Jump to content
ChrisJM981

Thomas R. Rogers and ANJRPC v. Gurbir S. Grewal, et al

Recommended Posts

Watch for progress on the Rogers & ANJRPC CCW case vs NJ AG, et al. 

This was listed in another thread, but I thought it will need it's own space to avoid hijacking Rosey's CNJFO thread. 

 

https://certpool.com/dockets/18-824?fbclid=IwAR2GBSTRnMnR15m914PMdkd7IYl3vrwjPPAXmw-Mt2Pgz1todMU5Gcc17cY

 

What are your thoughts? I think we're going to Washington!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely deserving of its own thread. Thanks.

Would be a game changer if they grant Cert. Especially following the NY case which was recently granted Cert.

Am excited and optimistic.  However the disappointment of Drake is still fresh in my mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Kennedy out one can only hope.  I just wonder if they will be willing to take 2 second amendment cases in succession.  I wish this had made its way to the court before NY’s case.  Fingers crossed.  This is a much better case than the NY case as it gets to the heart of the scope of the amendment i.e. does it apply outside the home and the level of scrutiny courts can use in deciding cases.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, myhatinthering said:

laymens' terms please

...text from ANJRPC email blast

High Court Considers Taking ANJRPC Appeal

February 19, 2019. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court required the State of New Jersey to file a brief in response to ANJRPC's petition asking the High Court to hear its challenge to NJ's carry laws. Under the Supreme Court's order, the State of New Jersey is required to file papers by March 21, arguing why the High Court should not agree to hear ANJRPC's appeal. NJ had previously ignored the appeal.

While the move is not a guarantee that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the appeal, the fact that the court is requiring NJ to take a position on ANJRPC's request is significant, and signals that the court is not willing to take any action without first hearing from both sides.

By late April or early May, it is likely we will know whether the High Court will agree to take the case, decline to take the case, or hold the case while awaiting the outcome of a pending challenge to NYC's firearm laws.

SUPPORT THE LAWSUITS

CLICK HERE TO DONATE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, kc17 said:

The way I read this, NJ was asked by SCOTUS to respond previously and did not. Wants happens if they still do not respond by the new deadline set?

Could deny, could move on. Joisey did this to draw out the $clock. It’s doubtful to me joisey will not represent itself here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't seem right that SCOTUS would deny if NJ did not respond. To me Murphy and his administration (Grewal) are already in contempt of court.

It seems obvious enough to me they are trying to stretch this out to have our side exhaust funding; as well as arrogance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The court had not asked for a response until today.  Respondents are not in contempt as they filed a waiver indicating they would not respond unless requested to do so.

State is looking to extend this out as long as they can though I don’t really think they bought any time here because even if the court would have granted cert this Thursday in conference the case wouldn’t have been heard until the fall anyway.

 

Can see the docket history here:

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-824.html

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I will take a look at that.

My comment on the previous lack of response was based on the line " NJ had previously ignored the appeal." from the announcement today.

 

Edit to add... OK I see on 1/28 a waiver to respond. So the AG's office said, (in my words) "we don't think this is worth a response and will only take the time to respond if ordered to"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah not sure what they meant by ignored the appeal.  Perhaps they just meant they didn’t respond though if that is what they meant it’s a little misleading given as they did submit a waiver of right to respond.

Sucks another month+ of waiting, hopefully the court can decide quickly and not relist it several times like they did with Drake....

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, myhatinthering said:

that's a good sign!  thanks

 

now if clarence retires early, we can get another pro 2a and then of course ginsburg dies (God willing), we get 4 solid pro 2a

Actually, Thomas is a very staunch conservative and supporter of 2A.  He is only 70 years old, not 80+ like RBG and should stick around for a while.

We stand a better chance with him on the bench together with Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh (4 votes) and Chief Justice Roberts.

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TR20 said:

Actually, Thomas is a very staunch conservative and supporter of 2A.  He is only 70 years old, not 80+ like RBG and should stick around for a while.

