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

[IVC]

Almost all courts have completely stonewalled any 2A efforts with standards they would never apply to any other right.

Except CA-7 and CA-9 that both ruled 2A applied outside the home and not a single circuit court saying that the 2A doesn't apply outside the home. Sure you qualified your statement with "almost," but your conclusions are as if every court not only ruled to uphold the legislation, but gave us a clear "2A doesn't exist outside the home."

Let's look at it this way. Most of the legislation at the national level was to *relax* gun laws and not a single anti gun group was able to challenge successfully any of those laws. On the other hand, we have already won that the 2A applies outside the home and entails carry and are trying to get SCOTUS to reconcile the splits.

When STOTUS comes out and says "2A doesn't exist outside the home" or "2A exists outside the home, but legislators can limit it to the select few," then you might have a case. Until then it's just speculation about half full/empty glass.

[Jared1981]

12 hours....

[Jared1981]

Except CA-7 and CA-9 that both ruled 2A applied outside the home and not a single circuit court saying that the 2A doesn't apply outside the home. Sure you qualified your statement with "almost," but your conclusions are as if every court not only ruled to uphold the legislation, but gave us a clear "2A doesn't exist outside the home."

Let's look at it this way. Most of the legislation at the national level was to *relax* gun laws and not a single anti gun group was able to challenge successfully any of those laws. On the other hand, we have already won that the 2A applies outside the home and entails carry and are trying to get SCOTUS to reconcile the splits.

When STOTUS comes out and says "2A doesn't exist outside the home" or "2A exists outside the home, but legislators can limit it to the select few," then you might have a case. Until then it's just speculation about half full/empty glass.

Almost, you are correct, the 7th circuit has struck down Illinois carry ban and now you can apply for a non-resident IL license!!!! For $300 and ONLY if you live in Hawaii or South Carolina.. what a joke..... How the HELL does THAT pass as compliance with the Moore case???? In fact, only ONE person in the entire state of Hawaii can apply because that is how many CCW permits were issued last year, one in Kauai County... So he can apply.... Big whoop de doo.

The 9th circuit got a ruling correct that hasn't changed diddly squat yet. Folks in Orange County can apply... And wait until a FEW YEARS for an interview.... Until Peruta is actually implemented, the win isn't there yet....L.A. and San Fran aren't issuing permits yet.

I forgot to add that SCOTUS thought it was A-ok for Sunnyvale or whatever that city is called to force 10+ round mag owners to REMOVE them from their homes.... The threat of having your property confiscated wasn't even worth a stay.

[IVC]

I'll just attribute it to "Battered Gun Owner Syndrome."

While we can discuss opinions and interpretations, when it comes to arguing facts it crosses the line.

[Tripper]

I'll just attribute it to "Battered Gun Owner Syndrome."

While we can discuss opinions and interpretations, when it comes to arguing facts it crosses the line.

please dont do that, then its a disease or mental illness, prohibiting possession for life. probably for you and your children

[El Toro]

Certainly, that would nicely deal with Good Cause (GC), but we'd still be left to fight the Good Moral Character (GMC) battle, wouldn't we?

Good Moral Character shouldn't worry us so much because that battle will make the antis look terrible. The American people can understand criminal or crazy but, the debate about character touches too many nerves. There are dozens of culture wars that deal with morality and this fight would be one that few will have the temerity stand behind without dire consequences. I imagine a Bill Clinton that will say most Americans should have this right rather than a few elites. GMC will die a quick death in the American psyche.

[prometa]

can I ask a stupid question
If SCOTUS, tomorrow says Open Carry is a constitutional right, can I start open carrying tuesday, regardless of CA's law against open carry.
actually, is that even what the case is asking?

Unfortunately, no. The wheels of the judiciary turn very slowly.

Even if they released the Drake decision tomorrow and it were in our favor, they'd only be overruling the 3rd circuit on a matter of law and would remand the case back to the district court for further consideration. Then, the district court would be compelled to issue a ruling in favor of the plaintiff. That would allow Mr. Drake to carry, while the rest of NJ would have to wait for the legislature to modify the NJ carry laws to comply with the ruling. Meanwhile, the rest of us could sue in other jurisdictions saying carry policy is unconstitutional in the wake of Drake, and, unless we are lucky, would have to fight recalcitrant judges who still rule against us, just like we have with Heller and McDonald.

Alternatively, you could immediately start open carrying, but you'd likely be arrested and charged. From there, you could contest the charge under the precedent set by Drake, but that's a big gambit to take since the penalty if you lose is huge.

