Drake (NJ carry permits) files for cert with SCOTUS
- Thread starter press1280
- Start date
How much do these folks work on 14A challenges to May Issue over 2A challenge? May Issue sounds an awful lot like it's open to the same problems as Separate But Equal. If May Issue doesn't include incredibly specific guidelines for who MAY get issued a permit, wouldn't that violate equal protections when you could get one in ABC county, and a denial in XYZ county?
Some of the lawsuits have a 14A element, but of course if public carry isn't a right the standard is so low that the gov can easily justify "may-issue" to combat "gun violence", with basically no evidence or stats. Heck, some courts have even acknowleged a 2A right in public and even then didn't require any evidence.
Many thanks to krucam, from MDShooters.
These are all Amici for Drake.
The Case docket No. is 13-827 and can be found here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-827.htm (note the Court Clerk hasn't caught up to the filings)
These are all Amici for Drake.
The Case docket No. is 13-827 and can be found here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-827.htm (note the Court Clerk hasn't caught up to the filings)
62coltnavy
New member
Very sweet supplement. And yes, I think that the Supremes are very much interested in accepting a case now that the Ninth has spoken--at least as long as the Peruta decision stands. If en banc is granted, the panel decision evaporates, and then we have to wait to see what the en banc panel has to say. In that circumstance, granting cert in Drake is iffy because the dramatic split caused by O'Scanlain's opinion disappears.
Gura is absolutely correct that Pruta's path to the Supreme Court is uncertain. True, Gore has backed out, but there are now pending three motions to intervene, two of which (by the Brady campaign and the California Police Chiefs Association) are almost certain to fail. And from a pure legal perspective, the motion filed by State Attorney General Harris should be denied as well-and her and her staff attorney sanctioned for filing a frivolous brief--as the AG has repeatedly declined invitations to participate, and in fact successfully moved to dismiss a case that named the AG on the basis that the AG does not have the authority to direct the sheriffs' exercise of discretion in determining "good cause" under the statute. But there is the political angle as well--allowing her to intervene almost assuredly guarantees an appeal to the Supreme Court if the decision stands. With Drake pending and PEruta applying, I would think that a grant of cert is highly likely--the issue is ripe for the court's institutional review.
The fast track to the Supreme Court is to grant AG's motion to intervene, and then deny the petition for rehearing. I'll keep my fingers crossed.
Gura is absolutely correct that Pruta's path to the Supreme Court is uncertain. True, Gore has backed out, but there are now pending three motions to intervene, two of which (by the Brady campaign and the California Police Chiefs Association) are almost certain to fail. And from a pure legal perspective, the motion filed by State Attorney General Harris should be denied as well-and her and her staff attorney sanctioned for filing a frivolous brief--as the AG has repeatedly declined invitations to participate, and in fact successfully moved to dismiss a case that named the AG on the basis that the AG does not have the authority to direct the sheriffs' exercise of discretion in determining "good cause" under the statute. But there is the political angle as well--allowing her to intervene almost assuredly guarantees an appeal to the Supreme Court if the decision stands. With Drake pending and PEruta applying, I would think that a grant of cert is highly likely--the issue is ripe for the court's institutional review.
The fast track to the Supreme Court is to grant AG's motion to intervene, and then deny the petition for rehearing. I'll keep my fingers crossed.
Hat tip to ryan j at MDshooters...
NJ's reply is in.
This brief is absolutely stunning, I can't believe they actually believe what they wrote:
According to the Ninth Circuit, the Second
Amendment requires “that the states permit some
form of carry for self-defense outside the home.”
Peruta, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2786, at
*78. New Jersey’s Handgun Permit Law does precisely
this.
They seriously are trying to make SCOTUS believe that CA's scheme is somehow remarkably different than NJ's. It's flat out laughable. In fact, I'll bet your odds of landing a permit in CA (outside of maybe SF) are much much higher than NJ. The brief is flat out delusional : In New Jersey, on the other
hand, the Superior Court “shall issue” a permit to
carry if it is satisfied that the applicant is a person of
good moral character, is not subject to any enumerated
disability, is thoroughly familiar with the safe
handling and use of handguns, and has a justifiable
need to carry a handgun. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:58-4(d).
Thus, California’s law gives the sheriff more discretion
to refuse to issue a permit than the New Jersey law.
