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

[n4p226r 105]

why is that?

[ryan_j 0]

why is that?

 

If you submit your brief with days to spare, your opponent now has days to analyze and pick apart your argument. Plus things always change and you always want the latest relevant arguments in your brief. 

[ryan_j 0]

Reply brief has been filed. I don't have a copy but apparently nj.com does

 

http://www.nj.com/sussex-county/index.ssf/2014/04/sussex_county_mans_handgun_lawsuit_about_second_amendment_rights_attorneys_claim.html

[ryan_j 0]

I have a copy again but once again NJGunForums has such a tiny file size limit I cannot upload. Ugh. 

[ryan_j 0]

It's over at IllinoisCarry.  Enjoy.

 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=46956&p=713221

[Scrappy 0]

Do you have a link?  It makes for good bathroom reading.

[Scrappy 0]

ty

[ryan_j 0]

Frank has posted it up on the NJ2AS website.

 

http://www.nj2as.com/resources/PDF/DrakeReply.pdf

[Rysdad 5]

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.

^^^^ how does anyone see this as "ok". That pisses me off!

[ryan_j 0]

Conference of 4/18 is now official and on the docket. We will know on 4/21 whether they are taking the case. http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-827.htm

[CMJeepster 2,778]

"Were this Court to allow the opinion below to stand, it would strongly signal that Heller and McDonald are not serious, binding opinions. The Second Amendment right is “fundamental,” but it can only be exercised if the state agrees it’s a good idea; can be overridden by modern “legislative judgments” backed by nothing; sets out rules that are wholly swallowed by the fact that guns have always been regulated or by “longstanding” laws enacted at any time; and is wholly respected by practices disabling 99.98% of the population from exercising the “rights” it secures."

[jtd771 18]

"Were this Court to allow the opinion below to stand, it would strongly signal that Heller and McDonald are not serious, binding opinions. The Second Amendment right is “fundamental,” but it can only be exercised if the state agrees it’s a good idea; can be overridden by modern “legislative judgments” backed by nothing; sets out rules that are wholly swallowed by the fact that guns have always been regulated or by “longstanding” laws enacted at any time; and is wholly respected by practices disabling 99.98% of the population from exercising the “rights” it secures."

I believe that's legal wording for "you gonna let them punk you out like that?"

[wink-_-wink 1]

Ok I have read that entire thing and am not sure what to take from it.  Someone with more knowlege on the process, could you tell me if this is a good or bad thing?  I may sound like an idiot but I have been trying to follow this and I am having a bit of trouble keeping up with the legal jargon.

[ryan_j 0]

Ok I have read that entire thing and am not sure what to take from it.  Someone with more knowlege on the process, could you tell me if this is a good or bad thing?  I may sound like an idiot but I have been trying to follow this and I am having a bit of trouble keeping up with the legal jargon.

 

It's a good brief. Calls out every one of NJAG's distortions and outright lies. It won't guarantee that the Supreme Court will take the case though. That is entirely up to them.

 

Basically the procedure is that the petition for writ of certiorari is filed by the Plaintiff (Drake), the respondent gets to file a Brief In Opposition (BIO) and then the Plaintiff gets to file an optional reply brief. In some cases, supplemental briefs may be filed to draw attention to new facts in the case or other things. SAF/ANJRPC filed a supplemental brief to draw attention to Peruta in this case. The case then goes to conference and then the justices decide whether or not to grant it (hear the case). It takes 4 votes to grant and there are 9 justices. 

[raz-0 1,259]

Ok I have read that entire thing and am not sure what to take from it. Someone with more knowlege on the process, could you tell me if this is a good or bad thing? I may sound like an idiot but I have been trying to follow this and I am having a bit of trouble keeping up with the legal jargon.

The legal translation is "liar liar pants on fire". Followed up by "You going to let them disrespect you like that? Because if you do you really aren't in charge of much of anything. "

 

As for hearing the case, I think the only way that won't happen is if the antis have enough votes to win, but think peruta will be overturned by an en banc hearing in the 9th and feel that mid-term backlash will be contained because California will be blamed rather than the federal government.

 

I don't think that is realistic though. Either the pro side has the votes and will make it heard, or the anti side has the votes and will make it heard.

 

The arguments made don't really mean that much. They are mostly an opportunity to make the argument you made better than at the lower court. From that perspective, I'd say out side gets a better grade in general, but most specifically in stating that in the face of conflict between the constitution and legislation, courts should be deferential to the legislators. That's basically saying the judicial branch should go home and retire en mass.

 

If the antis have the votes, they will essentially have to create the legal reasoning from whole cloth for our AG.

 

 

 

[wink-_-wink 1]

Thanks!  I though that was what most of this was.  When I saw who it was signed by I figured it was just that.  Seemed like calling the AG out.  I appreciate the translation!

[JoeInOcean 0]

Now.. That was some great reading. Going out tomorrow to buy some single-malt to enjoy on the 19th as I fill out my papers... Should cert be granted.

[Mr.Stu 1,922]

I agree if cert is granted it is a huge step forward, but it is not the end of the story.

 

I believe there is a saying about chickens and counting that is appropriate.

