SCOTUS appeal regarding NJ concealed carry

NJ response was filed on April 19.

Questions presented by petitioners are:
1. Whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self- defense.
2. Whether the government may deny categorically the exercise of the right to carry a firearm outside the home to typical law-abiding citizens by conditioning the exercise of the right on a showing of a special need to carry a firearm.
 
JERRYS. said:
it would be nice if NJ was brought a little closer to America.
Click to expand...
It would be nice if SCOTUS slapped down all this crap once and for all. Then maybe state and local governments could spend more time on actual criminals, rather than harassing honest firearms owners.
 
danco said:
It would be nice if SCOTUS slapped down all this crap once and for all. Then maybe state and local governments could spend more time on actual criminals, rather than harassing honest firearms owners.
Click to expand...
didn't stop Pittsburgh (yet).
 
It would be nice if SCOTUS slapped down all this crap once and for all.
Click to expand...

Yep, it sure would be nice. But if you read what they say, that's not their job.

Some think it ought to be, but they don't.

They see their job as ruling on specific cases brought before the court. It's not their job to see everyone else abides by those rulings, or interprets them correctly. That is someone else's job, not the Supreme Court's.
 
They could, although sometimes cases are re-scheduled for conference (sometimes several times) before there is a vote on whether or not to grant cert.
 
It is encouraging that although NJ had no interest in responding to the appeal, SCOTUS instructed them to file a response. To me this would indicate that at least someone on the court is interested in hearing the case.

This one would dovetail very nicely with the NYC case.
 
JN01 said:
It is encouraging that although NJ had no interest in responding to the appeal, SCOTUS instructed them to file a response. To me this would indicate that at least someone on the court is interested in hearing the case.
Click to expand...
Or it could indicate that someone on the court thinks the appeal would be a slam dunk against the State of New Jersey and that justice doesn't want that, so he or she prompted the State to submit a brief in the hope of salvaging some argument on which to hang their judicial hat.
 
But if the court doesn't grant cert, the case is done, NJ wins. Unless the Justice wanting to help out NJ thinks that cert WILL be granted, there wouldn't be any need for the assist.

We can hope, anyway.
 
If NJ doesn't file opposition to the petition, what happens? Does the court set it for conference and at conference does SCOTUS vote to grant or deny cert? At the time, if there is no response to the petition, can the court go ahead and issue a decision without calling for more? Why call for briefs and consider holding orals if the petition isn't even opposed? Too allow for amicus briefs?
 
NJ HAS filed a response, the petitioners replied. On May 23rd, SCOTUS will vote on whether to accept the case, unless they re-schedule it for a later date.
 
If the case is not taken, to my non-legal mind, it indicates that the Court has little interest (or the supposed 4 +1 Maybe progun justices) in actually expanding the implementation of gun rights. It would support the lower court decisions that have legitimized various anti-RKBA state laws. It would also indicate that the savior role for the RKBA - given to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch is misrepresented.

But I could be wrong on this analysis. However, sometime the SCOTUS has to get off the pot and come down with a clearer support of the right without the ambiguity we saw in Heller.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top