NJ AG asks Supremes NOT to take on Drake

[ryan_j 0]

Well to issue him a permit they would have to admit self defense is a justifiable need, wouldn't they? Then equal protections kicks in for anyone else applying.

 

Nope. They issue a permit and he drops off the case. This is what happened to Muller. Muller got his permit and he dropped off the case. Nothing at all changes for the rest of us.

 

The ONLY way something would change for us is if we got a precedential decision, and not simply a permit approval.

[siderman 1,138]

Or equal justice on a local level here in Ridgewood a town official stole almost 1/2 million $ in quarters, yes, quarters. His punishment? Pay it back, loses job/pension. No jail time! Were a few huh? faces around here for sure. I'd be fending off Bubba if I did that.

[quikz 34]

So my theory still stands....

 

NJ, fearing the wrath of the SCOTUS. Will issue that poor little whiney character Drake guy, an Unrestricted, all out, NJ Carry Permit. Then Drake goes into sunset.

 

We need active restricted NJ "carry" permit holders w threats against them or having been a victim somehow, to come forward.

 

Jus sayin....

[Vlad G 345]

Nah .. its too late for that. If they do that at this point it will probably just anger the crap out of the SCOTUS. In fact there is precedent for SCOTUS taking cases that no longer mattered. For example in Miller, I'm pretty sure Miller was already dead by the time SCOTUS took it.

[ryan_j 0]

So my theory still stands....

 

NJ, fearing the wrath of the SCOTUS. Will issue that poor little whiney character Drake guy, an Unrestricted, all out, NJ Carry Permit. Then Drake goes into sunset.

 

We need active restricted NJ "carry" permit holders w threats against them or having been a victim somehow, to come forward.

 

Jus sayin....

 

They'll have to grant all of the plaintiffs to get rid of the case. One of the plaintiffs simply listed "defense of self and family." Even so, they'll also have to grant every single member of ANJRPC as well, since ANJRPC is party to this case on behalf of its members. 

 

This case isn't going away unless it is heard before the court, denied certiorari or NJ goes shall issue and moots it. 

[ryan_j 0]

Nah .. its too late for that. If they do that at this point it will probably just anger the crap out of the SCOTUS. In fact there is precedent for SCOTUS taking cases that no longer mattered. For example in Miller, I'm pretty sure Miller was already dead by the time SCOTUS took it.

 

Agreed. The 3rd circuit took Revell, and ANJRPC took it up even when Revell copped a plea and dropped off. 

[jtd771 18]

Updated article from NJ.com about Drake's attorney's response to our Attorney General.  

 

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

 

Trying to find a link to the actual response.

[ryan_j 0]

I posted it in the main thread which is a sticky (SAF v NJ (Muller v maenza et al)).

 

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

[CMJeepster 2,778]

The link isn't working for me.

[ryan_j 0]

NJ2AS has also put it on the website.

 

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

[CMJeepster 2,778]

Much better, thanks!

[n4p226r 105]

is it normal for them to say everything in a way that mocks the other side so blatantly?

[Vlad G 345]

is it normal for them to say everything in a way that mocks the other side so blatantly?

 

They deserved to be mocked. 

[n4p226r 105]

no disagreement there.  just was surprised slightly by the "tone" of the writing based on the intended audience.  

[Vlad G 345]

no disagreement there.  just was surprised slightly by the "tone" of the writing based on the intended audience.  

The Supreme court judges are not humorless automaton, I'm sure they appreciate a good rant as much as anyone else when properly constructed in the form of a legal brief. 

[Ddc2003 0]

I just finished reading it. Fantastic arguments. Gives me much needed hope that they can do this.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jm1827 284]

I just finished reading it. Fantastic arguments. Gives me much needed hope that they can do this.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just read it also, and I agree, there are some fantastic arguments there.

