What Will SCOTUS Do

[millsan1 3]

I don't know the mechanism by which the justices decide. Does everyone secretly write their vote on an index card, which they all pull out of their robes on the count of three?

 

Or do they announce their votes consecutively, through a roll call? If this is the case, it would take balls for a liberal to be the fourth and deciding vote.

 

Or do they sit around and debate it, to the point where everyone knows what everyone else will do?

 

 

 

The chief justice introduces the case and puts his/her opinion forth.

 

Each justice, in descending seniority, then puts their opinion forth, and no other justice is allowed to speak.  The least senior justice has the last word.

 

Then a vote is held whether to hear the case or not.  Same procedure is followed, Chief Justice votes, then each justice in descending seniority votes.

[OchoBlue 3]

It's like your favorite team is in the Super Bowl and not only can't you watch or listen to the game. But you also won't know the score for 3 days!

[millsan1 3]

Something I read floating around these threads is an idea the SCOTUS will strike down NJ gun laws as unconstitutional.  I am confident and hopeful that they will hear and rule in our favor in Drake, but they only limit their opinions and rulings to the case at hand, which is CC.  They will not, under any circumstance I can envision or even imagine, rule on any other part of NJ gun law.

[locochinoloco 0]

I think this is the live feed on 4/21, Monday. 9am. And the link to the appeal.. http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/13-827.htm

 

[NYMetsFan86 9]

Something I read floating around these threads is an idea the SCOTUS will strike down NJ gun laws as unconstitutional.  I am confident and hopeful that they will hear and rule in our favor in Drake, but they only limit their opinions and rulings to the case at hand, which is CC.  They will not, under any circumstance I can envision or even imagine, rule on any other part of NJ gun law.

 

Im ok with this, ccw is the first thing i want addressed. lifting my mag limit or lifting an AW ban does me no good if I still cannot defend myself against lethal force outside the home

[NYMetsFan86 9]

I think this is the live feed on 4/21, Monday. 9am.

 

 

oh man if it is that's freaking fantastic

[intercooler 41]

The SCOTUS will not let nj do that. They would have a timeframe to comply, like Illinois did. If they did not do it, they would impose the law based on a standard

[Vlad G 345]

Something I read floating around these threads is an idea the SCOTUS will strike down NJ gun laws as unconstitutional.  I am confident and hopeful that they will hear and rule in our favor in Drake, but they only limit their opinions and rulings to the case at hand, which is CC.  They will not, under any circumstance I can envision or even imagine, rule on any other part of NJ gun law.

 

 

Scrutiny. In many ways the Drake case can be all about scrutiny and whether rational scrutiny  can be applied to 2A. If strict or intermediate scrutiny is applied most of the NJ laws become really questionably when challenged in court. Say, if you challenge the shotgun capacity limit, the state would have to actually prove that extra shotgun rounds in a semi are in any way dangerous, and that they are more dangerous then in a pump. They can't just say the state thinks it, they have to prove that it so and that placing a limit overrides a 2A right.

[millsan1 3]

Scrutiny. In many ways the Drake case can be all about scrutiny and whether rational scrutiny can be applied to 2A. If strict or intermediate scrutiny is applied most of the NJ laws become really questionably when challenged in court. Say, if you challenge the shotgun capacity limit, the state would have to actually prove that extra shotgun rounds in a semi are in any way dangerous, and that they are more dangerous then in a pump. They can't just say the state thinks it, they have to prove that it so and that placing a limit overrides a 2A right.

Yes, if they hear and rule in favor, then it shouldn't be long before all of the silly laws will be challenged. The idea of an FID may have made some level of sense to someone in the 1960s but with NICS it makes less than no sense.

 

I was just referring to what could be ruled on in this case.

 

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Vlad G 345]

I agree that they won't rule directly on unrelated issues, assuming they take the case. What I think people have been theorizing is that if they clarify the standards of scrutiny it will have huge impact on NJ, beyond carry.