We stand a better chance with him on the bench together with Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh (4 votes) and Chief Justice Roberts.

 

there is talk of him looking to retire under Trump so that a rep replaces him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, TR20 said:

You are correct, I read something about that myself.  Although he may be looking for an exit under Trump, I still hope he sticks around for the upcoming cases!!

I do as well.  He is a slam dunk I believe if this type of case reaches the bench.  He wrote a dissent when the supreme court didn't grant certiorari in Silvester v Becerra.  Dissent is here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-342_4hd5.pdf

Albeit this wasn't a carry case it does show where his mind is on the 2nd amendment.

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am somewhat surprised that the request for a response hasn't been reported anywhere.  I guess it may be too subtle a point.  But I think it makes it much more likely that cert will be granted.  They can't grant cert without a response, but could have easily denied cert.  I have been quite pessimistic about our chances for help at the Supreme Court, but I have a good feeling about this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2019 at 9:07 AM, PDM said:

I am somewhat surprised that the request for a response hasn't been reported anywhere.  I guess it may be too subtle a point.  But I think it makes it much more likely that cert will be granted.  They can't grant cert without a response, but could have easily denied cert.  I have been quite pessimistic about our chances for help at the Supreme Court, but I have a good feeling about this one.

I like the move. Essentially forcing NJ AG to justify the “justifiable need”. I’m sure SCOTUS would like to know how, who, what, when such “need” is made or determined.  In my view this is the best example of infringement yet. If I were litigator I would ask when the last time a criminal provided the specific day, time, place to the victims of any crime. That to me is the crux of it. No one can foresee the absolute future.  And criminal acts does not discriminate, nor should any state limit the right to bear arms as defense against it. You all know this so I’m just offering my view. I am optimistic that we get cert granted. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So as the time clock ticks down on the NJ AG and team to respond to SCOTUS via brief and the new online process for FID now online in many counties, I view this as NJ power slugs seeing that they are in trouble. Damage control. They, meaning Gov,  et al, all know they have overreached big time. Though none of them will ever  admit nor concede, it is very possible they think will be up against the highest court. These dweebs are no way near enough competent to justify this off. Sorry but big money at Goldman does not trump the Constitution. Govie Murphy and his team are in for the awakening of their lives if SCOTUS hears the case. NYC is also in play with similar suit. I’m all in and have faith that law of land can and will prevail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The New York case will not be heard until the next October term of SCOTUS.  The Association and New York filed a joint application to extend the time to brief the appeal on its merits until August.  The prior briefing was addressed to whether certiorari should be granted, even though the merits were thoroughly discussed and argued.  The Court wants further briefs dealing solely with the merits issues.  

This could work to improve the chances for a grant of certiorari for Rogers v. Grewal.  SCOTUS could grant certiorari in Rogers before the term ends on June 30 and consolidate it with the New York case for argument and decision next fall.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday, the State applied to SCOTUS for an additional 30 days in which to submit its brief in opposition to certiorari.  The petitioners consented to this, presumably as a courtesy, and this extension should be granted as a matter of course.  However, this extension kicks the can down the road yet again.  It seems that the State is looking to run out the clock on this term of the SCOTUS.  Petitioner's brief is thus not likely to be filed before the end of April  The last conference date this term, at which a vote could be taken on hearing the case, June 20, 2019.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another question...

Trying to follow along here.  So in a nutshell the state acquired more time to build their case but this is still is on track for a SCOTUS review or decision by year end, correct? Looking at the link Spartiati posted above here’s the link for the 12 March entry which is the the states request for the additional 30 days.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-824/91786/20190312161052807_Ltr%20to%20Scott%20Harris%20re%20Rogers%20et%20al%203-12-19.pdf

If someone could please expand on what the state means by "In addition, this case involves a constitutional challenge to a state statute". (copy & pasted from PDF above). Evidently that could be one direction the state is going in with their case but I'm sure with the additional 30 days the state will have additional fabrications to throw in before it comes down to go time..

