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

[ryan_j 0]

I'm only seeing that on a small portion of the 1st page. 

 

 

Yep, but do you use Comic Sans at all when you want to be taken seriously? Usually they use Gothic? 

[TR20 47]

Comic sans is a font.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_Sans_MS

 

Thanks for the definition.  Frankly, I feel like an ass seeing that a large part of my job is writing contracts!  Most of the more lengthy (read expensive) agreements are done in Calibri or Times New Roman.  Should have caught the "sans" ending as in Sans Serf.

 

Regardless, I don't think the font is appropriate for the brief because it does not convey a sense of professionalism and more importantly, it’s not the easiest font to read.  Clean, crisp characters make a pointed impression.

[Vlad G 345]

Oh seeing how its just the SCOTUS name I find it hilarious. 

[n4p226r 105]

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming.   Maybe my next vacation will be to one of these states.  

 

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/245291181.html

[millsan1 3]

Our laws suck so bad the attorneys general from 19 other states want them changed lest they infect their states.

 

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

 

[TR20 47]

Good, we can use all the help we can get!  After reading the article, it appears the NRA may have known about this before the news broke. This could be the reason for their recent decision to support the NJ carry cast.  

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/66273-nra-supports-lawsuit-targeting-new-jersey’s-“justifiable-need”-concealed-carry-permitting-scheme/

[OchoBlue 3]

Good to see free America makes the connection that our lack of 2A rights is a prelude to encroachment on their 2A rights. I'll hand the other side one thing. They are relentless at going after their agenda....

 

It's a positive step that we are putting up a fight in deep blue NJ rather than just throwing in the towel.

 

Might we ever see some form of ccw for "commoners" in NJ?

[Fawkesguy 57]

Might we ever see some form of ccw for "commoners" in NJ?

 

NEVER.

 

But I hope I'm wrong. 

[OchoBlue 3]

But I hope I'm wrong.

 

+1

[ryan_j 0]

More amicus briefs! I will try to post them all. Let's see if the forum cooperates. 

[ryan_j 0]

Looks like NJGF doesn't like attachments over 110kb.

 

Here they are in my dropbox:

 

https://www.dropbox.com/l/bTy4fGYlBFprFHhT2xYGEe

 

Happy reading. 

[ryan_j 0]

Now with the ruling from CA9, we now have a full sized circuit split, giving the US Supreme Court every reason to hear this case!!!

[n4p226r 105]

Not that I know much about the other case but I can't imagine others are going to have any better chance.

[ryan_j 0]

Not that I know much about the other case but I can't imagine others are going to have any better chance.

 

 

No no no, what I meant is that the US Supreme Court likes to take cases that resolve circuit splits - meaning the circuit court of appeals are in conflict with each other, so the SCOTUS has to settle it once and for all. They have an opportunity to do it with our case (Drake.) 

[n4p226r 105]

No no no, what I meant is that the US Supreme Court likes to take cases that resolve circuit splits - meaning the circuit court of appeals are in conflict with each other, so the SCOTUS has to settle it once and for all. They have an opportunity to do it with our case (Drake.) 

 

i get that.  maybe I'm jaded, but i figure the supreme court wants to pick the case that allows them to do that while making as large or as small of a resolution as they can.  for example.  they could have been clearer on this during heller, but they weren't, so here we are.  

[Vlad G 345]

They tend to answer the question that was asked. In fact in Heller they even said so, more or less, they answered the question at hand, not related questions.

[galapoola 102]

i get that.  maybe I'm jaded, but i figure the supreme court wants to pick the case that allows them to do that while making as large or as small of a resolution as they can.  for example.  they could have been clearer on this during heller, but they weren't, so here we are.  

 

I don't know if "clearer" is the best word but I understand the sentiment. Yes, the few "we order thus and thus" sentences at the very end of the opinion are what count, but the dicta, all that good tasty stuff on the other hundred pages is how the justices arrived at their opinion. And all that foundational dicta is replete with what "to bear" means. Gura and the SAF didn't ask about "to bear" so the order at the very end of both opinions does not address it. In that sense the 2008 & 2010 SCOTUS opinions are not "to bear" opinions.

