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

[Jared1981]

The 300 dollars is correct, but I believe any nonresident can apply as long as they do the 16 hours training with an IL certified instructor - perhaps you are also required to have an LTC from your home state - don't know about that. IL will recognize HI LTCs (didn't know about SC), but that's kind of a moot point since (as you pointed out) only one has been issued.

Incorrect, only residents from HI and SC can apply, and only with a home state permit. So much for Moore.

[Skyhook]

So, you're arguing they're going to GVR it? Otherwise, they can hash all that out after the briefs (or even orals), next term.

No- I'm not saying that at all.

I'm saying that the strong 2A types on the court are trying to thread the needle to make as strong as possible a ruling while at the same time trying to get vote five (and possibly six).

If Scalia is pushing for something very broad, but he's trying to get Ginsburg and/or Kagan on board and they (or Kennedy) are resisting signing off on something as broad as what Scalia is pushing for, they are going to be working the language to frame the question in a way to get the last vote(s) on board.

That takes time obviously, but assuming there are four strong 2A votes already, they're not going to grant cert with the idea that they'll hash it out next term until they know they have framed the question in a way as to get five (or six) votes.

[taperxz]

My guess is they are waiting for the 9th to act on Peruta, they may well want to consolidate both cases or they might prefer Peruta.

Either that or they are trying to solidify a 6th vote, though that could be done after orals, there is plenty of time to solicit votes.

Whatever the reason, I hope this spurs the 9th to start moving on Peruta et. al. now.

There is no guarantee Peruta will make it to them.

[Paladin]

No- I'm not saying that at all.

I'm saying that the strong 2A types on the court are trying to thread the needle to make as strong as possible a ruling while at the same time trying to get vote five (and possibly six).

If Scalia is pushing for something very broad, but he's trying to get Ginsburg and/or Kagan on board and they (or Kennedy) are resisting signing off on something as broad as what Scalia is pushing for, they are going to be working the language to frame the question in a way to get the last vote(s) on board.

That takes time obviously, but assuming there are four strong 2A votes already, they're not going to grant cert with the idea that they'll hash it out next term until they know they have framed the question in a way as to get five (or six) votes.

So, they're hashing out now how they can frame the question/s to write an opinion that 5 or 6 of them will sign off on BEFORE they've had oral arguments and before they've even read the attorneys' and amicis' briefs.... I've always heard orals are pretty much just SCOTUS arguing among themselves, but you're saying it is ALL a show, no need for even briefs or amici filings.

Might very well be true....

Out of here for now....

[Paladin]

My guess is they are waiting for the 9th to act on Peruta, they may well want to consolidate both cases or they might prefer Peruta.

Either that or they are trying to solidify a 6th vote, though that could be done after orals, there is plenty of time to solicit votes.

Whatever the reason, I hope this spurs the 9th to start moving on Peruta et. al. now.

Just want to give an "Amen!" to that before leaving for the day.

[Phiremin]

There is no guarantee Peruta will make it to them.

Peruta has unresolved procedural problems with it. Chiefly, there is currently no defendant in the case. While Peruta has consented the AGs participation, it's unclear if there is a legal avenue to allow her to joint he case as a defendant when no state laws were overturned

Drake is a much cleaner case and would seem to make a better vehicle fo clarifying "right to bear".

[taperxz]

Peruta has unresolved procedural problems with it. Chiefly, there is currently no defendant in the case. While Peruta has consented the AGs participation, it's unclear if there is a legal avenue to allow her to joint he case as a defendant when no state laws were overturned

Drake is a much cleaner case and would seem to make a better vehicle fo clarifying "right to bear".

I wouldn't exactly call it a procedural problem. Its more like unfinished business.

I don't see how Drake is cleaner. Here in CA it would be nice to get Peruta done but Richards has filed en banc.

[wireless]

My guess is they are waiting for the 9th to act on Peruta, they may well want to consolidate both cases or they might prefer Peruta.

Unlikely

[mattb25]

So, they're hashing out now how they can frame the question/s to write an opinion that 5 or 6 of them will sign off on BEFORE they've had oral arguments and before they've even read the attorneys' and amicis' briefs.... I've always heard orals are pretty much just SCOTUS arguing among themselves, but you're saying it is ALL a show, no need for even briefs or amici filings.

Might very well be true....

Out of here for now....

Welcome to the Supreme Court.

[prometa]

As of last week, two of the previous five cases that were granted cert were re-listed twice.

The other three were re-listed once, as were the rest of the cert grants this term.

Don't know about the two that were granted cert today.

Both of the cases granted today had been relisted once, AFAIK.

Anyone know the record for the number of times a case has ever been re-listed?

Not off hand, but there is a case from this term that has almost 20 re listings already.

[Skyhook]

So, they're hashing out now how they can frame the question/s to write an opinion that 5 or 6 of them will sign off on BEFORE they've had oral arguments and before they've even read the attorneys' and amicis' briefs....

Yes- that's exactly what I'm saying.

If there are four strong 2A votes on the court, why would they grant cert before they knew they had the fifth vote lined up ?

Granting cert only to lose would be a disaster.

They're going to want to know they will win before granting cert.

[CurlyDave]

Peruta has unresolved procedural problems with it. Chiefly, there is currently no defendant in the case. While Peruta has consented the AGs participation, it's unclear if there is a legal avenue to allow her to joint he case as a defendant when no state laws were overturned

Drake is a much cleaner case and would seem to make a better vehicle fo clarifying "right to bear".

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.

[ryan_j]

Anyone know the record for the number of times a case has ever been re-listed?

The murder case in CA? Ryan vs Hurles?

[LostInSpace]

Most likely case IMO is that Scalia and co are trying to walk the line between having as broad and expansive of a ruling as possible (in light of lower courts ignoring Heller) while at the same time framing it in a way as to get five or six votes

The big question then is whether they are having trouble getting the fifth vote under any conditions or whether they are merely trying to get the sixth one. It's starting to feel like the last chance for carry for this court - it's hard to imagine them rejecting Drake after this much scrutiny while taking any other carry case later (except perhaps to rule against the right to bear outside one's home). Unless they want to wait for the 9th, but that seems like a stretch. This is so nerve-racking.

[speedrrracer]

So we weren't re-listed, at least according to the latest orders. We weren't denied, and cert was not granted. If this ain't limbo, I don't know what is.