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

[Vlad G 345]

So I looked up how the SC decides to take a case. The internet tells me roughly it takes 4 justices to agree to hear it. Keep in mind that 4 is not 5.

[wooly bugger 1]

We just have to hope a lot of these cases are heard while SCOTUS still has a slight conservative edge. Once it goes the other way, with one more liberal appointment, we'll be screwed forever.

Not forever, but certainly for the foreseeable future. That's why we need to get our wish list together and get them to the courts. I was disappointed that SAFE was ruled constitutional. Anyone know where that stands with appeal? How about CT? Mag limits and ever more restrictive AWBs are the next big threat.

[ryan_j 0]

So I looked up how the SC decides to take a case. The internet tells me roughly it takes 4 justices to agree to hear it. Keep in mind that 4 is not 5.

Pretty much. But court time is precious so they don't take every case. But with a split in the circuits or in state courts of last resort (state supreme courts) it is much more likely they will take it. And now is the time too. With 2016 looming and the justices not getting any younger, we need to get this issue before the court before the Clintons get to pack it.

[galapoola 102]

Not forever, but certainly for the foreseeable future. That's why we need to get our wish list together and get them to the courts. I was disappointed that SAFE was ruled constitutional. Anyone know where that stands with appeal? How about CT? Mag limits and ever more restrictive AWBs are the next big threat.

Gura has been pretty clear on capacity, if a magazine fits in the grip of a pistol for instance, then that would be a common use magazine and therefore can't be banned. That was his rational. I believe the new compliant stock that does away with the pistol grip on an AR-15 proves that the NY SAFE act was all about cosmetics and had nothing to do with the lethality. Again, AR-15's are today's musket and according to Heller are common use, really can't be banned by name or evilness. I think that once we get another SCOTUS victory, lower courts may finally get it, that you can't use interest balancing on the 2nd Amendment.

[wooly bugger 1]

Gura has been pretty clear on capacity, if a magazine fits in the grip of a pistol for instance, then that would be a common use magazine and therefore can't be banned. That was his rational. I believe the new compliant stock that does away with the pistol grip on an AR-15 proves that the NY SAFE act was all about cosmetics and had nothing to do with the lethality. Again, AR-15's are today's musket and according to Heller are common use, really can't be banned by name or evilness. I think that once we get another SCOTUS victory, lower courts may finally get it, that you can't use interest balancing on the 2nd Amendment.

I don't think the problem is that lower courts "don't get it." They get it all too well and are engaged in an act of civil disobedience. The only way I can see for this to stop is for SCOTUS to be much more explicit about what they meant by "common use."

[maintenanceguy 510]

I don't think the problem is that lower courts "don't get it." They get it all too well and are engaged in an act of civil disobedience. The only way I can see for this to stop is for SCOTUS to be much more explicit about what they meant by "common use."

 

Could not have said it better.  Civil Disobedience with the courts - this is exactly what's happening.  If you read the federal circuit court's decision in the Piscatowski case (now Drake), It's obvious that the 2 judges that upheld "justifiable need"  stumbled all over themselves trying to avoid that pesky constitution in their decision.    The one dissenting judge even called them out for doing it in his dissent.

 

SCOTUS may do the same thing by simply refusing to hear the case.  Just because 5/4 of the court are in favor of people owning guns at home does not mean they are in favor of people carrying them around.   Remember that these Justices are high ranking government officials who fear the people just like every other high ranking government official.  I'm sure they get regular death threats and security briefings.    They may feel safer living and working in DC where the public is disarmed. In Heller 4 out of 9 justices was willing to rule against that pesky constitution.

[ryan_j 0]

IMO, once the California case is final (Peruta) there will be too strong of a split to just ignore the issue. You'll have half the country living under one interpretation of the 2A and another half living under another. The Court simply doesn't do constitutional law this way. 

[PDM 91]

I don't think it's death threats that might sway the justices not to hear Drake.  Don't forget that the Second Amendment was a giant morass -- ambiguous, unloved, not taken seriously -- for several hundred years, right up until 2008.  Then, in the space of a few years, we've had Drake, Heller, and myriad lower court decisions. My gut tells me that one or more of the Heller majority simply doesn't want to deal with the 2A anymore.  They feel that the details need to be worked out in the lower courts and/or the legislative branch. What gives me some hope is this now glaring split AND the blatant disregard and twisting of Supreme Court precedent shown by many of the lower courts.  Really, it's not just the 2A that's at stake, it's the integrity of the entire judicial process.  I'm hopeful that's why the Heller 5 -- and maybe, just maybe, Elana Kagan -- may want to hear Drake.  If they do, I am fairly confident that they will rule much closer to Peruta than Drake.

[falcone 89]

What we need to realize is that Roberts is not a reliable vote for our side. He's a coward who changed is position on 0bamacare because of democrat pressure. If any of the Heller five dont wanna hear the case it's him.

[ryan_j 0]

What we need to realize is that Roberts is not a reliable vote for our side. He's a coward who changed is position on 0bamacare because of democrat pressure. If any of the Heller five dont wanna hear the case it's him.

 

Scalia has been taking Kagan hunting with him. So there's hope.

 

http://nypost.com/2013/09/20/unlikely-hunting-buds-elena-kagan-antonin-scalia/

[Vlad G 345]

What we need to realize is that Roberts is not a reliable vote for our side. He's a coward who changed is position on 0bamacare because of democrat pressure. If any of the Heller five dont wanna hear the case it's him.