Not sure if everyone here realizes that it took almost 60 years and 8 separate cases for the 1st Amendment to be completely incorporated to the states. Prior to 1925 no part of the 1st Amendment was a protected right. Hard to believe but in prior to 1925 an American citizen living in NJ had no protection under the Bill of Rights for anything in the 1st Amendment. Hell the free exercise of religion was not protected until 1940.

If you listen to or read the 2008 Heller v. DC orals, there is a point where a justice (believe it was Scalia) asks Gura if he wanted Dick Heller to be able to carry. Gura answered in a kind of astonished manner, (paraphrasing) "that would be great". Since it wasn't asked for in the complaint, the opinion did not address "to  bear" in the order. The strategy as best as I can tell is you never want to bite off too much when appearing before SCOTUS. Gura and SAF have been systematically nibbling around the 2nd Amendment, building precedent on top of precedent. In the long term it will be very hard to dismantle any SCOTUS victory we enjoy. Alternately, every loss we encounter in the lower courts, no matter how many or how bodacious, can not over rule one good SCOTUS opinion. That is always been another strategy, attack as many and varied carry laws as possible. The sum of all the losses and or variety of outcomes (splits among lower appeal courts) can only benefit our cause as mentioned previously.

[millsan1 3]

Thanks ryan-j. I just read all the docs. Don't know how this could not be heard with 38% of the states requesting it along with most of the other arguments pointing out that lower courts are ignoring the scotus rulings. Can't hurt to feed their egos.

 

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

 

[ryan_j 0]

Thanks ryan-j. I just read all the docs. Don't know how this could not be heard with 38% of the states requesting it along with most of the other arguments pointing out that lower courts are ignoring the scotus rulings. Can't hurt to feed their egos.

 

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

The court does what the court does, and much of it is done out of the public eye. Everyone wants their slice of time from the court, and they can't hear every case. But the biggest driver for a grant of certiorari is a circuit split, which we got today. I can't wait for Gura's reply brief, and honestly I can't wait to see what the NJ AG will write now that this decision from CA9 is in play.

[millsan1 3]

I just read the whole CA9 opinion. They specifically reference CA 2,3 and 4 and point out that all 3 were bad decisions and should have gone the other way.

 

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

 

[wooly bugger 1]

I'm wallowing in all the good news at the end of a long day and getting caught up.

 

Re: the Cato brief. I agree the use of Comic Sans is bizarre. I assume that these briefs are template driven, so it must have been someone's conscious choice. I was almost ready to dismiss it as a fluke until I read the second question: "Was this court serious in DC vs. Heller when it ruled that the 2A protects the individual right to keep and bear arms?" I don't read these often, but it seems incredibly unprofessional. It's surprising, coming from the Cato and given the high quality of the rest of the brief.

 

Re: the CA9 opinion, I think we got incredibly lucky. It looks like the case fell to 2 conservatives and 1 liberal, chosen out of a mostly liberal court. I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth, though.

 

I read somewhere and hope it's true that NJ will have to stick with its original defense in front of SCOTUS. It was such an embarrassingly bad defense by an attorney who knew she was playing a stacked game. I don't think SCOTUS will think her arguments are so cute, and I suspect 2 CA3 judges are going to get publicly keel hauled in front of their professional peers. If NJ has to defend its original argument, that gives us plenty of time to revive the aborted mass CCW application plan. (What ever happened to that, NJ2AS?) I've been leery about participating and giving my police chief an excuse to cause mischief on future applications, but if it helps sway one of the most important SCOTUS decisions of my life, I'll apply in a second.

 

Reading about the SAF and Gura strategy from others more knowlegeable just increases my deep respect for the tactical mastery of these guys. We're lucky to have them.

[n4p226r 105]

34 members of congress file a brief in support and only one is from nj. I'm surprised Scott Garrett wasn't on there at a minimum but all our republican members of the house should have been.

