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

[ryan_j]

An outright lie!!! NJ only issued 1195 permits and issues 500 a year with 2 year expiration.

[safewaysecurity]

Lolol they are bat**** insane. I hope the judges see through their nonsense and call them out for lying and insulting their intelligence.

[IVC]

NJ replied today.

I want some of what they're smoking!


An outright lie!!! NJ only issued 1195 permits and issues 500 a year with 2 year expiration.

Concur. This is the most ridiculous argument that they could've come up with. Even funnier than when Feinstein starts a sentence with "I support 2A, but..."

[Peaceful John]

More proof that the Court / legal system is broken and in the hands of liars and idiots.

As I see it, it's evidence that New Jersey's licensing program is not supportable. Only that, nothing more. But perhaps it's enough.

[speedrrracer]

As I see it, it's evidence that New Jersey's licensing program is not supportable. Only that, nothing more. But perhaps it's enough.

Agreed -- I plead temp insanity

[otteray]

Their population is about 8 1/2 million. So that's what, like almost 0.0001% have permission slips. If you hold your index and thumb out in front of you and try really, really hard to make them just almost, but not quite touch together, you can actually see it how small that is.

[press1280]

An outright lie!!! NJ only issued 1195 permits and issues 500 a year with 2 year expiration.

Yea I was really stunned by this brief.

I'd really like to ask this AG if she actually believes what she's writing is true, or whether this is simply a ploy to get a SCOTUS justice to blink and deny cert. The brief is full of flat out lies and complete distortions. O'Scannlain's opinion clearly calls out the CA3 Drake opinion. Judges don't simply call out another circuit if there's no real conflict.
There's also the pages and pages of NJ legislative "findings" from the 60's and 70's that are somehow supposed to be taken seriously some 40 years later with much more reliable data about public carry now available.
This AG will be absolutely hammered by SCOTUS. Only question is can the court see through the BS?

[ryan_j]

Mind you I believe the deputy AG wrote this. You should hear her in the circuit court Orals. She was a complete disaster.

[Rossi357]

Another rational basis decision requested.
Apparently, justifiable need is different than good cause.
This is a facial challenge and Peruta is an as applied challenge.

[Kharn]

From that brief, NJ's only prayer is for cert to be denied. The merits stage would be a complete disaster without outside legal counsel.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

If open carry is specifically protected and concealed carry CAN be fully banned Richards or Peruta will bring this out if the get to SCOTUS. If the court accepts a carry case of any variety the first analysis they will have to pursue is whether or not the second amendment protects a right to self-defense outside the home. If the court finds such a right exists but that a ban or May issue regulatory scheme toward concealed carry is acceptable there is only one conclusion.

If, on the other hand, the court finds that a right exists to bear outside the home and that such a right extends to the issuance of concealed carry permits it does not preclude further litigation regarding open carry.

Concealed carry is the most common form of carry in states where both are allowed and it is the smallest step forward in the recovery of 2A rights.

Our rights were eroded by small steps; the foundation of those rights will also be rebuilt in small steps, one brick at a time.

Why not? Peruta did.


The Raisuli

[Peaceful John]

[QUOTE=press1280;13650480]Yea I was really stunned by this brief.

...............................

As a layman, would this not incentivize the Court to comment on GMC, disabilities, handling and use, and justifiable need? Seems to me -- again, as a layman -- that each of these filters must survive strict scrutiny.

Comments?

[press1280]

[QUOTE=Peaceful John;13651923]

Yea I was really stunned by this brief.

...............................

As a layman, would this not incentivize the Court to comment on GMC, disabilities, handling and use, and justifiable need? Seems to me -- again, as a layman -- that each of these filters must survive strict scrutiny.

Comments?

I'd hope so! You have a circuit court opinion specifically calling out another's(CA9 calling out CA3), yet NJ says there's nothing to see here?
I was expecting them to perhaps try to deflect cert by telling SCOTUS that they ought to wait for the events at CA9 to unfold or to wait for a better case (like Palmer or Baker). They did no such thing, and just said their system wasn't a total ban because you can carry "openly or concealed" at select locations outside the home-range, gun shop,exc-basically the same locations allowed under CA law.

[fizux]

OP updated with links to briefs of various amici , supp., and BIO.

[ryan_j]

In conference for the 18th (of April)

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/petitions-were-watching/