yet. My best guess, at least.

[Vlad G 345]

A lot of people are saying it won't be heard because SCOTUS shot down 3 other petitions prior to this. However, these three petitions were:

 

NRA Petitiioning that handguns could be sold to persons under 21

Petition that handguns shouldn't be restricted to purchase in ones home state

NRA Petitioning that persons under 21 should be allowed to carry a pistol in Texas

 

However, if you look at the above 3, it's all about acquiring and allowing new people to obtain handguns.

 

 

Not only that but the age thing is actually a broader problem better addressed under a different context (ie: what the hell is an adult if you can vote and go to war but not drink, or own a gun, etc).  For the home state purchase there is actually a bigger case moving through. This one only affected DC which a strange bird, The Abramski case covers some of the same ground and it is far more interesting and far reaching. 

[ryan_j 0]

Thought I looked on scotusblog and it wasn't listed for the week of the 28th.

 

Probably not on the 28th. It will be soon though, early to mid April at latest is what the general consensus is. I doubt it will go all the way to June unless the court decides to hold it over. 

[ryan_j 0]

I would say that it is likely but not certain that Drake will be granted Certiorari.

 

The two NRA cases were in conference just after the Peruta decision was published. Their petitions didn't mention Peruta, so it is likely that it wasn't even considered. 

 

But with Drake, we have a solid, deep, established circuit split, with both sides acknowledging Peruta. 

 

The biggest wildcard to me is whether the court will consider that no mandate has been issued in Peruta, due to the fact that it has been stayed pending motions to intervene and a possible en banc review. But as it is, the decision stands and is precedential... Richards in Yolo county, CA was the first decision to be ruled on in light of Peruta. 

 

So I'd say there is a good chance but I'm not going to go out and say that it will definitely be granted. 

 

I'm really interested to see the reply brief from SAF/ANJRPC. 

[ryan_j 0]

Not only that but the age thing is actually a broader problem better addressed under a different context (ie: what the hell is an adult if you can vote and go to war but not drink, or own a gun, etc).  For the home state purchase there is actually a bigger case moving through. This one only affected DC which a strange bird, The Abramski case covers some of the same ground and it is far more interesting and far reaching. 

 

Pretty much. I am wondering what the court will rule. There are two "gun" cases in the court this term - Abramski and Castleman.

[Newtonian 453]

what is the reason for the 2a protecting firearms rights in your home? why wouldn't it be the same for outside the home? Does your right begin and end at the door to your house?

This is an excellent point, one I'd not thought of. Brilliant.

 

Think about it. Assuming we could own guns at all, what would be the point of having to specify the right to kill some motherfukcer who breaks in? 

 

Plus there's always the plain language "...to keep and BEAR arms." Were they describing ursa major, ursa minor, or something to do with carrying?

[JackDaWack 2,895]

This is an excellent point, one I'd not thought of. Brilliant.

 

Think about it. Assuming we could own guns at all, what would be the point of having to specify the right to kill some motherfukcer who breaks in? 

 

Plus there's always the plain language "...to keep and BEAR arms." Were they describing ursa major, ursa minor, or something to do with carrying?

I myself just had this epiphany, sitting down reading through the thread.. something so simple and strait forward i really hadn't given much thought...

 

I had a huge write up but in fear of the point being lost I just hit the nail. If Heller truely states that you have a right to own firearms in the home, it's really nothing more then a statement you are allowed to carry a firearm at home or on your property for protection. And i thought to myself, how would your rights change by simply stepping off your property? What Ties your right to the confinements of you property? There is no viable answer here, the justification is always a public safety issue.. but with today's statistics you can't even prove its a public safety issue, and it would be difficult to argue how the heller decision wouldn't apply to all open space.

[Newtonian 453]

Since this case in under the SCOTUS "petitions not set for conference" list, does that mean it's not scheduled yet or that they won't even hear whether to hear the case.