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/3/2019 at 11:21 AM, chic013 said:

I like the move. Essentially forcing NJ AG to justify the “justifiable need”. I’m sure SCOTUS would like to know how, who, what, when such “need” is made or determined.  In my view this is the best example of infringement yet. If I were litigator I would ask when the last time a criminal provided the specific day, time, place to the victims of any crime. That to me is the crux of it. No one can foresee the absolute future.  And criminal acts does not discriminate, nor should any state limit the right to bear arms as defense against it. You all know this so I’m just offering my view. I am optimistic that we get cert granted. 

All the state has to do is cut & paste Drake.  I predict we will get to the week of 3/22 and they will ask for an extension 

 

27 minutes ago, FXDX said:

another question...

Trying to follow along here.  So in a nutshell the state acquired more time to build their case but this is still is on track for a SCOTUS review or decision by year end, correct? Looking at the link Spartiati posted above here’s the link for the 12 March entry which is the the states request for the additional 30 days.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-824/91786/20190312161052807_Ltr%20to%20Scott%20Harris%20re%20Rogers%20et%20al%203-12-19.pdf

If someone could please expand on what the state means by "In addition, this case involves a constitutional challenge to a state statute". (copy & pasted from PDF above). Evidently that could be one direction the state is going in with their case but I'm sure with the additional 30 days the state will have additional fabrications to throw in before it comes down to go time..

 

 

 

 

 

Conferences end in June so should give plenty of time to review for cert and then arguments in Fall.

Not surprised they asked for an extension even though they will rely heavily on their response from Drake.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • NJGF members in chat (2)



  • 53 How important is it for you to have your next pistol be "Optics Ready?"

    1. 1. How important is it for you to have your next pistol be "Optics Ready?"


      • Very, (Do not want to pay for slide cutting, Looks cool, etc.)
      • Neutral (don't have a preference either way)
      • Not at all (not a feature I am looking for).
    2. 2. How much are you willing to pay for "Optics ready"? (i.e. gun is cut for an optic)


      • Up to $50
      • $50 to $100
      • $100 to $200
      • $250 or more
      • None. If it is not standard part of the gun, not willing to pay more for a model with it.
    3. 3. Why are you looking for Optics Ready?


      • Planning on adding optic.
      • Want to have the option just in case
      • n/a
    4. 4. Why do you want to add an optic?


      • Looks cool/tactical or someone told me I should
      • Need it for deteriorating eyesight.
      • To compete in certain gun games (USPSA Carry Optics)
      • Other Reasons

  •  

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Similar Content

    • By NJGF
      Judge Kavanaugh and the Second Amendment
      http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/judge-kavanaugh-and-the-second-amendment/
      "....Kennedy sided with his more conservative colleagues in finding a Second Amendment right to have a handgun in the home, and there is no reason to believe that Judge Brett Kavanaugh, if confirmed, is likely to disagree"
      "....We know from his recorded dissents from the denial of review that Thomas would vote to review and overturn some existing gun laws, and we know that Gorsuch – at least to some extent – agrees with him. But it takes four votes to grant review in a case, and we do not know whether Roberts and Alito also agree with Thomas but have opted not to say so publicly, or whether they instead are content to leave the court’s gun-rights jurisprudence as it is."
      ".... just this week, the 9th Circuit struck down Hawaii’s ban on carrying weapons openly outside of the home; even if the case goes to the full 9th Circuit, the losing party is almost certain to ask the Supreme Court to weigh in."
    • By stuckinNJ
      https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171201/us-house-of-representatives-to-vote-on-hr-38-the-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-next-week
       
