Drake v. Jerejian (NJ CCW) [cert denied 5/5]

[taperxz]

Not really, while republican judges can be anti-gun, even fewer democrat judges have gotten this issue right. In fact, the only judge in recent memory is the Obama appointee who got rid of Chicago's gun store ban.

I don't see how Roe and guns correlate. We have evidence of Roe (for the most part) not being overturned and we also have evidence of democrat judges being more hostile to 2A cases than republicans.

Peruta is a good example..... 2-1..... Two repubs and one dem.

That same Dem concurred with Richards though.

[speedrrracer]

If Peruta stands, but the Supreme Court declines to review a right-to-carry case, that still leaves a lot of Americans without Second Amendment protections in the prohibitionist states of the northeast. How many would that be? At least a quarter of the U.S. population?

Less. The 9th represents a bit over 20% of the US population, and is the most populous district.

If we consider the "northeast" to include the 1st, 2nd and 3rd districts, then we're talking ~55 million, which is about 17% of the population.

[Hoop]

So why wouldn't they have just denied last week?

Every statistic I've read has said about 50/50

I think they need one justice interested in the case and then 4 voting on whether or not to take it.

[Jared1981]

That same Dem concurred with Richards though.

It wasn't on principle though. I'll continue to assume democrat judges will rule against us almost always until I see a 2-1 or 3-0 ruling with at least two dem appointees. It seems reasonable and prudent at this time.

[taperxz]

It wasn't on principle though. I'll continue to assume democrat judges will rule against us almost always until I see a 2-1 or 3-0 ruling with at least two dem appointees. It seems reasonable and prudent at this time.

If it wasn't on principle of the law, that judge could have easily had a staffer write up something similar to Peruta. Its not that hard to do especially with the Peruta opinion in front of them.

They chose not to which means they accepted Peruta as law.

[kcbrown]

If it wasn't on principle of the law, that judge could have easily had a staffer write up something similar to Peruta. Its not that hard to do especially with the Peruta opinion in front of them.

They chose not to which means they accepted Peruta as law.

But a dissent in Richards would be a dissent against the decision there. The decision there was "Peruta is controlling precedent, therefore ...". Hence, a dissent would be a disagreement that Peruta is controlling precedent.

That means a dissent would be an outright statement that stare decisis is not applicable in Richards.


The dissent against the basis of Richards has already been made -- in Peruta. In Richards, there's nothing for the opposition to say unless they want to go on record as being opposed to stare decisis itself.

Hence, lack of dissent in Richards means absolutely nothing here. What matters is that Thomas dissented in Peruta. If Thomas really weren't against us, Thomas would have concurred with Peruta (at the very least. In reality, if he truly were on our side, he would have joined the majority. But neither of those things happened there).

He didn't. Therefore, the claim that Thomas is somehow not against us is completely contrary to the evidence. It is wishful thinking, pure and simple.


Ask yourself why Thomas simply concurred in Richards, rather than actually joining the majority opinion.

[Jared1981]

But a dissent in Richards would be a dissent against the decision there. The decision there was "Peruta is controlling precedent, therefore ...". Hence, a dissent would be a disagreement that Peruta is controlling precedent.

That means a dissent would be an outright statement that stare decisis is not applicable in Richards.


The dissent against the basis of Richards has already been made -- in Peruta. In Richards, there's nothing for the opposition to say unless they want to go on record as being opposed to stare decisis itself.

Hence, lack of dissent in Richards means absolutely nothing here. What matters is that Thomas dissented in Peruta. If Thomas really weren't against us, Thomas would have concurred with Peruta (at the very least. In reality, if he truly were on our side, he would have joined the majority. But neither of those things happened there).

He didn't. Therefore, the claim that Thomas is somehow not against us is completely contrary to the evidence. It is wishful thinking, pure and simple.


Ask yourself why Thomas simply concurred in Richards, rather than actually joining the majority opinion.

Exactly

[taperxz]

Exactly

Not exactly. If Peruta isn't taken en banc, but Richards is, there is no dissenting opinion.

[kcbrown]

Not exactly. If Peruta isn't taken en banc, but Richards is, there is no dissenting opinion.

Which means diddly squat. Taking Richards en banc is an ipso facto review of the underlying precedent itself. Thomas' opinion in Richards was not a comment about the underlying precedent in Richards but rather about the existence of that precedent. Such would not be the case for an en banc review.

