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

[n4p226r 105]

so i've read that both are true.  can he appeal to the supreme court or does he have to start over at the federal level?

[springfieldxds 0]

so i've read that both are true.  can he appeal to the supreme court or does he have to start over at the federal level?

he can appeal to scotus i believe, but without an opinion from NJSC its extremely unlikely they'll accept it

[ryan_j 0]

That is true. I think our best hope out of the court system right now is Peruta out of California or Baker out of Hawaii.

[Newtonian 453]

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" ?

Don't expect anything to change ever. As I've posted before, this is as good as it gets in this piss-shit state. 

 

Christie was forced to trade one R for one D. Not unusual for NJ state politics, where nobody makes even a pretense of voting based on credentials and qualifications. 

 

"Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown."

 

[springfieldxds 0]

That is true. I think our best hope out of the court system right now is Peruta out of California or Baker out of Hawaii.

i have high hopes for Peruta, if Clement is the one to argue the case im pretty sure well have a very favorable ruling, also on another note we should know any day now if they'll let the AG intervene, they're not on the clock but 2 weeks is the usual   

[wooly bugger 1]

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.

Maybe this sort of smoky backroom sliminess flies under the SCOTUS radar, but if I were them, I'd be Supremely pissed at being played like that. This could backfire in our favor.

[GrumpyOldRetiree 38]

Maybe this sort of smoky backroom sliminess flies under the SCOTUS radar, but if I were them, I'd be Supremely pissed at being played like that. This could backfire in our favor.

I have to disagree with this sentiment. SCOTUS was not played, they were players in this grand charade. The NJSC initially granted cert in Pantano to provide some ambiguity as SOTUS was considering Drake. So one or more of the supremes could argue that the NJ CCW issue was still in flux at the state level and therefore Drake wasn't ripe. After Drake was dead, the NJSC was free to change their minds on Pantano. This was done with "a wink and a nod" between the feds and NJ. None of these guys want the unwashed masses to have carry, and they are all doing the two-step trying not to deal with the ramifications of Heller & McDonald.

[maintenanceguy 510]

I have to disagree with this sentiment. SCOTUS was not played, they were players in this grand charade. The NJSC initially granted cert in Pantano to provide some ambiguity as SOTUS was considering Drake. So one or more of the supremes could argue that the NJ CCW issue was still in flux at the state level and therefore Drake wasn't ripe. After Drake was dead, the NJSC was free to change their minds on Pantano. This was done with "a wink and a nod" between the feds and NJ. None of these guys want the unwashed masses to have carry, and they are all doing the two-step trying not to deal with the ramifications of Heller & McDonald.

Bingo!   Like so many Americans, SCOTUS is completely comfortable with the right to "keep arms" but not so much with the right to "bear arms".  So they'll just turn their heads and not get involved.

[ryan_j 0]

Sorry guys but it took a ton of lost cases before they picked up Heller. I don't buy the conspiracy theories.

[springfieldxds 0]

im with ryan on this one, plus if scotus doesnt want people carrying it would have been much more convenient for them to take Drake and say carrying isnt protected by the 2nd, that then opens a bunch of states to lawsuits from the Brady bunch

 

Drake was the perfect case but with a not so perfect lawyer, i dont think scotus wants to ever see Gura in their courtroom again after the slaughter house fiasco in McDonald, to scotus that was way out of line, which is why not even one justice sided with Guras arguments in McDonald

 

Gura also leaves out alot of info in his cases and forces the courts to do a lot of their own research which shows lack of preparation

[ryan_j 0]

Yep. People like to think Alan Gura was solely responsible for winning Heller, but Paul Clement was SG at the time and quite possibly saved the case when he referred to the English bill of rights which referred to the rights of "the people" and not "the militia."

[raz-0 1,259]

There's only one ting you can take out of events to date. 

 

The issue of carry is in play, and it's a close game. 

 

That's about it. If it were a slam dunk in either direction, it'd be done already. 

[ryan_j 0]

There's only one ting you can take out of events to date. 

 

The issue of carry is in play, and it's a close game. 

 

That's about it. If it were a slam dunk in either direction, it'd be done already. 

 

Bingo.

 

If the four antis on the court thought they had the votes to kill the 2A, they'd grant cert and use Drake (or Kachalsky, or Woollard) to kill it.