SAF v NJ (MULLER et al v. MAENZA et al)

[twentynine30s 1]

 

 

Damn, Alan Gura can kick their asses on any level.

 

I love it!

[wooly bugger 1]

Forgive me if its mentioned in one of the 600+ preceding posts, but where can you listen to the proceedings?

[TIGL 0]

Forgive me if its mentioned in one of the 600+ preceding posts, but where can you listen to the proceedings?

 

Back on page 16:

I guess nobody is paying attention. The orals for the CA3 were heard 2/11/13

 

http://www.ca3.uscou...Maenza,etal.wma

[NJPatriot 0]

I've signed several NJ Right to Carry Petitions as i am sure members of thid forum have. I wonder if it would have been beneficial to Gura to note that if NJ residents thought they had a "right" to carry, in lieu of the defacto ban, why would so many NJ residents be signing petitions?

[quikz 34]

Hello All,

 

I feel this is pertinent.

 

Just rec'd my NJ "carry" permit card for work, prior to this, the letter of "approval" saying the card was in. I work for multiple employers, all requiring me to be armed, ALOT.

 

Total time start to finish, FOR ME NOW, no more than 2.5 months, which is Lightning Quick, (trust me, that's DAMN FAST) by NJ standards for these things.

 

The "carry" permit was an onerous process to say the least. It is RIDDLED with restrictions. For ex, "Only during work hours, must adhere this, must adhere that, strictly prohibited." 2 year renewal with ultra onerous renewal process, which means, SAME AS initial process. Also, I have seen non-uniform restrictions issued via NJSP, or Trenton? For ex, one 'permit' says "carry to and from (work)", another says, "Only during working hours". Totally different set standards, printed right on the card itself. Which to me, is very disturbing.

 

I will volunteer my copies of 'approval' letter, "permit" and such, to any organisation that is actively challenging this case, like the SAF.

 

I will NOT here, on this forum, answer any specific questions as to any of my personal aspects or nature, regarding my new "permit".

 

Then....ALL OVER AGAIN, less than two years from now. Or basically, start 'renewal' process 1.5 yrs from today. Incredible.

[n4p226r 105]

Anyone care to speculate what the Supreme Court declining to hear the ny case means to us? I can't see it any other way other than we are screwed and that's that.

[Luso 6]

Is there any new info from the Circuit and Gura?

[ryan_j 0]

Is there any new info from the Circuit and Gura?

 

Nothing. Only that the SCOTUS denied cert of the NY decision.

[Parker 213]

Anyone care to speculate what the Supreme Court declining to hear the ny case means to us? I can't see it any other way other than we are screwed and that's that.

 

I can't speculate, other than guess they want to sit back and wait.

from SCOTUSblog: http://www.scotusblo...te/#more-162369

[springfieldxds 0]

It means we're screwed, the courts has failed us, 3rd circuit will probably rule inline with the 2nd and fourth

 

Not that surprised, scotus is more politically now and days

[n4p226r 105]

I assume since Maryland lost their appeal there is no split with lower courts anymore. And we can all guess how NJ will go.

[PDM 91]

Yeah, hard to see why they would take the NJ case or any of the other pending cases if they didn't take this one. Does anyone see it differently?

[n4p226r 105]

Yeah, hard to see why they would take the NJ case or any of the other pending cases if they didn't take this one. Does anyone see it differently?

 

I don't. That's why I asked

[BigHayden 77]

I assume since Maryland lost their appeal there is no split with lower courts anymore. And we can all guess how NJ will go.

 

I guess the 7th circuit doesn't count? The declined cert, which means they agree with the lower court ruling which stated we have a right to carry outside our homes.

 

The NY case was rooted more in the fees, rather than the arbitrary nature of the issuance of permits. More likely to see the MD case or even the NJ case granted cert by SCOTUS. We're not done yet...

[n4p226r 105]

Well the 7th circuit was an outright ban so it was very different on paper. That was you couldn't at all. This is you can't unless you prove you need to. To us, it's the same. Legally I think they are different arguments

[raz-0 1,259]

Well the 7th circuit was an outright ban so it was very different on paper. That was you couldn't at all. This is you can't unless you prove you need to. To us, it's the same. Legally I think they are different arguments

 

They are different arguments. Heck, if it was about fees like Big Hayden said, it could be that the nature of the argument imperiled things like the excise tax. Or it could just be that the anti's liked the lower court decision and not enough pros liked the argument presented to them so they took a pass. It can even be that they are declining to hear it NOW due to the current climate in the media and may hear it later.

[BigHayden 77]

The 4th circuit opinion said there is no right to carry outside of you home. The 7th circuit disagreed. That's still a split on the core right. The NY case was brought on grounds that it was expensive, though I can't remember if the 2nd circuit opinion mentioned the specious "the 2nd Amendment only applies in the home" argument. I think SCOTUS is looking for a cleaner case, like MD or NJ.

 

ETA: Correction: The Kachalsky case wasn't the one regarding the fees; it was "proper cause", and the ruling actually acknowledged that discretionary permits were an infringement on the 2nd amendment, but it was OK because some of NY's firearms laws predated the Constitution. (If that doesn't make your head spin...)