NJ's reply is in.
This brief is absolutely stunning, I can't believe they actually believe what they wrote:
According to the Ninth Circuit, the Second
Amendment requires “that the states permit some
form of carry for self-defense outside the home.”
Peruta, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2786, at
*78. New Jersey’s Handgun Permit Law does precisely
this.
They seriously are trying to make SCOTUS believe that CA's scheme is somehow remarkably different than NJ's. It's flat out laughable. In fact, I'll bet your odds of landing a permit in CA (outside of maybe SF) are much much higher than NJ. The brief is flat out delusional : In New Jersey, on the other
hand, the Superior Court “shall issue” a permit to
carry if it is satisfied that the applicant is a person of
good moral character, is not subject to any enumerated
disability, is thoroughly familiar with the safe
handling and use of handguns, and has a justifiable
need to carry a handgun. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:58-4(d).
Thus, California’s law gives the sheriff more discretion
to refuse to issue a permit than the New Jersey law.
speedrrracer
New member
Yeah, I read that earlier and flipped out just a bit 
I guess if the judge is an anti he won't care, but any other judge and I'd have a hard time believing the judge wouldn't feel that an insult to his / her intelligence had not just happened.
I guess if the judge is an anti he won't care, but any other judge and I'd have a hard time believing the judge wouldn't feel that an insult to his / her intelligence had not just happened.
Peruta's opinion specifically called out Drake as wrongly decided. Circuit judges don't call out other court's opinions when there's no conflict. I don't know whether NJ really thinks their system is that much different than CA's, or they're willing to flat out lie and distort to get cert denied. They've basically gotten away with it every step of the way so far, so I guess the "strategy" has worked.
Just pulled up this quote from NJ's reply brief before the CA-3 orals:
Because the justifiable need requirement is directly related to an applicant’s
demonstrated need for a handgun for self-defense, the District Court correctly concluded that the requirement is no more burdensome than necessary. Slip op. at 40. Indeed, other district courts have overwhelmingly found that comparable handgun permit regulations fit the interest in public safety where those regulations require applicants to demonstrate need based on specific circumstances. See, e.g., Kachalsky, 817 F. Supp. 2d at 271 (upholding New York’s conditioning a permit on articulable,non-speculative need for self-defense); Peruta, 758 F. Supp. 2d at 1117 (upholding “good cause” requirement for concealed carry).
Isn't it funny how now with Peruta being reversed, NJ is claiming CA's scheme is no longer comparable to that of NJ?
Because the justifiable need requirement is directly related to an applicant’s
demonstrated need for a handgun for self-defense, the District Court correctly concluded that the requirement is no more burdensome than necessary. Slip op. at 40. Indeed, other district courts have overwhelmingly found that comparable handgun permit regulations fit the interest in public safety where those regulations require applicants to demonstrate need based on specific circumstances. See, e.g., Kachalsky, 817 F. Supp. 2d at 271 (upholding New York’s conditioning a permit on articulable,non-speculative need for self-defense); Peruta, 758 F. Supp. 2d at 1117 (upholding “good cause” requirement for concealed carry).
Isn't it funny how now with Peruta being reversed, NJ is claiming CA's scheme is no longer comparable to that of NJ?
HarrySchell
New member
I guess the NJ judge is NOT referring to the current 9th Circuit ruling on Peruta, to say "upholding "good cause" requirement".
That is not what the 9th said, other than good cause is personal self-defense.
Not to be petty, but if on SCOTUS I would grant cert for the chance to torture the judge as badly as he tortured the words of the 9th majority. An insulting leap of illogical thought.
That is not what the 9th said, other than good cause is personal self-defense.
Not to be petty, but if on SCOTUS I would grant cert for the chance to torture the judge as badly as he tortured the words of the 9th majority. An insulting leap of illogical thought.
It's now listed as "distributed for conference of April 18th":
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-827.htm
That's a Friday. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that means it's just the first possible opportunity for the Supremes to decide to hear it? Could be held over for another conference?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-827.htm
That's a Friday. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that means it's just the first possible opportunity for the Supremes to decide to hear it? Could be held over for another conference?
diamondd817
New member
What are the chances we might hear an answer today?
speedrrracer
New member
I'd like to know, too. Some have said they'll decide today but it won't be announced [via channels to which most of us have access, like ScotusBlog] until Monday.