 

That really is an inaccurate statement. Almost every serious constitutional lawyer I've read on issue of obamacare agrees with the SC, including those that are pro-2a. The issue is simple, the government can tax you. You don't have to buy health insure, but then you get to pay a tax. You don't have to like it, Roberts pretty much wrote in the decision that it is a bad law, but not an unconstitutional one.

 

Ask yourself this, do you think the SC should have turned that law over without an actual constitutional basis? Yes it is a bad and stupid law, but lets not get into the habit of courts overthrowing laws because they are think the law is stupid

[PDM 91]

ryan -- that's what I'm hoping.  Sotomayor is a left wing ideologue.  Kagan came out fairly strongly in her senate hearing acknowledging that the 2A is an individual right and I think she has some integrity.  I am hoping that, despite her left leaning inclinations, she would do the right thing and respect the precedent in Heller.

[n4p226r 105]

didn't kagan go deer hunting with scalia?  hey…there's hope until theres no hope right?

[Vlad G 345]

didn't kagan go deer hunting with scalia?  hey…there's hope until theres no hope right?

 

Don't all sort of FUD's back gun control in NJ and everywhere in the country? I means, sure at least she doesn't look at a gun and goes jeepers that's yucky, but that is no guarantee

[ryan_j 0]

That really is an inaccurate statement. Almost every serious constitutional lawyer I've read on issue of obamacare agrees with the SC, including those that are pro-2a. The issue is simple, the government can tax you. You don't have to buy health insure, but then you get to pay a tax. You don't have to like it, Roberts pretty much wrote in the decision that it is a bad law, but not an unconstitutional one.

 

Ask yourself this, do you think the SC should have turned that law over without an actual constitutional basis? Yes it is a bad and stupid law, but lets not get into the habit of courts overthrowing laws because they are think the law is stupid

 

 

That's correct.

 

I actually don't agree with the opposition to the SC ruling on Obamacare. But the decision only said that it COULD survive as a tax. How the fine became a tax isn't really the court's fault, especially when Obama said repeatedly that it was not. 

[ryan_j 0]

Don't all sort of FUD's back gun control in NJ and everywhere in the country? I means, sure at least she doesn't look at a gun and goes jeepers that's yucky, but that is no guarantee

 

A little at a time. I used to hate guns until I actually fired one. 

[BCeagle 12]

Roberts went out of his way to find Obamacare a tax,  the administration even argued that it was not a tax.  It should have been overturned and I dont find him reliable since then,

[ryan_j 0]

Roberts went out of his way to find Obamacare a tax, the administration even argued that it was not a tax. It should have been overturned and I dont find him reliable since then,

No. He did not say it was a tax. He said it "could survive" as a tax.

[BCeagle 12]

No. He did not say it was a tax. He said it "could survive" as a tax.

 

And by upholding it, he ruled it a tax.

 

He screwed up, its as bad a decision legally as Roe V. Wade.  Judges should not make up laws.

[Vlad G 345]

FFS, let's stay with guns before we wonder i to things that have nothing to do with guns.

[ryan_j 0]

And by upholding it, he ruled it a tax.

 

He screwed up, its as bad a decision legally as Roe V. Wade.  Judges should not make up laws.

 

He's not "making up" a law. He's interpreting it. 

 

And really, despite Obama saying it wasn't a tax, it was a fee collected by the IRS that the Government would then spend. What is that? It's a tax. 

[galapoola 102]

Gura files another brief in light of the CA9 opinion

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

[Kadayo 39]

California Attorney General appeals 9th circuit decision.

 

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-appeals-ninth-circuit-concealed-weapons-permit

[ryan_j 0]

California Attorney General appeals 9th circuit decision.

 

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-appeals-ninth-circuit-concealed-weapons-permit

Note that she did not directly appeal. She cannot. She has no standing.

 

She filed an appeal and is urging the court to act sua sponte and is asking to be a party in the case. 

 

They can and probably will tell her to go pound sand and not waste their time.

 

She was asked twice to be a party to this case before. She turned it down. Now that the decision is not favorable she wants in. Slap in the face much? 

[n4p226r 105]

can you explain where it says that in her appeal?

[chris327 30]

i believe that is a separate appeal, she is appealing to be part of the case. If they grant that her appeal comes into play.

[ryan_j 0]

can you explain where it says that in her appeal?

 

These guys explain it better

 

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2014/02/antis-seek-en-banc-review-of-peruta.html

[raz-0 1,259]

Note that she did not directly appeal. She cannot. She has no standing.

 

She filed an appeal and is urging the court to act sua sponte and is asking to be a party in the case. 

 

They can and probably will tell her to go pound sand and not waste their time.

 

She was asked twice to be a party to this case before. She turned it down. Now that the decision is not favorable she wants in. Slap in the face much? 

 

 

This +1000.

[ryan_j 0]

Yeah guys so at this point it doesn't look good at all. If the 9th circuit decision is heard en banc, it is likely that Drake won't be granted. Eventually SCOTUS will hear some sort of carry case but this probably won't be it!

 

Let's just hope they don't grant en banc in Peruta or we get some other miracle (another 9th circuit case maybe?)

[Rysdad 5]

Yeah guys so at this point it doesn't look good at all. If the 9th circuit decision is heard en banc, it is likely that Drake won't be granted. Eventually SCOTUS will hear some sort of carry case but this probably won't be it!

 

Let's just hope they don't grant en banc in Peruta or we get some other miracle (another 9th circuit case maybe?)

What just happened that brought you to that conclusion?