[Soju 153]

Make your head spin? No more than the Supreme Court ruling that as long as something has been infringing on your right for a long time, that is okay.

[Wile E Coyote 0]

The 4th circuit opinion said there is no right to carry outside of you home. The 7th circuit disagreed. That's still a split on the core right. The NY case was brought on grounds that it was expensive, though I can't remember if the 2nd circuit opinion mentioned the specious "the 2nd Amendment only applies in the home" argument. I think SCOTUS is looking for a cleaner case, like MD or NJ.

 

ETA: Correction: The Kachalsky case wasn't the one regarding the fees; it was "proper cause", and the ruling actually acknowledged that discretionary permits were an infringement on the 2nd amendment, but it was OK because some of NY's firearms laws predated the Constitution. (If that doesn't make your head spin...)

 

The 7th Circuit ruled that an outright ban on carrying firearms in public is unconstitutional.

 

The 2nd & 4th Circuit's ruled that "may issue" restrictions are constitutional.

 

The way I look at it, right now there isn't a disagreement among the Federal Circuit Courts when it comes to "may issue." Hopefully, the 3rd Circuit rules in our favor and changes that.

[ryan_j 0]

Yeah more and more it's looking like status quo will reign.

 

I predict Illinois legislators are jumping for joy right now. They can put CCW on the books but make it like NJ. So they have CCW on the books to satisfy the courts but in practice never issue.

 

And after listening to Gura put forth convincing arguments yet the courts STILL rule against us, I am convinced the whole thing is a farce.

[revenger 473]

Now all any anti-gun/constitution state has to do is cut and paste NJ's laws and not have to worry. I think we will have to wait until the firearm owners in Illinois file future suits once they find out that they still won't be able to exercise their rights even though the judges told the state to allow them too.

[PDM 91]

Would be interesting to hear Gura's honest assessment of the S Ct taking one of the remaining cases. Can it really be that the justices make cert decisions based on current political issues. What if gun control is still being debated in congress when the NJ case comes up for appeal? I am afraid that the support just isn't there on the court. They heard two landmark 2A cases in the past 5 years after decades of silence on the issue. It is unequivocal that the 2A is a fundamental individual right and also fairly clear from the Heller and McDonald decisions that it should apply outside the home. Perhaps they feel that's enough.

 

Four of the justices will clearly vote not to hear any new 2A case. Since cert requires 4 justices to vote in favor, if only two out of the five in the Heller/McDonald majority decide that they've done what they need to do and say what they needed to say on the 2A, we're done. I fear that they've had enough of this issue and will let the details work themselves out in the lower courts and through the political process.

[CageFighter 236]

with all this sh*t going on, will sum1 please pass the Vaseline?

[raz-0 1,259]

Yeah, hard to see why they would take the NJ case or any of the other pending cases if they didn't take this one. Does anyone see it differently?

 

 

The 7th Circuit ruled that an outright ban on carrying firearms in public is unconstitutional.

 

The 2nd & 4th Circuit's ruled that "may issue" restrictions are constitutional.

 

The way I look at it, right now there isn't a disagreement among the Federal Circuit Courts when it comes to "may issue." Hopefully, the 3rd Circuit rules in our favor and changes that.

 

Because they have the 7th outstanding and the 4th outstanding. The 4th circuit decision is a close parallel to the 3rd. They can wait out the news cycle and take one later.

 

The 3rd is also coming up one way or the other. Which could also mean that by delaying it, they can base decision on a broad swath of arguments.

 

It could also be as that wile e is right and they don't view them as being at odds. If that is so, likely Ill will implement something like NY and NJ, and they can go fishing back to the 7th circuit.

[PDM 91]

One bright spot is that it appears, from listenting to the 3rd circuit arguments, the the 3rd circuit judges clearly think the 2A applies outside the home. They may not (probably won't IMHO) find that the NJ carry law fails intermediate scrutiny, but just having the 3rd circuit rule that the 2A applies outside the home could help.

[diamondd817 826]

One bright spot is that it appears, from listenting to the 3rd circuit arguments, the the 3rd circuit judges clearly think the 2A applies outside the home. They may not (probably won't IMHO) find that the NJ carry law fails intermediate scrutiny, but just having the 3rd circuit rule that the 2A applies outside the home could help.

 

And the one judge asked "isn't self defense" a justifieable need?

[TIGL 0]

Bad news everybody, SCOTUS declined to hear the very similar NY CCW case (which I can't find/spell the name of for some reason)

[gd1147 0]

Bad news everybody, SCOTUS declined to hear the very similar NY CCW case (which I can't find/spell the name of for some reason)

 

Hate to say this, but have you looked at any of the 20 previous posts here? This was old news.

[NJDrew1 0]

I don't see it as bad news. I see it as delayed good news. It would have been crazy for SCOTUS to take it up with all of this unsettled proposed anti-2A legislation going on, both on the fed and states level. Once they do take it up, their ruling will have a profound impact on any federal and/or state laws relative to CCW.

[TIGL 0]

Hate to say this, but have you looked at any of the 20 previous posts here? This was old news.

Huh. I must have unfollowed the thread somehow and didn't get emailed.

 

My B