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

[dantodd]

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.

That makes the 200,000 number go from being pretty big to being very small. Less that 10% even own handguns in CT?

[LostInSpace]

That makes the 200,000 number go from being pretty big to being very small. Less that 10% even own handguns in CT?

According to this data - http://usliberals.about.com/od/Elect...Population.htm - CT overall gun ownership rate is only 16.7% of households. The handgun ownership rate has to be judged against that number, not forgetting that only one of the spouses in a household may choose to have a permit, so the percentage of handgun-owning households will generally be higher than the percentage of permits.

[ryan_j]

The permit makes a big difference.

In NYC you need a permit to purchase and a permit to keep one at home, or in your business.

In NJ you need a permit to purchase a handgun, and that permit is valid for 90 days and in many cases takes about 3-6 months to issue. The permit to carry is a different permit.

These both help lower ownership numbers.

[IVC]

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

That's the USPS case where the question was about carrying in a specific place, not whether carry outside the home is part of 2A.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

That's the USPS case where the question was about carrying in a specific place, not whether carry outside the home is part of 2A.

It's bigger than that since the District Court said flat-out that Open Carry is the manner of "and bear" that is protected by the 2A. Couple this with the dicta in Peterson (also in the 10th), and it could be HUGE.


The Raisuli

[IVC]

It's bigger than that since the District Court said flat-out that Open Carry is the manner of "and bear" that is protected by the 2A. Couple this with the dicta in Peterson (also in the 10th), and it could be HUGE.

No question about that, but the current issue that is creating split is "whether 2A confirms an individual right to carry loaded firearm in public for the sole purpose of self defense."

The additional and different questions that can and will come out of shall-issue circuits will be resolved as they become ripe.

[sholling]

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

I'm not sure that I completely agree. The problem with your theory is the existence of media and social bubbles which seems likely to be the cause of Roberts' Obamacare ruling. The justices don't hang out at "Bubba's Bar & Grill" with we middle class types and probably don't get their news from The Daily Caller or Breitbart. It's a good bet that they get their news from ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, the WaPo, and in a few cases - Fox News (Rupert Murdock is no friend of the 2nd Amendment), all of which are are either slightly anti to completely off the rails anti, which could make them (really Roberts) feel like maybe the great American "center" was for Obamacare and is for MA style gun regulation.

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.

No doubt they were shocked.

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

The scary part of your theory is that once the 2014 elections are history the justices may decide to follow the same game plan for 2016, 2018, and 2022.

We are running out of circuits to run a carry case from

Too true.

[hoffmang]

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.

A cert grant this late means oral argument is in the fall of 2014 and the opinion is in 2015 - probably June 2015 (June again.)

How do you explain Embody v Cooper 13-8464 ?

Embody can still open carry in TN.

-Gene

[press1280]

Embody's stunt got his permit revoked, so now it's an unlicensed open carry since TN doesn't allow OC or CC without a permit.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

No question about that, but the current issue that is creating split is "whether 2A confirms an individual right to carry loaded firearm in public for the sole purpose of self defense."

The additional and different questions that can and will come out of shall-issue circuits will be resolved as they become ripe.

I don't think it can be that neatly described. All efforts so far have been "contaminated" by the effort to make Shall Issue CCW the Right. The difference with Bonidy is that it arrives on the doorstep on the 10th Circuit with the legal presumption that Open Carry (presumably permitless) is the Constitutional Right.

That's quite a big difference.


The Raisuli

[Peaceful John]

I don't think it can be that neatly described. All efforts so far have been "contaminated" by the effort to make Shall Issue CCW the Right. The difference with Bonidy is that it arrives on the doorstep on the 10th Circuit with the legal presumption that Open Carry (presumably permitless) is the Constitutional Right.

That's quite a big difference.

The Raisuli

Keeping track of the various cases and their permutations is getting to be quite a chore. Bonidy refresher below:

"A Colorado federal district court ruled today in favor of a Colorado man and a national gun rights group holding that a U.S. Postal Service regulation barring firearms in its parking lots violates their right to keep and bear arms under the Constitution.

[IVC]

I don't think it can be that neatly described. All efforts so far have been "contaminated" by the effort to make Shall Issue CCW the Right. The difference with Bonidy is that it arrives on the doorstep on the 10th Circuit with the legal presumption that Open Carry (presumably permitless) is the Constitutional Right.

Many of these cases remind me of putting a triangular peg into a square hole. Every angle by itself can be made to fit, but the whole peg can never pass through.

The real problem we are facing in *every* "carry" case is that there is no guidance from the SCOTUS on how to approach it. Some courts are weaseling out by saying "open carry is the right," others by saying "core right is in the home," most of them say "guns are dangerous, therefore reducing number of guns advances important government interest" thus using rational basis instead of elevated scrutiny, etc. However, only Moore and now Peruta have looked at the whole carry scheme, rather than trying to answer isolated little questions taken out of context.

The overall picture is likely to be addressed by a *concealed carry* case that SCOTUS takes since we now have rulings from pretty much all circuits that are likely to address *concealed* carry (which was the point some of us made). It's not that I believe concealed carry is going to make a better case than open carry, it's just that the cases that are in front of courts are all about permits for concealed carry.

My guess is that we will get a ruling on a *concealed* carry case where the SCOTUS says that some form of carry must be available to the average law abiding citizens, but that the method of carry, including licensing, will be allowed to remain as long as it's not prohibitive. Such a ruling can come from either concealed or open carry case, but since we now have so many rulings on concealed carry and since we have a split, I would expect as a practical matter to get a ruling from a concealed carry case.

[ryan_j]

Drake is not a concealed carry case.

NJ does not have concealed carry permits. NJ has a "permit to carry a handgun." Both open and concealed carry are completely banned except for the permit.

If you are an armed security officer or armored car personnel, you get the same permit. Many of them carry openly.

The lead plaintiff, John Drake, services ATMs. Many of those who do that sort of work have openly carried firearms. The visual deterrent is often enough to prevent thieves from trying to rob the ATM servicer.

Therefore Drake is pretty much about open carry as it is about concealed carry. In fact, it isn't even about the right to carry, because NJ bans possession of all firearms and then carves out very narrow exemptions. Evan Nappen in Pantano argued that NJ doesn't even recognize the right to possess a handgun in the home. That case is now before the NJ Supreme Court.

Judge Hardiman in the dissent in the 3rd circuit decision said that NJ completely banned open and concealed carry as well.

Drake is the perfect vehicle for this issue, and it almost exactly matches Peruta with the only difference really being who grants the permits. In NJ it is granted by the superior court, and in CA it is granted by the sheriffs. But the underlying scheme is still the exact same thing - discretionary issue of a permit to possess a handgun outside of one's home.

[LostInSpace]

So, if in NJ the permit is for all modes of carry, on what basis did the circuit argue against issuing them?

[wireless]

My guess is public safety