 

I personally don't think it will be heard.   1) The constitution is so absolutely clear that there is a guaranteed right to both keep AND to bear arms.   Any court that says otherwise is intentionally lying.   2) The justices, like lots of other people might be fine with people having a gun at home but not out in public.   There may be enough of them that feel this way that they would rather just not deal with that question.

Good points. I estimated the chances of this being heard (i.e., that they want to do something about it) at 35-40%, if my memory serves me. If it's heard we're still not OK (a change from my previous post).

 

The reason for my pessimism is twofold. First, Roberts and Kennedy are untrustworty, they're wild cards. For all we know they might vote to take on this case solely for the thrill that lawyers get by wasting our money. Or they may be genuinely anti-2S. We don't know, especially with the guy who unilaterally passed Obamacare.

 

The second reason is that two of the justices who might vote pro-2A are, like me, of Italian heritage and raised in the NY/NJ area. Even though I attended a military school (the same one as Scalia) I grew up hating guns. It's a NY/LI/NJ thing, especially with guineas who want to distance themselves from the "criminal element" with which Americans of Italian descent are often associated.

 

More significantly, Jesuit high schools back in the day stressed "lex dura, sed lex" -- the law is tough, but it is the law. This doesn't affect Alito, who apparently attended a public school, but I guarantee you it still resonates with Scalia. It's in our blood, in our bones. Antonin's majority opinion in the Kelo case suggests quite strongly that he is not a libertarian, not even the strict constructionist many of his acolytes proclaim him to be.

 

So bottom line is don't get your hopes up. A supreme court decision that forces NJ to follow, within a timeframe relevant to a close-to-old-guy, the plain wording of the Second Amendment, is highly unlikely. 

 

OTOH the stars and planets could align favorably.

[Newtonian 453]

I myself just had this epiphany, sitting down reading through the thread.. something so simple and strait forward i really hadn't given much thought...

 

I had a huge write up but in fear of the point being lost I just hit the nail. If Heller truely states that you have a right to own firearms in the home, it's really nothing more then a statement you are allowed to carry a firearm at home or on your property for protection. And i thought to myself, how would your rights change by simply stepping off your property? What Ties your right to the confinements of you property? There is no viable answer here, the justification is always a public safety issue.. but with today's statistics you can't even prove its a public safety issue, and it would be difficult to argue how the heller decision wouldn't apply to all open space.

I understand what you're saying but remember, lawyers have made livings over hundreds of years by splitting hairs. A whole body of law has evolved around the premise that "a man's home is his castle," even if it's a pig sty.

[ryan_j 0]

I see you guys still love to wallow in pessimism. Must be a NJ thing.

[NJPatriot 0]

I would say that it is likely but not certain that Drake will be granted Certiorari.

 

The two NRA cases were in conference just after the Peruta decision was published. Their petitions didn't mention Peruta, so it is likely that it wasn't even considered. 

 

But with Drake, we have a solid, deep, established circuit split, with both sides acknowledging Peruta. 

 

The biggest wildcard to me is whether the court will consider that no mandate has been issued in Peruta, due to the fact that it has been stayed pending motions to intervene and a possible en banc review. But as it is, the decision stands and is precedential... Richards in Yolo county, CA was the first decision to be ruled on in light of Peruta. 

 

So I'd say there is a good chance but I'm not going to go out and say that it will definitely be granted. 

 

I'm really interested to see the reply brief from SAF/ANJRPC.

 

Is a reply brief the next step? If so, when is it due to be filed?

[ryan_j 0]

Reply brief is optional, but must be filed in 10 days. It's not certain but every serious case has one.

[NJPatriot 0]

Reply brief is optional, but must be filed in 10 days. It's not certain but every serious case has one.

. Ryan thanks. Look forward to reading it myself.

[Big Jay 0]

I see you guys still love to wallow in pessimism. Must be a NJ thing.

 

I am going to say there is absolutely no chance it will be heard. Whatever I predict usually goes the other way. LOL

[intercooler 41]

100% they will hear it.

[ryan_j 0]

100% they will hear it.

 

Damn, now I'm worried... lol