 

In many ways the 3ed courts decision rested on the rational scrutiny logic that the state must know best and there is no need for deeper scrutiny. If they turn that around then a lot of laws are game again.

[wooly bugger 1]

I agree that they won't rule directly on unrelated issues, assuming they take the case. What I think people have been theorizing is that if they clarify the standards of scrutiny it will have huge impact on NJ, beyond carry.

 

In many ways the 3ed courts decision rested on the rational scrutiny logic that the state must know best and there is no need for deeper scrutiny. If they turn that around then a lot of laws are game again.

I wonder if we could have a "half victory," where they rule against CC but clarify scrutiny. That could actually be more like a 3/4 victory, because it would pave the way to take down all sorts of arbitrary and capricious laws.

[springfieldxds 0]

Scrutiny. In many ways the Drake case can be all about scrutiny and whether rational scrutiny  can be applied to 2A. If strict or intermediate scrutiny is applied most of the NJ laws become really questionably when challenged in court. Say, if you challenge the shotgun capacity limit, the state would have to actually prove that extra shotgun rounds in a semi are in any way dangerous, and that they are more dangerous then in a pump. They can't just say the state thinks it, they have to prove that it so and that placing a limit overrides a 2A right.

 

you dont think the courts will improperly apply intermediate scrutiny like they have been doing for years on gun laws, they say they're using intermediate scrutiny when in fact they use rational basis review, i dont believe this will change even in drake gets decided in our favor

 

the state will say the new law is for the safety of the people, they will give no evidence to back their claims like drake and the 3rd circuit will apply "intermediate scrutiny" and still side with the state, just like what happened with drake and all are other gun laws in question 

[raz-0 1,259]

Something I read floating around these threads is an idea the SCOTUS will strike down NJ gun laws as unconstitutional. I am confident and hopeful that they will hear and rule in our favor in Drake, but they only limit their opinions and rulings to the case at hand, which is CC. They will not, under any circumstance I can envision or even imagine, rule on any other part of NJ gun law.

As I've said before, they might destroy nj law, but not directly, and probably not deliberately. If they want to avoid hearing 2a cases forever, they will likely have to specify some sort of judicial test. Given how nj laws are structured, they simply may not pass such a test. Not that the test will forbid large portions of the laws effects, but that the fact a right is presumptively illegal, and the citizen exercising the right has to mount an affirmative defense to justify exercising said right might not pass the test.

[Vlad G 345]

you dont think the courts will improperly apply intermediate scrutiny like they have been doing for years on gun laws, they say they're using intermediate scrutiny when in fact they use rational basis review, i dont believe this will change even in drake gets decided in our favor

 

the state will say the new law is for the safety of the people, they will give no evidence to back their claims like drake and the 3rd circuit will apply "intermediate scrutiny" and still side with the state, just like what happened with drake and all are other gun laws in question 

 

NJ courts might take that approach but eventually the circuit court, even the 3ed, won't be able to do that or they'll look like even bigger clowns

[Silence Dogood 468]

Remember, the focus will be on "justifiable need."

[raz-0 1,259]

Remember, the focus will be on "justifiable need."

Given the arguments, slightly more is on the table than that. But yeah it will be centered there.

[CMJeepster 2,777]

Remember, the focus will be on "justifiable need."

Issue: (1) Whether the Second Amendment secures a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense; and (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.

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/drake-v-jerejian/

[Donobieus 15]

So no word on whether they decided to hear the case?

[ryan_j 0]

Something I read floating around these threads is an idea the SCOTUS will strike down NJ gun laws as unconstitutional.  I am confident and hopeful that they will hear and rule in our favor in Drake, but they only limit their opinions and rulings to the case at hand, which is CC.  They will not, under any circumstance I can envision or even imagine, rule on any other part of NJ gun law.