 

Nonetheless, if it goes badly for us, at least you'll have a nice single malt to drown your sorrows - but you'll probably have to wait until the 21st to know why you're drinking.

[Rysdad 5]

Now.. That was some great reading. Going out tomorrow to buy some single-malt to enjoy on the 19th as I fill out my papers... Should cert be granted.

Cert being granted doesn't actually do anything but tell us they will hear the case, right?

 

And if they do hear the case it won't be until later this year, right?

 

And if they rule in our favor how long will it take New Jersey to find a way to make that decision apply only to the other 49 states?

[n4p226r 105]

It instantly applies to the other 56 states. How they try to stop it may take more court cases

[djg0770 481]

It instantly applies to the other 56 states.

 

I see what you did there.

[ryan_j 0]

I agree if cert is granted it is a huge step forward, but it is not the end of the story.

 

I believe there is a saying about chickens and counting that is appropriate.

 

Nonetheless, if it goes badly for us, at least you'll have a nice single malt to drown your sorrows - but you'll probably have to wait until the 21st to know why you're drinking.

 

I agree it is not the end of the story but we need a cert grant to get anywhere. 

[ryan_j 0]

Cert being granted doesn't actually do anything but tell us they will hear the case, right?

 

And if they do hear the case it won't be until later this year, right?

 

And if they rule in our favor how long will it take New Jersey to find a way to make that decision apply only to the other 49 states?

 

Cert being granted means they'll hear the case. 

 

If they hear it, earliest it will be argued is in the fall. The ruling could be a few months after that, or more likely at the end of the term in June 2015. 

 

If they rule in our favor and it is a solid decision, NJ has zero wiggle room. However, I predict that they'll keep the rest of the requirements like range qualification and renewal every 2 years. It is up to us then to persuade lawmakers to change the law to get something better. It is also up to every one of us to flood the system with applications to force NJ to make it better. 

 

The other possibility is a decision in favor of "some sort of carry." If I am reading it right, it would be just like Peruta in the 9th. If NJ opts for open carry, it is your duty to peacefully exercise your right. The antis will call the cops but it is your right to bear arms. I know I will be open carrying everywhere proudly if they restrict it to open carry. 

[Mr.Stu 1,922]

My expectation is that they'll just strike the justifiable need part and leave everything else intact, especially as the case does not challenge any of the other requirements. This means there will be no distinction between open or concealed same as today. We'll also need to reapply every two years, qualify every whatever it is, only carry ball ammo, etc.

 

Whether the legislature tries to change the rules later will remain to be seen. I find it hard to imagine them insisting on open carry only but I also struggle to understand the rationale for many of the gun bills we see.

 

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[Mr.Stu 1,922]

I also think the process of going via the superior court will remain which will make the process take months to complete, especially when we all apply at the same time.

 

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[raz-0 1,259]

My expectation is that they'll just strike the justifiable need part and leave everything else intact, especially as the case does not challenge any of the other requirements. This means there will be no distinction between open or concealed same as today. We'll also need to reapply every two years, qualify every whatever it is, only carry ball ammo, etc.

 

Whether the legislature tries to change the rules later will remain to be seen. I find it hard to imagine them insisting on open carry only but I also struggle to understand the rationale for many of the gun bills we see.

 

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

 

Well first thing I would expect form them is a gross attempt to limit where you can carry, basically resulting in zero places you can carry, and carving out exceptions from that for the special people. I don't expect them to go quietly. The part we as NJians should be most concerned about if the case is heard is how specific they are in pre-empting regulatroy BS. They have made it clear they don't want it coming to them for every regulatory detail, and we are in 3, which seems to be in la-la land in terms of anything they disagree with politically, so I'm not expecting much protection form them unless SCOTUS tears them a new one wide and deep. 

[CMJeepster 2,778]

I can never see open carry in this state.  Could you imagine a crowded boardwalk in the summer with Snookie-like people open carrying?

 

If this is taken, I could see the court being very surgical in its response to justifiable need.

 

I don't see the state loosening any requirements if they're forced to open the process to regular citizens.

[Ddc2003 0]

So if the cert it granted, realistically speaking, when do we think they will actually go to court?

[njpilot 671]

So if the cert it granted, realistically speaking, when do we think they will actually go to court?

 

 

Cert being granted means they'll hear the case. 

 

If they hear it, earliest it will be argued is in the fall. The ruling could be a few months after that, or more likely at the end of the term in June 2015. 

 

If they rule in our favor and it is a solid decision, NJ has zero wiggle room. However, I predict that they'll keep the rest of the requirements like range qualification and renewal every 2 years. It is up to us then to persuade lawmakers to change the law to get something better. It is also up to every one of us to flood the system with applications to force NJ to make it better. 

 

The other possibility is a decision in favor of "some sort of carry." If I am reading it right, it would be just like Peruta in the 9th. If NJ opts for open carry, it is your duty to peacefully exercise your right. The antis will call the cops but it is your right to bear arms. I know I will be open carrying everywhere proudly if they restrict it to open carry. 

[Alex V 99]

What is quali. requirement?  Might as well satrt practicing (Fingers Crossed) :-D

 

Has anyone thought of what would happen should SCOTUS rule against us?