NJ AG asks Supremes NOT to take on Drake

[Newtonian 453]

Read it and weep:

 

Today,  the  New Jersey Attorney General  filed a brief  in  the  Drake  right  to  carry  case,  urging  the U.S. Supreme Court not to take the case.  Drake is the pending federal challenge to New Jersey's unconstitutional carry  law,  brought  by ANJRPC  and the Seattle-based  Second Amendment Foundation (SAF),  who have asked the Supreme Court to hear the case.

 

At the heart of the lawsuit is the idea that citizens should not have to prove "need" to exercise a fundamental Constitutional right.  New Jersey's "justifiable need" standard requires the applicant to provide evidence of prior attacks or threats before a carry permit is issued by a judge - a virtually impossible standard for most people to meet. 

 

Though less extreme in its rhetoric than in earlier phases of the case, the Attorney General in the brief essentially defends New Jersey's carry law and tells the Supreme Court there is no reason for it to hear the case:

 

"[T]he Second Amendment does not prohibit New Jersey from requiring applicants to demonstrate a justifiable need before granting a permit to publicly carry a handgun. The justifiable need standard in New Jersey's Handgun Permit Law qualifies as a presumptively lawful, longstanding regulation that does not burden conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment's guarantee... Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the Third Circuit's decision here presents a question that warrants this Court's discretionary review."

 

While it is not unusual for an attorney general to defend state law, it is unfortunate to see such a blatant violation of fundamental rights be given legitimacy by bureaucrats.

[ryan_j 0]

Not at all unexpected. Not in the least.

[Newtonian 453]

Since I'm relatively new to firearms I take a naive view of such things.

 

In this case, it's good news or bad news.

 

It's bad news if the S.C. gives this petition more weight than those of all the supporters, and the original petitioner. Even the liberal wing could adopt a "states' rights" position here, and you never know about Roberts and Kennedy.

 

On the other hand, maybe our AG is afraid of something. The optimist in me leans towards this explanation. As the press release says, it's not unusual for a state's AG to argue in favor of a state's existing law.

 

Lacking knowledge of how the SC decides to take on a case, I'd bet that the chances of them hearing this one are about 30-40%. However, if the case is heard, the chances of NJ's archaic gun laws being overturned equal rounding up the fraction 5/9, or 100%.

[LorenzoS 100]

Same old tired argument from the state.  Heller never said the 2A applies outside the home, and NJ's "careful grid" of gun priviledge is legal because it's been this way for a long time, and the state has to protect the people of the state from the people of the state.

 

Bring it on.

[wooly bugger 1]

How common is an amicus brief *against* taking a case? This reeks of desperation to me. If the AG were confident in his position, wouldn't he welcome a ruling from SCOTUS to resolve the case once and for all, vindicating what he thinks is the correct interpretation?

 

If I were a SCOTUS justice, this would only pique my interest in taking the case.

[diamondd817 826]

Longstanding, common sense, public safety. I am really tired of hearing this crap.

[Mr.Stu 1,918]

Longstanding, common sense, public safety. I am really tired of hearing this crap.

I think out is good that they are trotting out the same wishy-washy point of view. It only strengthens our position.

 

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[dutchman 1]

How common is an amicus brief *against* taking a case? This reeks of desperation to me. If the AG were confident in his position, wouldn't he welcome a ruling from SCOTUS to resolve the case once and for all, vindicating what he thinks is the correct interpretation?

 

If I were a SCOTUS justice, this would only pique my interest in taking the case.

 

SCOTUS declining to take a case is effectively a ruling against the petitioners.

[maintenanceguy 510]

Interest balancing or considering if something is a long standing tradition has no place where guaranteed rights are being considered.

 

Slavery had a long standing tradition.

It is in the government's best interest to limit any speech opposing it.

 

According to the AG, both of the above should be acceptable.

[Howard 538]

Wait a second, so the argument is that because they have been violating our rights for a long time with "justifiable need" that it should be accepted?  How is that any different than slavery or blacks in the back of the bus, they were allowed for many years too.  All of these things are plain wrong, the SCOTUS fixed the examples I gave, its time for them to fix justifiable need too.

[njJoniGuy 2,131]

Keep in mind that SCOTUS has a history of getting it wrong.

Just ask a knowledgable person about their Dred Scott v. Sandford (7 to 2)  and Plessy v. Ferguson (7 to 1) decisions

It usually works out in the end, but only if you have the lifespan of a vampire.