 

IF they take the case (big IF) they may mirror the Peruta opinion, which says that the state is not obligated to allow concealed carry, but must have some avenue to exercise the right to bear arms. This can mean concealed carry, open carry or both. Immediately though it will force NJ to accept "self defense" or maybe even "all lawful purposes" as a justifiable need. This is, incidentally what is done in other states. 

[ryan_j 0]

So no word on whether they decided to hear the case?

 

We won't know until Monday after 9:30AM when the order list is released. 

[ryan_j 0]

Check here on Monday morning at 9:30AM.

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx

[ryan_j 0]

you dont think the courts will improperly apply intermediate scrutiny like they have been doing for years on gun laws, they say they're using intermediate scrutiny when in fact they use rational basis review, i dont believe this will change even in drake gets decided in our favor

 

the state will say the new law is for the safety of the people, they will give no evidence to back their claims like drake and the 3rd circuit will apply "intermediate scrutiny" and still side with the state, just like what happened with drake and all are other gun laws in question 

 

No, I really don't think so.

 

A mandate (court order) is serious business. John Hoffman and Rick Fuentes can go to Federal prison if they disobey a court order. 

[Donobieus 15]

We won't know until Monday after 9:30AM when the order list is released. 

 

sigh....I was hoping to find out once I got home tonite.  It's like having a lottery ticket you think might be the winner...lol

[illy 1]

It's like having a lottery ticket you think might be the winner...lol

 

Ha! That's the perfect description

[DeerSlayer 241]

Ha! That's the perfect description

I concur, I can't think of a better analogy either...

[ryan_j 0]

The SCOTUS will not let nj do that. They would have a timeframe to comply, like Illinois did. If they did not do it, they would impose the law based on a standard

 

Nope. There's no compliance required for NJ. Justifiable need will be gone, OR "self defense" will be accepted as a justifiable need. This will happen as soon as the mandate is issued, usually in 2 weeks. 

 

Illinois had time to comply because they completely banned any form of carry and thus, no carry permit law. They were given time to craft one. NJ has a law and just needs justifiable need gone, or neutered. 

[RubberBullets 65]

Nope. There's no compliance required for NJ. Justifiable need will be gone, OR "self defense" will be accepted as a justifiable need. This will happen as soon as the mandate is issued, usually in 2 weeks.

 

Illinois had time to comply because they completely banned any form of carry and thus, no carry permit law. They were given time to craft one. NJ has a law and just needs justifiable need gone, or neutered.

Which would be interesting because local pds would be flooded with requests... and only 60 days to process or else youre automatically approved. Also..with the hypothetical rush of ccw apps, whats going to happen to the backlog of p2p apps that are already ridiculously long.

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

 

[brocglock23 4]

I can only speak for myself but I'd gladly deal with a small time period of back logged p2p's if it meant getting a nj carry permit. And hopefully what would follow would be your p2p would now become your carry permit. I know..... I'm a dreamer.......

Which would be interesting because local pds would be flooded with requests... and only 60 days to process or else youre automatically approved. Also..with the hypothetical rush of ccw apps, whats going to happen to the backlog of p2p apps that are already ridiculously long.

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Newtonian 453]

The chief justice introduces the case and puts his/her opinion forth.

 

Each justice, in descending seniority, then puts their opinion forth, and no other justice is allowed to speak.  The least senior justice has the last word.

 

Then a vote is held whether to hear the case or not.  Same procedure is followed, Chief Justice votes, then each justice in descending seniority votes.

This is very informative. Do you know if they stop voting after 4 yeas? Do they disclose who votes (I would doubt it)?

 

Order of seniority: Roberts (chief justice votes first, regardless of seniority), Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan. 

 

Thinking through this list...I don't think so guys. 

[RubberBullets 65]

I can only speak for myself but I'd gladly deal with a small time period of back logged p2p's if it meant getting a nj carry permit. And hopefully what would follow would be your p2p would now become your carry permit. I know..... I'm a dreamer.......

In reality, theyll see the writing on the wall and rescind that part of the law before a decision comes through.

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk