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

[fizux]

In conference for the 18th (of April)

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

Yup, that was included in yesterday's update.

[dantodd]

What I don't know, is if cert is granted in Drake will they hear the case in time to get an opinion this session. I would love to hear the court's thoughts on "bear" within the next few months.

[fizux]

What I don't know, is if cert is granted in Drake will they hear the case in time to get an opinion this session. I would love to hear the court's thoughts on "bear" within the next few months.

My guess --- assuming cert is granted --- between briefing schedules, followed by oral args, I do not expect this to be done by June. I have the feeling we will be setting our clocks back an hour before we get a SCOTUS opinion in Drake.

Edit:
IMHO, one thing that Appellants should note is that (except for DCCA), all Circuits are basically settled on this issue because the 5th, 6th, 8th, 10th, and 11th Circuits comprise of all "shall-issue" states (for all 21+ law abiding citizens). Sure, NRA v. McCraw and NRA v. BAFTE provide clues from 5CA, but those are muddied with other issues (18-20 year-olds).
1CA - Hightower (possibly a bad facts issue, but the standard is basically set).
2CA - Kachalsky.
3CA - Drake.
4CA - Woolard.
5CA - All Shall-issue.
6CA - All Shall-issue.
7CA - All Shall-issue; Moore.
8CA - All Shall-issue.
9CA - Peruta.
10CA - All Shall-issue.
11CA - All Shall-issue.
DCCA - Bueller? ... Bueller? ... oh yeah, Palmer.

[dantodd]

My guess --- assuming cert is granted --- between briefing schedules, followed by oral args, I do not expect this to be done by June. I have the feeling we will be setting our clocks back an hour before we get a SCOTUS opinion in Drake.

Edit:
IMHO, one thing that Appellants should note is that (except for DCCA), all Circuits are basically settled on this issue because the 5th, 6th, 8th, 10th, and 11th Circuits comprise of all "shall-issue" states (for all 21+ law abiding citizens). Sure, NRA v. McCraw and NRA v. BAFTE provide clues from 5CA, but those are muddied with other issues (18-20 year-olds).
1CA - Hightower (possibly a bad facts issue, but the standard is basically set).
2CA - Kachalsky.
3CA - Drake.
4CA - Woolard.
5CA - All Shall-issue.
6CA - All Shall-issue.
7CA - All Shall-issue; Moore.
8CA - All Shall-issue.
9CA - Peruta.
10CA - All Shall-issue.
11CA - All Shall-issue.
DCCA - Bueller? ... Bueller? ... oh yeah, Palmer.

The fact that all states in some circuits elect to permit carry in no way should be construed to mean that they recognize carry as a right. I suspect you are right on the timing and it makes keeping Peruta/Richards rolling and keep them off the en banc schedule is so important. It would be a travesty to be denied the right to self-defense for another year.

[IVC]

The fact that all states in some circuits elect to permit carry in no way should be construed to mean that they recognize carry as a right.

Correct, but those circuits *cannot* get a "carry" case in front of them since there is nothing to challenge. From that standpoint, they are as good as done when determining existence of circuit splits.

[press1280]

The fact that all states in some circuits elect to permit carry in no way should be construed to mean that they recognize carry as a right. I suspect you are right on the timing and it makes keeping Peruta/Richards rolling and keep them off the en banc schedule is so important. It would be a travesty to be denied the right to self-defense for another year.

Some of those state courts haven't been tried yet, along with SC's circuit, because of SC's OC ban and CCW ban for many non-residents. CO (10th Circuit) may get tried again in Bonidy or at least should have an OC challenge to Denver to pick up off the Peterson case.
There certainly are other avenues but I suspect SAF was expecting to already have a case at SCOTUS.

[dantodd]

Some of those state courts haven't been tried yet, along with SC's circuit, because of SC's OC ban and CCW ban for many non-residents. CO (10th Circuit) may get tried again in Bonidy or at least should have an OC challenge to Denver to pick up off the Peterson case.
There certainly are other avenues but I suspect SAF was expecting to already have a case at SCOTUS.

I think we all thought we'd have seen a bear case before SCOTUS already.

[fizux]

I think we all thought we'd have seen a bear case before SCOTUS already.

Yeah, considering that the Palmer complaint was filed 8/6/2009.

[thayne]

I think we all thought we'd have seen a bear case before SCOTUS already.

definitely over due

[solanoslough]

Correct, but those circuits *cannot* get a "carry" case in front of them since there is nothing to challenge. From that standpoint, they are as good as done when determining existence of circuit splits.

How do you explain Embody v Cooper 13-8464 ? It is a state case coming from a "shall issue" Tennessee, where the state court says that the right to bear arms does not exist outside the home. Embody said fine don't issue a permit and asked for open carry. The Supreme court did not deny and said he could file as a paid case a couple of weeks ago. He might have a shot at a grant.

In his petition he explains that the state of Illinois in Aguilar v IL said that a law similar to the Tennessee law, which bans the carry of guns, is unconstitutional. That gives him a state court split he needs to be heard.

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=1673

Petitioner is not eligible to obtain a Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit.

[fizux]

How do you explain Embody v Cooper 13-8464 ? It is a state case ....

(emphasis added)
1. Since we were talking about CIRCUIT SPLITS, you've answered your own question.

2. Embody is crazy. He is ineligible for a CCW, and his prior permit was revoked, because he is crazy. Between disguising an AK as an airsoft gun with an orange-painted tip and running around a playground, walking around town with an unholstered black powder revolver in his hand to prove a point, and wearing body armor with a suppressed AR in a vacuum-formed kydex "speedo" to get around "concealed means concealed," yeah, he's confirmed crazy.

3. Please let's not turn this into another Embody-Nichols-bromance, PLOC-vs.-CCW, The-NRA-SAF-and-CGF-hate-gun-rights-because-they-don't-worship-Nichols-and-Embody thread. There is plenty of that and/or start a new thread somewhere else to rehash that discussion.

[solanoslough]

(emphasis added)
1. Since we were talking about CIRCUIT SPLITS, you've answered your own question.

My point was that a circuit split is effectively the same as a split in State Courts. I think Embody has identified a split and that may be one reason why his petition was allowed to live another day.

Since you started the discussion into his "craziness" why does he still have carry permits or licenses from Florida, Arizona, and Utah? Why does he still have firearms and silencers? If he were crazy wouldn't the state have taken those away? It isn't as though he is hiding he has a blog and posts on facebook.

[fizux]

My point was that a circuit split is effectively the same as a split in State Courts.

So, bringing this full circle back to the original point of what the Petitioners in Drake can do to frame the issue for SCOTUS... should the Petitioners suggest that SCOTUS deny the petition and wait to hear from other State courts?

Do you think SCOTUS should wait for all 50 State Courts of Last Resort to weigh in before taking a "bear" case? ... or is it enough that all Circuits that are likely to weigh in (this decade) have done so?

[solanoslough]

Tennessee lies in the sixth circuit which, previous posts in this thread say, is a "shall issue" circuit. Tennessee is a "shall issue" state. Yet, Embody v Cooper is a challenge from Tennessee.

The fact that all states in some circuits elect to permit carry in no way should be construed to mean that they recognize carry as a right.

[fizux]

The last person we want making any progress is freaking Embody......

Let's stop feeding the Embody legend... TrollGhost... whatever.

Solano posted the same stuff in the Embody thread. Let's respond there and avoid polluting this thread.

Nothing personal, but Embody and Nichols seem to take these litigation threads way off topic... Just like every lunchtime discussion with my coworkers always degenerates to b!tching about gun control, but in that case its okay because the rules for thee do not apply to mee.