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

[nicki]

Some other considerations.

The Supreme Court doesn't operate totslly clueless of what is going on outside the courtroom.

They know that their public approval ratings jumped 10 percent in one day after Heller came out. The judges are sly foxes, sometimes to sly for their own good.

If the Supreme court doesnt take any gun cases, then the second amendment will be a factor in the 2014 elections. After Heller, both sides on the gun issue were proclaiming that gun bans were off the table, and for the 2008 elections, gun issues were not a top layer issue in many political races. This year things are different and gun owners across the country are waking up to the fact that Federal Judges are ignoring Heller/Mac Donald and so far the Supreme court has refused to take anymore second amendment cases.

When taken together with Obamacare, then in close races, the Democrats will be in deep trouble and the Democrats may suffer staggering loses provided that the Republican party doesn't shoot itself in the head by running tin foil hat candidates.

We are running out of circuits to run a carry case from, if that happens, then perhaps we may see Congress push somekind of federal civil rights gun bill in 2016 and if Obama doesnt sign it, then reintroduce in 2017 after the election.

Nicki

[kcbrown]

Apples and oranges. McDonald addressed the same type of ban as Heller had already addressed at that time. We got incorporation as a freebie.

Um, no.

The question asked in McDonald wasn't the same as the one asked in Heller. The former asked if the 2nd Amendment applies against the states. The latter asked if the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to arms.

So it's not apples and oranges at all.

[ccmc]

Apples and oranges. McDonald addressed the same type of ban as Heller had already addressed at that time. We got incorporation as a freebie.

After we get confirmed carry, SCOTUS will NOT wait for any splits before taking cases that would strike complete carry bans. Let's see how long before SCOTUS makes NY and New England "shall issue" *after* we have, say, Drake or Peruta decided in our favor by the SCOTUS. That would be a fair comparison.

A minor point - three of the six states in New England (ME, NH, VT) are either shall issue or constitutional carry. And the other three (CT, MA and RI) are somewhat easier may issue than CA (they also issue to nonresidents).

[LostInSpace]

And the other three (CT, MA and RI) are somewhat easier may issue than CA (they also issue to nonresidents).

I've seen CT listed as "shall issue in practice".

[IVC]

A minor point - three of the six states in New England (ME, NH, VT) are either shall issue or constitutional carry. And the other three (CT, MA and RI) are somewhat easier may issue than CA (they also issue to nonresidents).

It's a very good point and I shouldn't have used that example.

It was more along the lines of the type of gun control mentality that is being championed by the New England that will be affected by pro-gun rulings.

[kcbrown]

The Supreme Court doesn't operate totslly clueless of what is going on outside the courtroom.

They know that their public approval ratings jumped 10 percent in one day after Heller came out. The judges are sly foxes, sometimes to sly for their own good.

If the Supreme court doesnt take any gun cases, then the second amendment will be a factor in the 2014 elections.

We would have to see the minor miracle of the Republicans actually fielding a good candidate for that to make any real difference.

I predict they'll do no such thing, that we'll get another barely warm body as a "candidate", and the Democrat candidate will therefore win by default. Just like what happened in 2012.


My prediction would be different if I'd seen evidence that the Republican Party was making a concerted effort to right itself and to concentrate on the issue of liberty, and thus to field a candidate that inspires the passion for liberty in others, but I've seen no such evidence and, therefore, I have no reason at all to expect a different outcome.

[kcbrown]

With 20/20 hindsight, the next major abortion case after Roe v. Wade (1973) was Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

No. The next major abortion case after Roe v Wade was Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth (1976).

Well, okay, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "major", but the fact of the matter is that in Planned Parenthood v Danforth, the district court found in favor of the government despite Roe v Wade and the plaintiffs appealed. Which is to say, the right in question was being infringed and SCOTUS stepped in to protect it. Just like it had during the civil rights cases.


My point in all this is that SCOTUS had developed a recognizable pattern of aggressively defending newly-recognized rights. Their handling of the right to keep and bear arms is a distinct and obvious break from that pattern, one that demands explanation. I have provided one that is consistent with every piece of evidence we have thus far (including things like Kennedy's denial of the emergency injunction in Fyock), and which has made predictions that have since come true. It is immediately and easily falsifiable, and yet it stands.

I want it to be incorrect. But the consistency of the evidence, combined with the fact that its predictions have thus far proven to be correct, force me to give it greater weight than any other hypothesis that has thus far been offered.


I will be the first to admit that there is great uncertainty here, and multiple plausible explanations. But plausibility is not sufficient, even though it's necessary. Whichever hypothesis is falsifiable, makes the most accurate predictions, and is most consistent with the evidence is the one that wins, period. To treat this any other way is to dispense with objectivity.


I do agree that we're likely to see within the next couple of years which explanation stands. I hope it's not mine.

[ryan_j]

Drake v. Jerejian (was:Filko) (NJ CCW)

I've seen CT listed as "shall issue in practice".

It operates mostly like a shall issue state but there is a two step system to get a permit.

First you get a local permit via your first selectman. This is where most people who are denied are denied. People are denied for all sorts of petty BS. But if you have a clean record and take the NRA basic course (must be that specific course) you will get your permit.

Then you take that local temp permit and go to the state police and get your state permit.

Out of state residents just need to do the state paperwork plus submit a copy of any out of state permit.

If you are denied or they take too long (8 weeks) they have an appeal board. My friend goes there regularly to help people get their permits straightened out.

I have a CT permit since I go to CT often. In places like Bridgeport you will be glad you have it, and if you go there regularly it is more than likely you will need to draw your weapon sooner or later.

[kcbrown]

It operates mostly like a shall issue state but there is a two step system to get a permit.

First you get a local permit via your first selectman. This is where most people who are denied are denied. People are denied for all sorts of petty BS. But if you have a clean record and take the NRA basic course (must be that specific course) you will get your permit.

Then you take that local temp permit and go to the state police and get your state permit.

Out of state residents just need to do the state paperwork plus submit a copy of any out of state permit.

So it's actually more burdensome if you're a resident than if you're not? That is most interesting.

[LostInSpace]

So it's actually more burdensome if you're a resident than if you're not? That is most interesting.

As an aside, if one believes this link - http://wilton.patch.com/groups/thoma...-pistol-permit - which does agree with what I've seen elsewhere, there are about 200,000 pistol permits in CT for 3.5 million population.

[ryan_j]

Drake v. Jerejian (was:Filko) (NJ CCW)

So it's actually more burdensome if you're a resident than if you're not? That is most interesting.

That's correct. I have a CT state permit and my friends tell me how much more easier it is for nonresidents such as myself to obtain one.

[ddestruel]

.......
We are running out of circuits to run a carry case from, if that happens, then perhaps we may see Congress push somekind of federal civil rights gun bill in 2016 and if Obama doesnt sign it, then reintroduce in 2017 after the election.

Nicki

[ryan_j]

As an aside, if one believes this link - http://wilton.patch.com/groups/thoma...-pistol-permit - which does agree with what I've seen elsewhere, there are about 200,000 pistol permits in CT for 3.5 million population.

That's because you need one to purchase a pistol as well, and the state pistol permit is a (open or concealed) carry permit. So if you want to buy a pistol, you need a pistol permit. Now you also need it to buy ammo.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

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.

I think Bonidy (in the 10th) would be an exception to this.


The Raisuli

[LostInSpace]

That's because you need one to purchase a pistol as well, and the state pistol permit is a (open or concealed) carry permit. So if you want to buy a pistol, you need a pistol permit. Now you also need it to buy ammo.