Pantano vs NJ or CCW is coming... sorta maybe not quite

[71ragtopgoat 23]

One only need only look at Chicago or IL in general to prove that once onerus restrictions are lifted a large number of people will apply for CCW. Showing how the state did oppress them.

No need for anyone in NJ to jump into the system unprotected.

[ryan_j 0]

Pantano is dead at the state level:

 

http://www.ammoland.com/2014/05/new-jersey-supreme-court-dodges-on-second-amendment-case/#axzz332AlZBkw

[mark_anthony_78 0]

Are we placing bets yet for when SCOTUS denies cert on this one too?

[diamondd817 828]

 

 

The Patano case had no chance in a corrupt NJ court room anyway.

 

It will also be denied Cert at the SC level. Its just another false hope and waste of everyone's time and money.

 

What is Bach and Nappen going to cheerlead now? I know, National carry, bla, bla, bla...

[Princetonian58 53]

Pantano is dead at the state level:

 

http://www.ammoland.com/2014/05/new-jersey-supreme-court-dodges-on-second-amendment-case/#axzz332AlZBkw

There is nothing about Pantano posted on the NJ Supreme Court's website as yet.  The only real impact of this, if true, is to make Peruta instead of Pantano the next case up to bat at the SCOTUS.  Knowing that Drake was denied certorari, I suspect the NJSC felt less urgency about weighing in on the lawfulness of the state's "careful regulatory grid" and would prefer that California's scheme, rather than NJ's, be the possible vehicle to secure the right of public carry.  There was absolutely no chance Nappen was going to win before the NJ Supreme Court.  Not sure what Pantano's option is now.  I don't think he can seek cert. from the SCOTUS from an Appellate Division, versus, NJ Supreme Court case.  He may have to file anew in U.S. District Court and work through the Third Circuit before seeking SCOTUS review.

[ryan_j 0]

The supreme court's website is woefully out of date. 

 

Nappen confirms that Pantano is done at the NJSC. 

 

Peruta is a good case but they have to decide Kamala Harris' intervention and it could even go en banc. If en banc is denied, I'm not sure whether they'll appeal to SCOTUS.

[djg0770 481]

This was just denied today.  You don't just "list" stuff and have it appear on the SC website.  I don't believe that the arguments or briefs or WTF they're called have been written yet for the SCOTUS. 

 

In any case, this just seems to be blind hope.  The next worst thing to happen would be for the Gov to sign the mag bill into law. Though that might cause enough people to stand up and actually revolt (not actually, I'm just freaking dreaming).

[springfieldxds 0]

The court issued an Order stating “This matter having been duly considered, and the Court having determined that Certification was improvidently granted; it is Ordered that the within appeal is dismissed.”

is this to say that pantano was granted a license and thats why the case was dismissed?

[springfieldxds 0]

to add a little to the conversation, there was really no hope the NJSC would've struck down justifiable need, the only hope was that the NJSC decision was so flawed that scotus was compelled to hear the case

 

with the NJSC dodging the case though, there is no chance scotus will hear it

 

i dont believe there was ever a chance scotus would hear the case under any circumstances, i do have a little hope though that scotus is waiting for Clement to come before them an argue the case

[mark_anthony_78 0]

The court issued an Order stating “This matter having been duly considered, and the Court having determined that Certification was improvidently granted; it is Ordered that the within appeal is dismissed.”

 

is this to say that pantano was granted a license and thats why the case was dismissed?

No, it means that the court should not have granted the appeal in the first place (but they did it to interfere with Drake, which is now dead so they can kick this case to the curb).

[jackandjill 683]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

--------------------

 

Not sure which one is worse, NJSC playing games or SCOTUS side stepping important questions.   Courts in Pakistan have more balls than here to stick to the supreme law of the land.

[jackandjill 683]

BTW, there goes our "Vote Republican" argument. To be honest, in my limited view, I have not seen what the Republican Governors or Presidents did to support 2A.

[djg0770 481]

BTW, there goes our "Vote Republican" argument. To be honest, in my limited view, I have not seen what the Republican Governors or Presidents did to support 2A.

 

I have seen however what Democrats have done to undermine 2A...

[jackandjill 683]

I have seen however what Democrats have done to undermine 2A...

And they will continue to be traitors but how long do we continue to play the defense. Even the defense is dwindling. Republican or Democrats, I dont believe an establishment ever likes the subjects exercising serious rights such as 2A. 