[chris327 30]

34 members of congress file a brief in support and only one is from nj. I'm surprised Scott Garrett wasn't on there at a minimum but all our republican members of the house should have been.

where did you see this? does it say who from NJ?

 

edit:never mind found it.

 

http://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/CongressionalAmicusDrakeCert.pdf

 

is there any way we can ask state reps to file a brief? assembly, Mchose, Carroll,space, rumana, or senators, Pennechio, O'Toole, Bucco, Oroho.

[n4p226r 105]

for those still looking

1a 

APPENDIX 

THOSE JOINING IN 

AMICI CURIAE

 BRIEF

       The following members of the United States Con-

gress join in this brief: 

Senate 

Senator Thad Cochran (MS-R) 

House of Representatives 

Representative Kerry Bentivolio (MI-11, R) 

Representative Paul Broun (GA-10, R) 

Representative Michael C. Burgess (TX-26, R) 

Representative John Campbell (CA-45, R) 

Representative Steve Chabot (OH-1, R) 

Representative Howard Coble (NC-6, R) 

Representative Tom Cole (OK-4, R) 

Representative Chris Collins (NY-27, R) 

Representative Doug Collins (GA-9, R) 

Representative Kevin Cramer (ND-AL, R) 

Representative Jeff Duncan (SC-3, R) 

Representative Blake Farenthold (TX-27, R) 

Representative John Fleming, M.D. (LA-4, R) 

Representative Trent Franks (AZ-8, R) 

Representative George Holding (NC-13, R) 

Representative Richard Hudson (NC-8, R) 

Representative Bill Johnson (OH-6, R) 

Representative Walter B. Jones (NC-3, R) 

Representative Adam Kinzinger (IL-16, R) 

Representative Doug LaMalfa (CA-1, R) 

Representative Leonard Lance (NJ-7, R) 

Representative James Lankford (OK-5, R) 

Representative Billy Long (MO-7, R) 

Representative Cynthia Lummis (WY-AL, R) 

Representative Jeff Miller (FL-1, R)

Representative Steve Pearce (NM-2, R) 

Representative Todd Rokita (IN-4, R) 

Representative Adrian Smith (NE-3, R) 

Representative Lamar S. Smith (TX-21, R) 

Representative Marlin Stutzman (IN-3, R) 

Representative Lee Terry (NE-2, R) 

Representative Joe Wilson (SC-2, R) 

Representative Don Young (AK-AL, R)

[ryan_j 0]

where did you see this? does it say who from NJ?

 

edit:never mind found it.

 

http://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/CongressionalAmicusDrakeCert.pdf

 

is there any way we can ask state reps to file a brief? assembly, Mchose, Carroll,space, rumana, or senators, Pennechio, O'Toole, Bucco, Oroho.

 

Yes, we can ask them. We should ask them to stand with us. But I'm not sure they still can since I believe the deadline for filing amici passed already. 

 

Nevertheless we know they stand with us because they write and introduce legislation that is beneficial to us. 

[n4p226r 105]

figures.  i did just send representative lance a thank you email through his webpage though.  and may, for the first time ever, write a check when his re-election comes up.  

[Spartiati 63]

I just read the whole CA9 opinion. They specifically reference CA 2,3 and 4 and point out that all 3 were bad decisions and should have gone the other way.

 

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Can someone post a link to the CA9 opinion?

[ryan_j 0]

Can someone post a link to the CA9 opinion?

 

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/12/1056971.pdf

[galapoola 102]

 

I read somewhere and hope it's true that NJ will have to stick with its original defense in front of SCOTUS.

 

Assuming SCOTUS takes our case, they will almost definitely review the court of appeals majority opinion including the logic. The NJ valley girl attorney who argued for the state can't totally ignore her argument or the lower court opinion. The decision is a wildly poor opinion. Even if there was no split among the courts, the sloppy work of the appeals court has to be corrected. Come on, long standing laws trump the Bill of Rights because they've been there a long time and were crafted prior to 2008/2010, really? That alone is reason for cert.

[RobertJames 14]

Article in today's NJ Herald.  Basically what everyone already knew, but I thought it was overall an honest and unbiased article.