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

[Tincon]

Everyone is assuming Drake was re-listed, I have not seen any such order yet.

The big question is then whether they are having trouble getting the fifth vote under any conditions or whether they are merely trying to get the sixth one.

Where is everyone getting this "6th vote" business from?

Unless they want to wait for the 9th, but that seems like a stretch.

Why? Presumably this is the same reason (or at least one of the reasons) they denied Kachalsky, has something changed since then?

[indobos72]

Looks like another

[LostInSpace]

Where is everyone getting this "6th vote" business from?

As one of the not entirely outlandish logical possibilities (as far as the ultimate number of votes) one can speculate about.

Why? Presumably this is the same reason (or at least one of the reasons) they denied Kachalsky, has something changed since then?

How strong is this presumption?

[vagun71]

relisted for this Friday's conference

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-827.htm

[Tincon]

As one of the not entirely outlandish logical possibilities (as far as the ultimate number of votes) one can speculate about.

OK, who is this 6th vote supposed to be?

How strong is this presumption?

Pretty strong in my mind, but whatever the reason they denied Kachalsky, the question remains the same. What's different here?

It looks like it was re-listed. I thinks that's a positive sign for getting cert granted, but certainly no guarantee.

[TeddyBallgame]

No defendant did not seem to be much of an impediment in Miller.

When the Feds want to take our rights away, we don't need a defendant, when we want to restore those rights, then we need one.

plus we get to wait 10+ years for our rights to make it up the legal ladder

[1JimMarch]

Why? Presumably this is the same reason (or at least one of the reasons) they denied Kachalsky, has something changed since then?

You bet something changed. Peruta opened up a circuit split the size of a nuked grand canyon between the 9th and the 2nd/3rd/4th.

Drake is also going to be the last chance for quite some time to resolve the split. The DC carry case appears to be stalled forever and I don't think anything is coming up soon before the 1st Circuit in Massachusetts.

[Tincon]

You bet something changed. Peruta opened up a circuit split the size of a nuked grand canyon between the 9th and the 2nd/3rd/4th.

Well maybe it did, but from a SCOTUS POV it has not done anything yet. There is no published opinion in the 9th.

[CZ man in LA]

relisted for this Friday's conference

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.a...les/13-827.htm

So it keeps getting pushed back and back. Ugh, the suspense!

[1JimMarch]

OK, who is this 6th vote supposed to be?

Well Kagan has been playing with boomthings since becoming shooting buddies with Scalia, so there's hope there.

Ginsburg of all people is also not out of the running because it was her definition of "bear arms" that Scalia cited in Heller from a Ginsburg dissent:

--------
At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

--------

It would thus be difficult for Ginsburg to come up with a completely different definition of "bear arms" that wouldn't include on-body loaded carry without looking like a twit.

[Tincon]

Well Kagan has been playing with boomthings since becoming shooting buddies with Scalia, so there's hope there.

Ginsburg of all people is also not out of the running because it was her definition of "bear arms" that Scalia cited in Heller from a Ginsburg dissent:

You guys crack me up. But I applaud your optimism.

[1JimMarch]

Well maybe it did, but from a SCOTUS POV it has not done anything yet. There is no published opinion in the 9th.

Wait...the Peruta opinion was unpublished? Are you sure? Richards and I think Baker are unpublished because they don't add anything to the discussion, just "see Peruta"...

[funthea]

It would thus be difficult for Ginsburg to come up with a completely different definition of "bear arms" that wouldn't include on-body loaded carry without looking like a twit.

I concur!

[taperxz]

Wait...the Peruta opinion was unpublished? Are you sure? Richards and I think Baker are unpublished because they don't add anything to the discussion, just "see Peruta"...

Peruta was de published in light of the intervenor requests.

[IVC]

Well maybe it did, but from a SCOTUS POV it has not done anything yet. There is no published opinion in the 9th.

If you go directly to 9th Circuit published opinions web page and either type "Peruta" for name or the case number "10-56971" you'll get it listed as "published." The opinion itself (PDF) also has in its title "for publication."