 

A NJSC Judge getting rid of yet another important case with one liner a day after reappointment by a Republican Governor ?  The message and intent is clear as day.

[revenger 473]

I would not be surprised at this point if he signs the 10 round limit in front of a big press conference.  He will put his money on the anti-gun vote nationally in hopes of winning.   I also wouldn't be surprised if he ran as a democrat and remove all doubt.

[ryan_j 0]

I don't think he will sign it. Too much backlash for that to happen. He'll at worst conditionally veto it. 

[HBecwithFn7 296]

I don't think he will sign it. Too much backlash for that to happen. He'll at worst conditionally veto it. 

 

Perhaps if, not so much for himself, but for others in the GOP.

 

Remember the NJ Primary is in a week or two. I wonder if he might be waiting until after that before taking action....

[ryan_j 0]

He's waiting the full 45 days. By now you should know that Christie thinks and acts like a lawyer.

[HBecwithFn7 296]

I doubt they'll disclose it. Florida put the dept of ag in charge of gun permits for precisely that reason.

 

Except that FL *does* disclose CCW info to other "law enforcement" authorities, per their statutes... Specifically, the MCAC for one.  Just ask Mr. Filippidis.

[springfieldxds 0]

No, it means that the court should not have granted the appeal in the first place (but they did it to interfere with Drake, which is now dead so they can kick this case to the curb).

how would it have interfered with Drake?

[mark_anthony_78 0]

how would it have interfered with Drake?

 

Snippet from ANJRPC:

 

In July of 2013, the New Jersey Supreme Court agreed to hear the Pantano case, attorney Evan Nappen's state challenge to New Jersey's "justifiable need" carry permit standard (requiring proof of prior attacks and threats), which makes it all but impossible for the average person to qualify for a carry permit.   

 

Second Amendment leaders speculated at the time that the decision to hear Pantano was a play by the NJ high court to try to interfere with the Drake case - the federal right to carry challenge brought by ANJRPC and the Washington State-based Second Amendment Foundation.  By rendering a state decision driving a dagger through the heart of right to carry, New Jersey's high court in Pantano could have made it more difficult for the U.S. Supreme Court in Drake to overturn New Jersey's carry law.

 

It now turns out that this may have been more than just speculation.  Just 17 days after the U.S Supreme Court declined to hear the Drake case, and just one day after being reappointed as chief justice of the state Supreme Court, justice Stuart Rabner signed a one sentence order on May 22 dismissing the Pantano appeal, saying that the earlier decision to hear the case had been "improvidently granted" with no further explanation.

 

The Pantano case had been pending for almost 10 months, had been fully briefed, and was awaiting only the scheduling of oral argument.  The move is highly unusual and highly suspect.

[springfieldxds 0]

Snippet from ANJRPC:

 

In July of 2013, the New Jersey Supreme Court agreed to hear the Pantano case, attorney Evan Nappen's state challenge to New Jersey's "justifiable need" carry permit standard (requiring proof of prior attacks and threats), which makes it all but impossible for the average person to qualify for a carry permit.   

 

Second Amendment leaders speculated at the time that the decision to hear Pantano was a play by the NJ high court to try to interfere with the Drake case - the federal right to carry challenge brought by ANJRPC and the Washington State-based Second Amendment Foundation.  By rendering a state decision driving a dagger through the heart of right to carry, New Jersey's high court in Pantano could have made it more difficult for the U.S. Supreme Court in Drake to overturn New Jersey's carry law.

 

It now turns out that this may have been more than just speculation.  Just 17 days after the U.S Supreme Court declined to hear the Drake case, and just one day after being reappointed as chief justice of the state Supreme Court, justice Stuart Rabner signed a one sentence order on May 22 dismissing the Pantano appeal, saying that the earlier decision to hear the case had been "improvidently granted" with no further explanation.

 

The Pantano case had been pending for almost 10 months, had been fully briefed, and was awaiting only the scheduling of oral argument.  The move is highly unusual and highly suspect.

yeah i received that email, i just dont really understand how this would come into play  "New Jersey's high court in Pantano could have made it more difficult for the U.S. Supreme Court in Drake to overturn New Jersey's carry law."

 

state court and federal courts are two different things, how would a state court decision interfere with a federal courts decision, unless they contradicted themselves 

[jackandjill 683]

Interesting read: http://www.northjersey.com/news/defense-mounts-for-reappointment-of-n-j-chief-justice-stuart-rabner-1.1013514

 

The Pantano decision is lot clear (as to why it was done this way) if one reads into the background.  Based on this, dont expect to anything to change at NJSC level for atleast another 20 years. And then NJ need to have a Republican (not RHINO) in Gov seat to nominate a 2A friendly Justice i.e Not Happening.