I believe the ruling in Drake will be similar to the 9th opinion in Peruta: some form of carry for the purpose of self defense must be available to all. States may choose open or conceal carry. Some think California may choose to allow open carry and keep just cause CCW just to screw with us (since many/most prefer to conceal carry to avoid attention). I think they will ultimately choose concealed because they don't want scared people realizing politicians were the ones that gave people the right to wear a gun on their hips in public. People seeing guns on hips also forces more and better debate. They don't want that.

[ddestruel]

CA demographics are far, far, far different from those of Ohio. My concern is that if loaded open carry becomes a judicial standard, any number of CA politicians will find ways to restrict it. Open carry in CA will be litigated into the next century.

we agree to disagree.

I’m of the opinion that this case MAY be granted, that MAY issue will stand but that the counties or states that operate with a ban in practice will fall. my hope and belief is that the 3 judge panel ruling in Peruta stands as a pretty solid indication of what is acceptable. they went so far as to indicate that the state has a right to choose the manner of public carry and regulate time place and manner but that the right must not be infringed so bans in practice for law abiding citizens like NJ and in CAs case overly restrictive sheriffs in ca will fail.... essentially by banning open carry the state of CA must accept CCW applications with self defense as a reason. other reasons are still deniable, so it is still a good cause justifiable need system the court would just give a light handed guidance. so in our case in ca post Peruta if it stands or a new ruling in Drake if CA chooses to allow a urban and rural open carry (obviously with some restrictions the conjure up) and revert back to a restrictive May issue system for public carry they could but the open carry time place and manner would be scrutinized by courts as well sensitive places, schools, government buildings and places secured by guards and metal detectors will be considered sensitive that would be legal. But then you will see the open carry Starbucks meetings return, the political statements of open carry and the soccer moms will call in and complain in droves. prompting a revisiting of the overly restrictive CCW policy. but thats just my speculations. regardless of CA demographics. open carry luncheons prompt the politicians to react somehow in a manner that we all can’t predict accurately but i believe in a manner that might help our pursuit of CCW issuance

[aBrowningfan]

NYC will fall in line. Stop and Frisk was stopped cold by the Courts and Comrade DeBlasio dropped the appeal.

Apples vs. oranges. Stop and Frisk is not a 2A matter. Do you honestly think that de Blasio would drop an appeal of a 2A litigation that went against NYC?

[aBrowningfan]

snip...

Alternatively, you could immediately start open carrying, but you'd likely be arrested and charged. From there, you could contest the charge under the precedent set by Drake, but that's a big gambit to take since the penalty if you lose is huge

Even if you win, the cost is non-trivial. What do you think the legal fees would be to take a case to trial? Think you will get the fees recovered?

[Gray Peterson]

[QUOTE=prometa;13971740]Unfortunately, no. The wheels of the judiciary turn very slowly.

Even if they released the Drake decision tomorrow and it were in our favor, they'd only be overruling the 3rd circuit on a matter of law and would remand the case back to the district court for further consideration. Then, the district court would be compelled to issue a ruling in favor of the plaintiff. That would allow Mr. Drake to carry, while the rest of NJ would have to wait for the legislature to modify the NJ carry laws to comply with the ruling./QUOTE]


The above is not correct. The NJ legislature does not have to do anything. A reversal of the 3rd circuit in Mr. Drake's favor would strike down the justifiable need statute. That's the statute which prevents people from applying and have their applications considered on a shall issue basis.

[ryan_j]

Apples vs. oranges. Stop and Frisk is not a 2A matter. Do you honestly think that de Blasio would drop an appeal of a 2A litigation that went against NYC?

This is the Supreme Court we are talking about here. He has no choice.

[ryan_j]

The above is not correct. The NJ legislature does not have to do anything. A reversal of the 3rd circuit in Mr. Drake's favor would strike down the justifiable need statute. That's the statute which prevents people from applying and have their applications considered on a shall issue basis.

Beat me to it. It's just like the effect Peruta would have on CA carry. Justifiable need would be gone, or "self defense" would be a valid justifiable need.

[aBrowningfan]

This is the Supreme Court we are talking about here. He has no choice.

I must be missing something. Did SCOTUS rule on a 2A case against NYC?

[ryan_j]

I must be missing something. Did SCOTUS rule on a 2A case against NYC?

Drake or Peruta would apply to NYC if ruled on by the Supremes