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

[olderguy 0]

Comes the 23rd, I'll be calling Nappen, but I don't think his advice will be to start carrying :-(

[maintenanceguy 510]

The local PD has 60 days to approve their part of the permit or it is automatically approved.   It still has to go through the judge and he has no time limit.   What do you bet, all applications will be in limbo until this case is over?

[djg0770 481]

There's actually case law regarding this 60 day window.  One gentleman was NOT denied in 60 days and went to court and they ruled against him.    Just proves that the law doesn't really care about the text of the law, if that makes any sense.

[ryan_j 0]

Not only that, but the local PD really isn't supposed to determine whether your justifiable need statement is valid. All they are supposed to do is determine whether or not you pass the other qualifications.

[galapoola 102]

Here it is, conference date for Drake v Jerejian.

SCOTUS will decide 4/18/14 whether to hear the case.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/petitions-were-watching/

That decision will be public probably the following week.

[Vlad G 345]

Hmm. Thats very quick.

[n4p226r 105]

Does the saf reply come in 10 days or 10 business days

[springfieldxds 0]

Are we allowed to contact the supreme Court office and urge them to take a case we feel is important?

[Steve_G 51]

Here it is, conference date for Drake v Jerejian.

SCOTUS will decide 4/18/14 whether to hear the case.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/petitions-were-watching/

That decision will be public probably the following week.

I don't suppose these conferences are open to the public? I'm going to be in DC on the 18th.

[galapoola 102]

Does the saf reply come in 10 days or 10 business days

I guess they can submit as many supplemental briefs as they want but the main documents from the Gura/SAF/ANJRPC team and NJ are in. SCOTUS has the matter on the docket for a conference 4/18, which means that after they vote on 4/18 (we need only 4 justices to vote on our behalf), we'll know. They usually release the decisions from conference within a week. There are only two choices at that point I believe, 1. We (meaning SCOTUS) will hear the case and 2. We will not hear the case. There may be a 3rd instance I'm not aware of in which they may ask for more information to decide but I'm thinking they have enough in front of them. If they hear the case, not sure when they put oral arguments on the calendar. If they deny hearing the case they never give a reason and it's game over.

[galapoola 102]

I don't suppose these conferences are open to the public? I'm going to be in DC on the 18th.

no, private all the way

[ryan_j 0]

Yep. Those conferences are the best kept secret in the entire world. If they were open, we would know exactly why they aren't taking cases. 

[ryan_j 0]

Here it is, conference date for Drake v Jerejian.

SCOTUS will decide 4/18/14 whether to hear the case.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/petitions-were-watching/

That decision will be public probably the following week.

 

You will see the order granting or denying on the following monday, which is the 21st. 

 

So either there will be plenty of celebrating on that date, or wailing and gnashing of teeth. 

 

I am not making a prediction. 

[intercooler 41]

I will make a prediction. They will take the case, then smash nj laws into dust

[Fawkesguy 57]

I will make a prediction. They will take the case, then smash nj laws into dust

 

Are you a betting man?  ;-)

[mipafox 438]

I will make a prediction. They will take the case, then smash nj laws into dust

I will make a prediction. The NSA can prove Roberts is really Pol Pot. And he fucks cats to this day. And he killed your daughter's goldfish.

[maintenanceguy 510]

^^ This.

 

Maybe not cats and goldfish but there may be something they know.  Seems like a lot of the right leaning are switching their positions all over our government.

[ryan_j 0]

I will make a prediction. They will take the case, then smash nj laws into dust

Wow.

Coming from you I'm scared now. I have to go and bathe in holy water now.

[galapoola 102]

I will make a prediction. They will take the case, then smash nj laws into dust

Why not, I'll agree, Scalia already hinted that eventually a case like this would be heard, with all the splits this may be the right time and of course the most egresious offender of liberty of them all.

[ryan_j 0]

Chasing NJ covered it:

 

http://www.my9nj.com/story/25066425/mans-fight-to-bear-arms#.UzHTfeoJh6Q.twitter

[chris327 30]

they did a nice job covering it.

[carl_g 568]

Yeah that was positive

[olderguy 0]

What I find amazing in the AG's brief is the use of the terms "Permission" in the first statement:

 

"1. New Jersey’s gun-control laws establish a
“ ‘careful grid’ of regulatory provisions,” that “draw
careful lines” between permission to possess a gun in
one’s home or place of business and permission to
carry a gun in public."

 

Hopefully SCOTUS will look at this as an over-reach by NJ and want to take the case.

 

My reading would have me asking why anyone needs "permission" to exercise a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

[JoeInOcean 0]

So I found myself thinking today.. "Might they really grant cert? And if they did.. would they decide in an honest Original Construction way?"

 

So my plan, at least right now, is that if this gets granted Cert; to apply before the oral arguments date... it might mean nothing, but to see some pent-up, suppressed demand for the RKBA.. maybe it registers on some radar.

[deerpark 83]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/13/1-states-join-legal-fight-against-new-jersey-concealed-weapons-law/

 

From the above article:

 

 

The Star-Ledger quoted Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, saying, "Law-abiding citizens have a constitutional right to defend themselves beyond their front doorstep."

 

Wrong.  Leave it to the NRA to eff it up. 

 

What he should have said:

 

"Everyone has a God given (or naturally occurring) right to defend themselves beyond their front doorstep as guaranteed (or protected) by the Constitution".

[Vlad G 345]

They are not wrong, they are into marketing. There is no point of talking about religion of natural rights in a NJ paper.

[ryan_j 0]

They are not wrong, they are into marketing. There is no point of talking about religion of natural rights in a NJ paper.

 

Atheists believe in natural rights. They just don't believe that some man from the sky gave them to you. 

[njpilot 671]

Atheists believe in natural rights. They just don't believe that some man from the sky gave them to you. 

Good point and very true.

[NJPatriot 0]

Does the saf reply come in 10 days or 10 business days

Is the SAF's Brief in response to the NJ AG's Brief due today?  10 days from March 14th?

[ryan_j 0]

Is the SAF's Brief in response to the NJ AG's Brief due today?  10 days from March 14th?

 

I don't think 10 days is a hard deadline. That said, they may submit it today. No attorney ever turns in a brief early. In a past life I used to work on tenders and contracts and I always sent it out to be deposited literally minutes before the deadline...