NJ AG asks Supremes NOT to take on Drake

[Jeff 13]

Probably still adding cases but as of now Drake is not on the April 4 conference. They hate the Drake.

[Wolfy 51]

This filing is a joke. All the crime stats listed are from 1965 and 1967 the AG couldn't be bothered to use any stats that are LESS than 50 years old?

 

 

Who is John Galt?

I am so excited I figured out how to change my signature.

[Midwest 28]

APRIL 18 according to this thread at THR

 

 

 

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=747885

 

 

 

"Drake Scheduled for Conference

SCOTUS has scheduled Drake v. Jerejian http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...ke-v-jerejian/ for conference on April 18. Any legal minds out there care to opine on the chances of it being granted cert?

 

.

[quikz 34]

I really and Truly HOPE NJ loses this one Flat on its Face. Really, Truly, from the Bottom of my Heart....

 

Generations of monkeying around w the US Constitution and the Principles of which serious Blood was shed. I mean look at it this way. LOTS of people Died for it and certain states are not only monkeying with it, certain states are down right making a MOCKERY of it. I call it what it is, I make NO apologies.

 

Here's a tube vid, 1st one I believe, regarding this issue:

 

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aRK6UYBUU98

 

Thanks and Good Luck to the NJ folks not given over to decades long brain-washing and fear conditioning. Godspeed....

[Blacksmythe 71]

I SMELL FEAR!!

[fslater 62]

Can some one tell me? In any interpretation of the bill of rights, How is it possible to determine 2A only applies only in the home, when I would bet money that the deciding judge would be impeach for rendering that same decision to any of the other rights contained in the bill. ie Imprisonment for speaking against the government or a politician in public or a public media?  Or religion can only be practiced in the home or behind closed doors of a certified establishment. Religious rituals are protected as in must be accommodated for in the private work place, schools, public buildings. The federal government will and does interpret the others as to the equivalent of must issue to anyone. But when it comes to 2A, must issue isn't even the issue. Its more of restricted to. Whats wrong with this picture?

[Vlad G 345]

Can some one tell me? In any interpretation of the bill of rights, How is it possible to determine 2A only applies only in the home, when I would bet money that the deciding judge would be impeach for rendering that same decision to any of the other rights contained in the bill. ie Imprisonment for speaking against the government or a politician in public or a public media?  Or religion can only be practiced in the home or behind closed doors of a certified establishment. Religious rituals are protected as in must be accommodated for in the private work place, schools, public buildings. The federal government will and does interpret the others as to the equivalent of must issue to anyone. But when it comes to 2A, must issue isn't even the issue. Its more of restricted to. Whats wrong with this picture?

 

You are not thinking like a politician.

 

First there was the militia argument which is now gone.

 

Now there is the "overwhelming state interest" argument. Basically that sure you have a right, but it is in the states overwhelming interest to restricted for the good of all.

 

It does no good to think of this logically, because you are not dealing with logical people, you are dealing with politicians.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

The last thing the commies want is a fair hearing of nj gun laws

[Albanian 121]

The last thing the commies want is a fair hearing of nj gun laws

What's funny is that Marx was pro gun as far as I am aware. Liberal commies aren't even good at being themselves.

[ryan_j 0]

Can some one tell me? In any interpretation of the bill of rights, How is it possible to determine 2A only applies only in the home, when I would bet money that the deciding judge would be impeach for rendering that same decision to any of the other rights contained in the bill. ie Imprisonment for speaking against the government or a politician in public or a public media?  Or religion can only be practiced in the home or behind closed doors of a certified establishment. Religious rituals are protected as in must be accommodated for in the private work place, schools, public buildings. The federal government will and does interpret the others as to the equivalent of must issue to anyone. But when it comes to 2A, must issue isn't even the issue. Its more of restricted to. Whats wrong with this picture?

 

"2A only applies in the home" because the antis see that Heller addressed the right within the home and declined to address it anywhere else. Therefore, they use and abuse the language in Heller to confine it to the home. Prior to Heller, they wanted to confine the 2A to the militia. Now that that has been struck down, they are saying that Heller decided that guns are to be confined to the home. When eventually, either through this case or another one, the right is determined to apply outside as well as inside the home, they will come up with some other way to claim that the right is heavily restricted. Basically, the end justifies the means. 

[quikz 34]

QUESTION: What if NJ ALL of a Sudden.... Just grants Drake an actual bona.fide NJ carry permit?? Seeing the SCOTUS looming in the distance.