 

[mipafox 438]

I urge her not to take the next breath.

[ryan_j 0]

How common is an amicus brief *against* taking a case? This reeks of desperation to me. If the AG were confident in his position, wouldn't he welcome a ruling from SCOTUS to resolve the case once and for all, vindicating what he thinks is the correct interpretation?

 

If I were a SCOTUS justice, this would only pique my interest in taking the case.

Amicus against taking a case are pretty common. Usually the Brady's and bloomberg's sock puppets file them.

[ryan_j 0]

Keep in mind that SCOTUS has a history of getting it wrong.

Just ask a knowledgable person about their Dred Scott v. Sandford (7 to 2) and Plessy v. Ferguson (7 to 1) decisions

It usually works out in the end, but only if you have the lifespan of a vampire.

We have nothing to lose.

[ryan_j 0]

SCOTUS declining to take a case is effectively a ruling against the petitioners.

Yes and no. It is sorta but it leaves open the door for future challenges. The court rarely reverses itself, so any precedent sticks pretty much forever.

[njJoniGuy 2,131]

We have nothing to lose.

Correct.

But the legal carriers in 40some states do if this goes south.

[mipafox 438]

We have nothing to lose.

What this "We" shit, Kemosabi?

[ryan_j 0]

What this "We" shit, Kemosabi?

We means everybody. You do realize that if this case doesn't go to SCOTUS that the appeals court decision is binding to NJ, PA and DE right?

[mipafox 438]

We means everybody. You do realize that if this case doesn't go to SCOTUS that the appeals court decision is binding to NJ, PA and DE right?

No, it doesn't mean everybody. There is a huge difference between a Circuit Court ruling and a Supreme Court Ruling.

 

Don't bullshit me. I know exactly what you meant. You said there is nothing to lose in a bad Supreme Court ruling.

[ryan_j 0]

No, it doesn't mean everybody. There is a huge difference between a Circuit Court ruling and a Supreme Court Ruling.

 

Don't bullshit me. I know exactly what you meant.

The only difference is where it applies. Even so, the case can be cited by different circuits as the 3rd did with the 2nd.

 

But as a practical matter, if the Supreme Court decided that carry outside the home is not a right, nothing really changes. NJ can remain may issue and PA is unlikely to follow and would remain shall issue. Nothing is stopping PA from becoming may issue today as well. In the absence of Supreme Court guidance, nothing is stopping states from applying whatever restrictions they want.

 

What are you worried about anyway?

[springfieldxds 0]

We means everybody. You do realize that if this case doesn't go to SCOTUS that the appeals court decision is binding to NJ, PA and DE right?

The supreme Court of PA (I'm not sure about DE) I believe has already ruled carrying a firearm in public is protected by the state constitution

 

So just because the 3rd ruled its not by the 2nd amendment that won't change a thing in PA because their constitution supposedly grants more protection

 

Am I wrong I'm thinking this?

[TOMJAM123 0]

The NJAG's argument was answered a long time ago...

 

“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.” 
― Thomas Paine, Common Sense

[NYMetsFan86 9]

I hope they film crying her ridiculous face off if we get our rights back

 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

 

[GrumpyOldRetiree 38]

On pages 14-15 of the state's brief is the following passage:

 

"It would be nonsensical to assert that it was impermissible
to carry a pistol or revolver in a vehicle,
whether openly or concealed, without a permit, but
that it was permissible to openly carry pistol or

revolver without a permit if a person was in public
and outside of a vehicle – for example, walking or
riding a horse."

 

Isn't that exactly the law in some states that allow open carry without a license (like PA)?

[DeerSlayer 241]

I hope they film crying her ridiculous face off if we get our rights back

 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

me 2! I'll have a t-shirt made up of that image!

 

Sent using Tapatalk 2 NOW FREE!!!

 

 

[NYMetsFan86 9]

T-shirts, hats, coffee mugs, holster kydex from white hat etc

 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

 

[gunguy1960 2]

The real question is can you prove a need to leave your house?

[NYMetsFan86 9]

The real question is can you prove a need to leave your house?

Work? My job is in no way workable from home. Idk First thing I thought of

 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

 

[71ragtopgoat 23]

The real question is can you prove a need to leave your house?

Work,vote visit family and friends and just the plain old pursuit of happiness

[brucin 923]

Work,vote visit family and friends and just the plain old pursuit of happiness

 

This is NJ the pursuit of happiness is prohibited.