|
National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NJ Now has 2 CCW Lawsuits Filed
I must admit I have been very frustrated with what little has been done in NJ when it comes to 2A Rights. As I read about the lawsuits and success you guys have had in CA I couldn't understand why the groups in NJ weren't doing the same; until now.
The ANJRPC which our NRA group in NJ is backing one lawsuit which is Rodgers & ANJRPC v Grewal et al which has gotten a little more exposure and is picking up where Drake left off when Cert was denied. However since Cert was denied Wrenn was decided in favor of CCW. The Cheeseman suit which is attacking the no issue CCW that NJ really is from a different angle. Mark Cheeseman was successful last year in overturning NJ law banning stun guns. Hopefully success is found again. I am hoping this is just the start of the lawsuits. The Cheeseman Suit is being backed by CNJFO and has a Go Fund Me page and is near it's goal. They have not received direct backing of the NRA, but Scott Bach who is with the ANJRPC has donated himself to the case. If any of you guys could spare a donation to put it over the top it would be greatly appreciated. Any lawsuit in the Anti States could be the one that makes it to SCOTUS and restores the rights for all of us stuck behind the lines. For the record I am not associated with the lawsuits, but I believe in them. https://www.gofundme.com/restore-carry-nj Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk Last edited by capt14k; 02-14-2018 at 6:55 AM.. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Once Kennedy retires and is replaced next year I think SCOTUS will take a 2A case again. A carry case first and then a so called assault weapons case. Carry they will extend Heller and MacDonald to outside the home and side with Wrenn decision. AWB they will use sporting sporting and apply strict review to put a stop to mag restrictions, evil features, and banned by name.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Rogers case loses at District Court: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...=2&as_sdt=6,49
No surprise since they are bound by precedent. This is good though that they didn't waste any time since there's nothing the District Court could really do. It'll be on to the 3rd Circuit, where it'll lose as well. Then it'll be denied en banc; even if Trump fills all vacancies, there aren't enough votes. Then it'll be on to SCOTUS with a split in hand unless another case beats them to it. Last edited by press1280; 05-26-2018 at 3:43 AM.. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=812950
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Lawyers
Follow the money attorneys...
Quote:
__________________
God so loved the world He gave His only Son... Believe in Him and have everlasting life. John 3:16 NRA,,, Lifer United Air Epic Fail Video ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u99Q7pNAjvg |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
0.25 years for denial of CA3 en banc. 2022 June for SCOTUS decision, if cert. granted?
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Last edited by Paladin; 05-27-2018 at 9:48 AM.. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I'll say it could be complete in a few months. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
While it isn't controlling for them, they can't just ignore and neglect dealing with Wrenn. They'll have to analyze it and distinguish it or explain why they think it was wrongly decided. That's what appellate judges get paid to do and it's what SCOTUS expects/wants them to do.
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Oh yes they can. They might not, but they CAN. After all this time, you guys STILL haven’t figured out that courts can do whatever they damned well please without consequence to themselves?!? Astonishing... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Even the antis on SCOTUS want to hear what lower court antis have to say re. Wrenn because they don't want to miss any possible anti arguments and to help them develop their own anti arguments. Of course, if the antis feel that Wrenn is invulnerable, they'll go right ahead an ignore it. But if Trump gets to replace Kennedy or an anti (I consider Kennedy to be a mugwump re. the 2nd A), this, hopefully, is all academic.
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
They could well ignore it anyway. The ONLY reason for them not to is to provide other courts with “reasoning” to use in support of upholding carry bans. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#18
|
||||
|
||||
I was talking about the 3 judge panel.
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, Wrenn is not controlling on them, but when a sister appellate court came to an opposite conclusion, just pretending it doesn't exist is for B or C students....
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Last edited by Paladin; 05-29-2018 at 12:14 PM.. |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
NJ Now has 2 CCW Lawsuits Filed
Oh. You said “the antis on SCOTUS”. That’s what I was responding to.
I realize that you are primarily discussing what the 3 judge panel will say, but you were talking about their justification for addressing Wrenn, with one of those justifications being that the antis on SCOTUS would be interested in it. That is what I dispute here. The antis on SCOTUS have no reason at all to be interested in what the lower courts have to say as regards Wrenn, because if the antis are a majority then they will simply say there is no right to carry and that’s that. And if the antis are a minority then they will be interested only in showing lower courts how to ignore the majority decision, something that a lower court decision obviously cannot address. Neither option can possibly make use of anything the lower courts have to say. Quote:
Quote:
Either way, the point is that SCOTUS provides no logical justification for the lower courts to address Wrenn at all, at least when issuing an anti-carry decision (a pro-carry decision will, of course, use Wrenn for support, but that’s not the situation we’re discussing here). Quote:
If there were some real danger of a divided and uncertain upper court fielding the case, this would be true. But there is no such danger here. SCOTUS will not be divided in that way. It is NOW, and we know exactly what happens under those circumstances: it denies cert. The only way SCOTUS grants cert to a loss for us is when it is NOT uncertain, one way or the other. And in that case, it is irrelevant what the lower court says. SCOTUS will issue the decision it wishes to issue, and that’s that. Welcome to the outcome-oriented political judiciary we have today. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 05-29-2018 at 2:55 PM.. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
If it's any indication, the District Court did address Wrenn. And, plaintiffs are specifically asking to re-assess in light of Wrenn, even though they can't change the outcome.
