PDA

View Full Version : The Difference with "Drake"


Peaceful John
10-15-2013, 9:21 AM
Per Al Norris (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=434336)

Partial quote: "What makes this different than all the other challenges that the SAF has used, prior to filing this case, is that this is a facial challenge to a specific portion of the law. the "lawsuit challenges the unrestrained discretion that New Jersey law vests in State and local officials to deny a “Permit to Carry” a handgun for lack of “justifiable need to carry a handgun.” N.J.S.A. § 2C:58-4(c), (d)."

There are two means to challenge contested law. The first (and easiest, therefore the most used) is an as-applied approach. This merely says that the law, as applied in this specific instance, is wrong.

The second approach, is a facial challenge. This approach is very difficult. What a facial challenge says is that in all cases, the law is wrong. Not just this case, but in every case. To defend against a facial challenge, all it is required is for the defense to prove that in one case, the law holds."

The Court may be waiting for Drake's facial challenge. It is to be fervently hoped for.

(Crossposted on MdShooters)

Paladin
10-15-2013, 10:12 AM
Maybe. But since they did not hold Woollard for Drake (our side has, IIRC, until Nov 27 to ask for cert. in Drake), I'm not holding my breath.

stag1500
10-15-2013, 1:16 PM
Per Al Norris (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=434336)

Thanks for the link. That was a very interesting read.

ToldYouSo
10-15-2013, 5:29 PM
Per Al Norris (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=434336)

Partial quote: "What makes this different than all the other challenges that the SAF has used, prior to filing this case, is that this is a facial challenge to a specific portion of the law. the "lawsuit challenges the unrestrained discretion that New Jersey law vests in State and local officials to deny a “Permit to Carry” a handgun for lack of “justifiable need to carry a handgun.” N.J.S.A. § 2C:58-4(c), (d)."

There are two means to challenge contested law. The first (and easiest, therefore the most used) is an as-applied approach. This merely says that the law, as applied in this specific instance, is wrong.

The second approach, is a facial challenge. This approach is very difficult. What a facial challenge says is that in all cases, the law is wrong. Not just this case, but in every case. To defend against a facial challenge, all it is required is for the defense to prove that in one case, the law holds."

The Court may be waiting for Drake's facial challenge. It is to be fervently hoped for.

(Crossposted on MdShooters)

Woollard was a facial challenge, it said so right in the decision "On July 29, 2010, Woollard filed the instant suit, arguing that Maryland's handgun permitting scheme is facially violative of both the Second Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Drake v. Filko is, for all intents and purposes, the same case as Woollard. An attempt to get "shall issue" concealed carry from the Supreme Court which is never going to happen.

Sakiri
10-16-2013, 12:24 AM
And getting someone to go up to the court and ask them if open carry without a permit is the right isn't going to happen without someone getting in trouble for doing so and having the boatload of money needed to take it that far.

That isn't going to happen either.

press1280
10-16-2013, 2:50 AM
I have to unfortunately agree that Drake is so similiar to Woollard that it'll likely meet the same fate. I really hope I'm wrong, as I actually went through the whole permit process in NJ and was also denied for lack of "justifiable need".

Sakiri
10-16-2013, 7:17 PM
I have to unfortunately agree that Drake is so similiar to Woollard that it'll likely meet the same fate. I really hope I'm wrong, as I actually went through the whole permit process in NJ and was also denied for lack of "justifiable need".

Personally, "I live in NJ" is justifiable enough need.

Kharn
10-17-2013, 1:41 AM
I have to unfortunately agree that Drake is so similiar to Woollard that it'll likely meet the same fate. I really hope I'm wrong, as I actually went through the whole permit process in NJ and was also denied for lack of "justifiable need".+1, I'm beginning to think we won't see a cert grant until the 9th finishes their 3 cases.

kcbrown
10-17-2013, 3:04 AM
+1, I'm beginning to think we won't see a cert grant until the 9th finishes their 3 cases.

I don't think we're going to see a cert grant at all, for any carry case.

Here's why (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=12555685&postcount=249).

fizux
10-17-2013, 5:37 AM
I don't think we're going to see a cert grant at all, for any carry case.

Here's why (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=12555685&postcount=249).
Man, you're getting a lot of mileage out of recycling that post.

kcbrown
10-17-2013, 7:18 AM
Man, you're getting a lot of mileage out of recycling that post.

Sorry. It's just that it has a lot of applicability. :D


I doubt people would want me to regurgitate its contents everywhere it would be applicable. I wouldn't bother linking to it at all if I knew that everyone who might be reading a thread like this one had also been reading that one.