[maintenanceguy 510]

What's funny is that Marx was pro gun as far as I am aware. Liberal commies aren't even good at being themselves.

 

Real communists are good, kind people who want what's best for people.  I think they're bat sh!7 crazy for thinking that communism actually helps people but they do.  Real communists want everyone to make a living wage, they want everyone to have a job, they want everyone to share and care for each other.  A real communist wants the world to be rainbows and unicorns.  A real communist would believe that everyone has an equal right to own firearms to protect the collective.

 

The other side is politician communists, who see communist promises of rainbows and unicorns as a way to increase their authority and gain more control over the people.  Politicial communists don't want everyone treated fairly, they want everyone subservient. 

[intercooler 41]

 

QUESTION: What if NJ ALL of a Sudden.... Just grants Drake an actual bona.fide NJ carry permit?? Seeing the SCOTUS looming in the distance.          

        

 

They already did that...hence it has had it's name changed a few times.

Drake, I am SURE has already had that presented to him...but i suspect that this is a matter of principle more than anything else

[quikz 34]

How about an actual NJ "carry" permit holder, the kind w the 'restrictions' on it, go pursue this case as well? How about if that individual and restricted permit holder rec'd threat(s) via an actual robbery, all documented and still cannot get an unrestricted carry permit. I know of such an individual(s).

 

How can said individual be entered into, or assist this case in any meaningful way??

[quikz 34]

They already did that...hence it has had it's name changed a few times.

Drake, I am SURE has already had that presented to him...but i suspect that this is a matter of principle more than anything else

Still, this does not preclude NJ from pulling yet another "fast one" on it's potential journey into the SCOTUS.

 

QUESTION: What would happen if NJ again pulls a 'fast one' and grants Mr. John Drake a REAL NJ Carry Permit?

 

I doubt Drake would say, 'Oh no NJ, too late, I decline, I'm gona pursue this on principle....'

[intercooler 41]

I bet he would...

[EX Carnival man 223]

Still, this does not preclude NJ from pulling yet another "fast one" on it's potential journey into the SCOTUS.

 

QUESTION: What would happen if NJ again pulls a 'fast one' and grants Mr. John Drake a REAL NJ Carry Permit?

 

I doubt Drake would say, 'Oh no NJ, too late, I decline, I'm gona pursue this on principle....'

I know I would.  I would love to stick it to the NJ politicians who have be sticking it me for years. Also I would be breaking the chains of over a Million gun owners here in NJ. Free at last Free at last, THANK GOD ALL MIGHTY we are free at last.

[quikz 34]

Ok.

 

I will pose this Question one more time.

 

What IF, Hypothetically, Let's Pretend, Imagine, Hypothesize....That Drake finally receives his NJ Bona Fide Carry Permit and Drake takes his Permit and goes back to doing what hes doing. Hypothetically now, What happens next???

 

Also, I am hearing some NJ Fudd talk bout 'this will never happen. SCOTUS will never grant cert. They declined all the other case, they'll decline this too....etc, etc.'

 

A bit disconcerting, but better to be prepared.

[Vlad G 345]

 

What IF, Hypothetically, Let's Pretend, Imagine, Hypothesize....That Drake finally receives his NJ Bona Fide Carry Permit and Drake takes his Permit and goes back to doing what hes doing. Hypothetically now, What happens next???

 

 

We win.  As far as I know, the only reason Drake gave for his permit was personal defense. This was deemed not a good enough reason, and the state defended the position that self defense is not a justifiable need through multiple court cases.

 

If they turn around and say Drake does have a justifiable need (he needs a justifiable need as  required by law), and that need is self defense, not only are they undoing their own case, but they turn NJ into shall issue,

[CMJeepster 2,778]

Distilled to two points by this brief:  http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/drake-final-brief-cert.pdf

 

"QUESTIONS PRESENTED

 

1. Whether the Second Amendment secures a right to carry handguns outside the home for selfdefense.

 

2. Whether state officials violate the Second Amendment by requiring that individuals wishing to exercise their right to carry a handgun for self defense first prove a “justifiable need” for doing so."

[Scrappy 0]

I imagine that if NJ issued him a permit he would lose his standing and therfore no longer be part of the case.  Not sure if that would end the case as I'm not sure who all of the plaintiffs are and what type of standing they have. 

 

I don't see how issuing him a permit would turn Jersey into a shall issue state.  Despite the Attorney General's assurance that NJ is a shall issue state, issuance is purely at the discretion of a judge and just because a judge was convinced (arm twisted) to change his mind in this case it puts him under no obligation in future (or past) cases.