      please take 60 seconds to call your reps, BOTH Republicans and Dems, urging their support. It seriously takes seconds. 
      No excuses
    • By fslater
      Hi Everyone
      I just Read the article in the Political report in Shooting Illustrated about The July ruling By the US Court Of Appeals that found DC's "good reason" to be granted a CCW unconstitutional. Wouldn't the conflicting rulings between the DC Federal Court and the Jersey District Federal court force the SCOUS to a hearing to resolve the conflict? This is old news from back in July I'm just hearing about now. If its already been discussed  please direct me to the thread.
      Thanks
    • By NJGF
      Supreme Court Asked to Review California’s 10-Day Waiting Period for Gun Purchases
      http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/09/03/supreme-court-review-10-day-waiting-period-gun-purchases/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=NSSF
      In Silvester, et.al. v. California Attorney General Zavier the district initially found that a 10 day waiting period to purchase guns did absolutely nothing to deter a person that already owns a gun from committing an impulsive crime.
      Of course the Court of Appeals for the 9th curcuit overturned the district court ruling.
      SAF's Alan Gottlieb is now asking SCOTUS to hear the case:
      "Remember what Senior Judge Anthony Ishii of the U.S. District Court said in his original order, that the state has tacit knowledge that a protected Second Amendment right is burdened by the waiting period law. His comparison of the waiting period to prior restraint is a point that should grab the attention of every journalist who has ever defended the First Amendment while disdaining the Second. A civil right is a right, and all rights are equal and deserve equal protection."
    • By NJGF
      This Law Could Make or Break High-Capacity Magazine Bans
      http://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2017/08/16/this_law_could_make_or_break_high-capacity_magazine_bans.html
      'California’s Proposition 63 presents a rare opportunity for the Court to step in and make clear that if Americans have a right to any weapon “in common lawful use,” that includes the whole weapon — not just the parts that don’t frighten the California legislature.'
      The article lays out clearly why magazine bans are unconstitutional under both the second amendment and the fifth amendment "Takings Clause".
      This case could obviously directly help New Jersey.
  • Posts

    • Not sure if this was mentioned, but it is now impossible to have a reference that does not use email. The form cannot be completed without an email address. Not sure what they do if the email is invalid or they don't answer back. Will they call? Mail? In either case, seems if the email gets lost in the spam you are going to have major delays in getting a permit. They also call your workplace. Talk about breach of privacy! Better hope your boss isn't a vengeful liberal that retaliates against you for owning a gun. Basically, I think the system is technically faster now, but only if you're on top of your references. Get them to check their email same day/next day and answer the questions ASAP. Also means no: non-English speaking references, old folks who don't use email, etc...
    • So when are they going to pass and enforce felony anti-bully laws that make it a felony to bully someone? Bullying, you know, that thing that actually caused some of these shootings, rather than allowed them to happen?
    • Here's the ANJRPC alert, they don't know which ones will actual take a vote: https://www.anjrpc.org/page/ThursFullLegToVoteOnGunOwnerAttacks ....."Thursday’s bill list will be in flux until the very last minute, and one or more of the other bills heard in Assembly committee last week could still be scheduled for a vote in both houses on Thursday.   Accordingly, please immediately contact all member of the Legislature by clicking here. Tell them: (1) Vote NO on “smart guns” (A1016 / S101) – the attempt to swap one mandate for another will doom the technology to failure by pushing gun owners away instead of allowing interest in the technology to develop normally; and (2) Vote NO or to amend on the following bills (if they are scheduled), which either affect only law-abiding citizens (who do not perpetrate crimes and represent a threat to no one), or fail to protect honest citizens from wrongful prosecution under careless wording: A3696 / S2240; A5452 / S3876; A5453 / S3879; A5454 / S3897; and A5455 / S3898.  
    • Funny how the State Legislature's site is down the night before these 12 bills (6 pairs of identical anti 2A bills) come up for a vote??
    • They're fighting tooth and nail to make NJ unattractive to anyone except violent criminals, hood rats, welfare queens, and other democrat supporters. Technically a good long-term strategy to ensure you keep winning: get rid of opposition supporters.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information