Could they flat out ignore Wrenn? I guess so, however, it would seem to be in bad practice. Even a passing mention of Wrenn in the opinion will go much farther with SCOTUS than plaintiffs simply saying it in their cert. brief. Last edited by press1280; 05-30-2018 at 3:04 PM.. |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It would certainly be very bad form for them to ignore Wrenn under those circumstances. That doesn’t put it beyond the realm of possibility, of course. We’ve seen the 9th circuit do similar things without consequence. My only real objection was with the notion that the court “has to” address Wrenn. It obviously doesn’t and doesn’t even have a lot of incentive to do so, save perhaps for avoiding some kind of procedural grounds for SCOTUS review. But even that isn’t really applicable here. SCOTUS has been going out of its way to avoid taking ANY 2A cases. Caetano is the only one that was compelling enough to cause them to do so, and their reasons had nothing to do with anything present in these carry cases. You really need to disabuse yourself of the notion of going further with SCOTUS in all this. The nature of the political situation is such that the lower courts can behave about as badly as they want and SCOTUS will not lift a finger to correct that when there are firearms involved, and that’s basically that. When the balance on the court changes, then the outcome may change but the behavior of the lower courts, whether good or bad, STILL won’t change the outcome. To illustrate, let me ask plainly: do you really think a pro-2A SCOTUS would uphold an anti-2A opinion, no matter how well the lower court argues, or overturn a pro-2A opinion no matter how badly the lower court argues it? Similarly, do you really think an anti-2A SCOTUS would overturn an anti-2A decision no matter how egregious the behavior of the lower court, or uphold a pro-2A one no matter how well argued? Obviously the answer is “no” to all of that. But that clearly means that there is no path in which the behavior of the lower court is relevant to the outcome. Which means there IS no going further with SCOTUS as regards the outcome. Note that I’m not talking about a fractured SCOTUS in the above, which is what we have now. What we have now guarantees cert denial for all but a case like Caetano, where a “non lethal” weapon, a heart-wrenching plaintiff in a criminal case, and direct and complete contravention of explicitly-stated precedent are all simultaneously involved. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
I believe Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch are comping at the bit for a 2A case. Roberts won't take on one til Kennedy is replaced for fear of losing. Once Kennedy is replaced SCOTUS will take on 2A cases. Certainly if RBG kicks the bucket and is replaced by a GOP POTUS they will as well. I think Kennedy will retire very soon.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
I want gay married couples to be able to protect their marijuana plants with guns |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
I don't know about that. Alito dissented on Hughes Amendment case. Also said his 2A rulings will be based on what would Scalia do. Roberts is a wild card, but not as bad as everyone thinks. He wrote the majority and the dissent on Obamacare proving he changed his mind last minute. I still think he was blackmailed into doing so. They say over his illegally adopted Irish children.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah, not going to get carry yet. I think Roberts is too controversy-averse to say, "Yes, non-prohibited citizens can all carry in some manner"
I think the present court would give us a win on things like AWBs, mag caps, Rosters, 10-day waiting periods and 2nd waiting periods, but not carry. But if the midterms pass without losing the majority in the Senate, and RBG / Breyer conveniently then immediately decide to retire, Trump can appoint a very pro-2A Justice, and then we can haz carry.....I think.
__________________
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
When you say, "precedent on public carry" to which decisions do you refer?
__________________
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Rogers was granted motion to dismiss on September 21st. They can now file for cert or en banc (which is a waste of time in this case).
I hope they hurry because Rothery is already waiting on deck and this a is MUCH better case IMO. |
#32
|
||||
|
||||
It's been almost 4 months. Any news on these NJ cases, Rogers and Cheeseman & Jillard?
Anyone have links to dockets for either of them?
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...3%20States.pdf Docket page: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/18-824.html I'm not sure SCOTUS is ready for carry but we will see how far Roberts is willing to go in the next few years. Circuit split in Wrenn makes a big difference. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Never heard of Jillard. |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
Jillard was co plaintiff with Cheeseman.
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#36
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1498027
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#37
|
||||
|
||||
Shame how NJ, NY, and Cali have turned gun enthusiasts into part time lawyers to sort thru the myriad of tangled rules and regs anti guns. Burdens on law enforcement are many as a result. Lawyers get job security...
__________________
God so loved the world He gave His only Son... Believe in Him and have everlasting life. John 3:16 NRA,,, Lifer United Air Epic Fail Video ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u99Q7pNAjvg |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
NJ Now has 2 CCW Lawsuits Filed
Where did you hear Cheeseman got his permit? Cheeseman and Jilliard were the same case and last I knew they filed separate appeals and were denied again by NJ appellate court and they are waiting on NJ Supreme Court decision on cert which should be about now.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections...12-17.opn.html Looks like a loss at the state appeals court. I don't know if he's appealing to the NJ Supreme Court or not. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|