[PDM 91]

I think you guys are correct -- the tone was much stronger than what one normally sees in a brief, particularly in front of the supreme court.  My sense is that is because 1) NJ's arguments are so patently absurd, even insulting to the court, that Gura and Jensen felt they had some cover to let it all hang out and 2) the Drake case is really the best -- and last -- shot to have the 2A outside the home issue resolved by the court.  I think April 18 will be the day that our fate in NJ is decided with respect to the carry issue.  If the ct grants cert, I'd give us a 80%+ chance of a win.  If cert isn't granted, it's over -- the ct will never hear a carry case.

[ryan_j 0]

no disagreement there.  just was surprised slightly by the "tone" of the writing based on the intended audience.  

 

Not really. It was a scathing brief to point out NJ's blatant lies and distortion. 

[ryan_j 0]

I think you guys are correct -- the tone was much stronger than what one normally sees in a brief, particularly in front of the supreme court.  My sense is that is because 1) NJ's arguments are so patently absurd, even insulting to the court, that Gura and Jensen felt they had some cover to let it all hang out and 2) the Drake case is really the best -- and last -- shot to have the 2A outside the home issue resolved by the court.  I think April 18 will be the day that our fate in NJ is decided with respect to the carry issue.  If the ct grants cert, I'd give us a 80%+ chance of a win.  If cert isn't granted, it's over -- the ct will never hear a carry case.

 

Not really. There are still a few cases left.

 

Peruta and Richards in California

Baker in Hawai'i

Pantano in the NJ Supreme Court (Evan Nappen is counsel)

Bonidy in the 10th circuit. This is the USPS firearms ban. While not a pure "carry" case, talks about right to bear arms outside the home.

 

But I agree, if they refuse to hear this one, it is a serious setback. 

[NicePants 58]

I don't see how they could refuse after the reaming the Drake side just gave the AG.

[Pythagoras 2]

NJ2AS has also put it on the website.

 

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

That conclusion paragraph is AWESOME. Jonathan Swift would be proud.

[jtd771 18]

Sorry I don't know the procedure here but does the AG have an opportunity to respond before the 4/18 review or is this the last brief?

[ryan_j 0]

I think you guys are correct -- the tone was much stronger than what one normally sees in a brief, particularly in front of the supreme court.  My sense is that is because 1) NJ's arguments are so patently absurd, even insulting to the court, that Gura and Jensen felt they had some cover to let it all hang out and 2) the Drake case is really the best -- and last -- shot to have the 2A outside the home issue resolved by the court.  I think April 18 will be the day that our fate in NJ is decided with respect to the carry issue.  If the ct grants cert, I'd give us a 80%+ chance of a win.  If cert isn't granted, it's over -- the ct will never hear a carry case.

 

The other thing is that I smell a hint of frustration. The Court has passed on Kachalsky and Woollard already, and now Drake is up at bat. If Heller says what it says, then the right to carry should have been clarified a long time ago.

[ryan_j 0]

Sorry I don't know the procedure here but does the AG have an opportunity to respond before the 4/18 review or is this the last brief?

 

The AG does not get to respond. Plaintiff has the last word. 

[intercooler 41]

Kachalsky and Woollard  were not the cases that Drake is...NJ is the big nut, break that and they ALL fall. They have to take this case

[raz-0 1,259]

Not really. There are still a few cases left.

 

Peruta and Richards in California

Baker in Hawai'i

Pantano in the NJ Supreme Court (Evan Nappen is counsel)

Bonidy in the 10th circuit. This is the USPS firearms ban. While not a pure "carry" case, talks about right to bear arms outside the home.

 

But I agree, if they refuse to hear this one, it is a serious setback.

Let's put it this way, if they don't hear drake it's because the antis have the votes to win and choose not to. If they won't hear this one, we probably don't want them hearing those either.

[EX Carnival man 223]

Kachalsky and Woollard  were not the cases that Drake is...NJ is the big nut, break that and they ALL fall. They have to take this case

So true. NJ has gone way to far for to long trampling on the rights of its people. Its time to put an end to this feel good law train.

[ryan_j 0]

Well I hope you guys are right.

 

My handguns are itching to ride by my side in the garden state, like a good friend who is always there when you need him the most. 

[Gus 33]

This is NJ the pursuit of happiness is prohibited.

 

Hilarious and sad at the same time.