[Vlad G 345]

 

 

I don't see how issuing him a permit would turn Jersey into a shall issue state.  Despite the Attorney General's assurance that NJ is a shall issue state, issuance is purely at the discretion of a judge and just because a judge was convinced (arm twisted) to change his mind in this case it puts him under no obligation in future (or past) cases.

 

Well to issue him a permit they would have to admit self defense is a justifiable need, wouldn't they? Then equal protections kicks in for anyone else applying.

[ryan_j 0]

Drake is just one of the plaintiffs.

 

There were two other plaintiffs that have since dropped off because they got permits -

 

Jeff Muller finally got his permit after the Star-Ledger wrote an article embarrassing the state, and also because NJ wanted to make the case weaker.

 

Daniel Piszczatoski (pis-ca-toss-key) got his permit when he retired from the coast guard, as a retired LEO. 

 

So if Drake drops off, there are two others - Lenny Salerno and Finley Fenton. And if they drop off, ANJRPC is still there on behalf of its members, like they did with the Revell case.

 

So this case is not going away unless it is granted and decided or it is denied certiorari, OR NJ decides to go shall issue for everyone. 

[ryan_j 0]

Also, I am hearing some NJ Fudd talk bout 'this will never happen. SCOTUS will never grant cert. They declined all the other case, they'll decline this too....etc, etc.'

 

A bit disconcerting, but better to be prepared.

 

It could very well be denied, but now you have the 9th circuit with Peruta, Richards and Baker. There is confusion in the circuits over this issue.

 

I think it is better that they grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and get it over with. 

 

But if they deny this, there is also Pantano as a backup case. Pantano is going to the NJ Supreme Court and can be appealed to the US Supreme Court once it is disposed of in the NJSC. 

 

But again, we go back to the three California cases. Once the en banc petitions are over with, they can and will likely be appealed to the US Supreme Court unless the court takes Drake first. This would also have implications for us.  

[Scrappy 0]

Well to issue him a permit they would have to admit self defense is a justifiable need, wouldn't they? Then equal protections kicks in for anyone else applying.

You have seen what great lengths some judges (especially in NJ) will go to deny people their 2nd Amned rights.  The reality is that this case shouldn't even be necessary.  Especially since the Supreme Court ruled the rtkaba is an individual right.  Judges have sole discretion in issuing permits and clearly there are those that have them inspite of not meeting the justifialble need standard and there are some who may have me the standard but have been denied.  I feel confident that most (maybe all) NJ judges would continue to not recognize self defense as a justifiable need.

[Smokin .50 1,907]

Well to issue him a permit they would have to admit self defense is a justifiable need, wouldn't they? Then equal protections kicks in for anyone else applying.

^^^THIS^^^ is plain-language enough for EVERYBODY to understand it!  "Equal Protections" is a very popular wide brush, going all the way back to Animal Farm, where some are "more equal" than others, lol!

[n4p226r 105]

i guess we will find out the next step in 3 weeks from today.  

[illy 1]

There are absolutely ppl in NJ with carry permits whose justifiable need is less than people like Drake and Pantano.

 

IANAL so I'm not sure how this hasn't been brought out through discovery, but it seems like it would be a useful argument in these cases.

[njpilot 671]

Unfortunately, "equal protections" is a joke.

 

Harry Reid just broke the law and funneled campaign money to his granddaughter. What happens when he gets caught, he says oh, I'll pay it back and that's it, nothing happens.

 

If anyone here did something comparable, do you think you could just say oh, I'll pay t back?

 

He'll no. You'd be prosecuted and pay thousands in fines and probably spend some time in jail.

 

No such thing as "equal protection". Not unless douchebag Holder feels some minority didn't get equal protection as compared to a white person, then he'd be all over it.

[illy 1]

Or like this:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/wp/2014/03/31/du-pont-heir-received-no-jail-time-after-rape-conviction/

 

 

 

Robert Richards IV, an heir to the du Pont family fortune, served no jail time even though he plead guilty to the fourth-degree rape of his 3-year-old daughter.

Judge Jan Jurden said in a 2009 ruling that Robert Richards would not “fare well” in prison, reports Delaware’s The News Journal. Jurden originally sentenced Richards to eight years in prison, then suspended that punishment in favor of Level II probationand ordered the heir — who is supported by a family trust — to pay $4,395 to the Delaware Violent Crimes Compensation Board.