 

NJ Bar associations lobbied for reappointment to keep "independent judiciary" alive. How are such decisions (like Pantano) represent "independent judiciary" ?

[jackandjill 683]

yeah i received that email, i just dont really understand how this would come into play  "New Jersey's high court in Pantano could have made it more difficult for the U.S. Supreme Court in Drake to overturn New Jersey's carry law."

 

state court and federal courts are two different things, how would a state court decision interfere with a federal courts decision, unless they contradicted themselves 

Could it be that SCOTUS looks for clear and consistent splits across the country for such issues ? By keeping a case alive (not passed judgement) at the state level while SCOTUS is reviewing to take up a similar case, is it possible to drop a seed of "doubt" into SCOTUS mind that results in denial  to hear ?

[mark_anthony_78 0]

Could it be that SCOTUS looks for clear and consistent splits across the country for such issues ? By keeping a case alive (not passed judgement) at the state level while SCOTUS is reviewing to take up a similar case, is it possible to drop a seed of "doubt" into SCOTUS mind that results in denial  to hear ?

 

Probably something like this...  they could say "Look, even New Jersey hasn't decided which way they stand on the issue... how are we to know if a split even exists?"

[jackandjill 683]

Probably something like this...  they could say "Look, even New Jersey hasn't decided which way they stand on the issue... how are we to know if a split even exists?"

Yep. Not that SCOTUS was eager to take up the case. They were looking for a reason to duck the case anyways and our NJSC Judge played well, and got reappointed. Good luck to us all for next 30 years.

[Princetonian58 53]

My take on this is that NJSC granted certification in Pantano in order to deke the SCOTUS to deny certiorari in Drake. 

 

By this I mean the SCOTUS may have been influenced to deny cert. in Drake thinking that a pro-carry (obvously unlikely) decision in Pantano would render Drake essentially moot.  On the other hand, if  Pantano lost, that case would be before them on a petiton for cert.in less than a year.  All things considered, the SCOTUS would much rather have the benefit of the NJSC's reasoning and decision on its own statutory scheme as the State's highest court rather than a Third Circuit decision by federal judges rationalizing the supposed justification of NJ firearms law. 

 

Either way, it seems to me that the idea was to dissuade SCOTUS from hearing Drake by dangling a soon to arrive state supreme court decision in Pantano before their eyes.  Now that Drake is dead, no reason for NJSC to now decide Pantano and give Nappen a right to petition directly to the SCOTUS from an adverse decision.  Thus, the revocation of cert. as improvidently granted.  I suggest that if Drake was granted cert., the NJSC would not rule on Pantano either knowing that they could be extremely embarrassed by a SCOTUS decision rejecting their analysis in Drake.

[springfieldxds 0]

Interesting read: http://www.northjersey.com/news/defense-mounts-for-reappointment-of-n-j-chief-justice-stuart-rabner-1.1013514

 

The Pantano decision is lot clear (as to why it was done this way) if one reads into the background.  Based on this, dont expect to anything to change at NJSC level for atleast another 20 years. And then NJ need to have a Republican (not RHINO) in Gov seat to nominate a 2A friendly Justice i.e Not Happening.

 

NJ Bar associations lobbied for reappointment to keep "independent judiciary" alive. How are such decisions (like Pantano) represent "independent judiciary" ?

why was rabner reappointed by Christie, this confuses me, back deal possibly?

[jackandjill 683]

why was rabner reappointed by Christie, this confuses me, back deal possibly?

Apparently there are few other positions that CC nominated Repub leaning Justices and Dems blocked that effort. So a deal is made where CC will reappoint Rabner and Dems will let CC do one position Repub leaning.  And all liberal bar associations continued to pressure in the "interest of impartial judiciary traditions". Impartial my ass,  Rabner did what he planned to do as soon as reappointed.

[Princetonian58 53]

why was rabner reappointed by Christie, this confuses me, back deal possibly?

 

Rabner's reappointment was the cost of getting Republican Lee Solomon on the court, first and foremost.  Second, Rabner had widespread support by the state bar which was becoming very vocal.  By and large, Chrities's attempt to remake the NJSC into a less activist court has failed and he would take a huge public flogging for appearing to retaliate against Rabner for the gay marriage decision, IMHO.