In short, an en banc review of Richards is identical to an en banc review of Peruta, precisely because all Richards says is "see Peruta".

The 9th Circuit isn't going to bother with an en banc review of only what amounts to "stare decisis applies". If they take Richards en banc, it will be for something much more substantive than that. The only substance that can be reviewed is the underlying precedent, i.e. Peruta.

Hence, if Richards is taken en banc, it will be for the purpose of overturning Peruta (however, whether Peruta is overturned once any of these cases is taken en banc depends on the luck of the panel draw).

[taperxz]

Which means diddly squat. Taking Richards en banc is an ipso facto review of the underlying precedent itself. Thomas' opinion in Richards was not a comment about the underlying precedent in Richards but rather about the existence of that precedent. Such would not be the case for an en banc review.

In short, an en banc review of Richards is identical to an en banc review of Peruta, precisely because all Richards says is "see Peruta".

The 9th Circuit isn't going to bother with an en banc review of only what amounts to "stare decisis applies". If they take Richards en banc, it will be for something much more substantive than that. The only substance that can be reviewed is the underlying precedent, i.e. Peruta.

Hence, if Richards is taken en banc, it will be for the purpose of overturning Peruta (however, whether Peruta is overturned once any of these cases is taken en banc depends on the luck of the panel draw).

KC, many of the "lawyers" here say that the quandary is all part of the perfect storm presented though.

[kcbrown]

KC, many of the "lawyers" here say that the quandary is all part of the perfect storm presented though.

Link?

The quandaries I've seen discussed revolve around whether or not Peruta implicates the law itself, how that intersects with the AG's intervenor request, and that such a review would thus have to (as if courts "have to" do anything) include consideration of the complete prohibition on open carry, with the occasional claim that (based on memory here, so forgive me if I get it wrong) an en banc review of Peruta must be for the purpose of reviewing the Constitutionality of the entire scheme of the law.

I've not seen any that revolve around differences between the considerations involved with en banc reviews of Peruta versus Richards.


In any case, this is a court of law we're talking about here. There is no such thing as "must" here. Courts are under no real-world constraints of consequence whatsoever. Everything is by "gentlemen's agreement", and we know what that is worth in the political world.

Remember Nordyke. That case makes it plain that the 9th Circuit can and will overturn its own decisions for the flimsiest of reasons if it really wants to. One need know nothing more than that to conclude that it can and, thus, will, overturn Peruta through whatever mechanism it deems suitable if it so desires.


That said, we need the "wishful thinking" counterbalance to my own "doom and gloom" reality, so keep going!

[taperxz]

Link?

The quandaries I've seen discussed revolve around whether or not Peruta implicates the law itself, how that intersects with the AG's intervenor request, and that such a review would thus have to (as if courts "have to" do anything) include consideration of the complete prohibition on open carry, with the occasional claim that (based on memory here, so forgive me if I get it wrong) an en banc review of Peruta must be for the purpose of reviewing the Constitutionality of the entire scheme of the law.

I've not seen any that revolve around differences between the considerations involved with en banc reviews of Peruta versus Richards.


In any case, this is a court of law we're talking about here. There is no such thing as "must" here. Courts are under no real-world constraints of consequence whatsoever. Everything is by "gentlemen's agreement", and we know what that is worth in the political world.

Remember Nordyke. That case makes it plain that the 9th Circuit can and will overturn its own decisions for the flimsiest of reasons if it really wants to. One need know nothing more than that to conclude that it can and, thus, will, overturn Peruta through whatever mechanism it deems suitable if it so desires.


That said, we need the "wishful thinking" counterbalance to my own "doom and gloom" reality, so keep going!

to hard for me to search here right now. Perhaps brought up when Richards/Prieto filed en banc? Not sure but was my understanding in regards to what O'scainnlan was doin

[hardlyworking]

My prediction is that they will not take the case and that one of the dissenting justices wanted to actually write up an opinion on the cert denial.

lol, thanks for that :P

[ziegenbock]

I want Thomas to write the next USSC Opinion. I think he would do it right. To bad we don't have 4 more like him.

[ryan_j]

Also, Wollard and Drake are almost identical.

Both MD and NJ license concealed and open carry on the same license and both states use "shall-issue" language upon a good showing of need.

The big difference is that there was no Peruta then.

There is also a difference in issuance between MD and NJ. Most of the plaintiffs in Drake v Jerejian would have gotten permits in Maryland. That said, the issues are the same, but NJ takes it to a whole different level.