reloaderguy 30 Posted February 20, 2019 Got this email today. https://www.anjrpc.org/page/SupremeCtRequiresNJFileResponseinCarryAppeal?fbclid=IwAR16fMMtsRjfwwZbrkfI47FK5IQkHHonpu63NUCrMCyDFqqgERJ-OA6r4qc 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chic013 16 Posted February 24, 2019 On 2/20/2019 at 12:17 PM, reloaderguy said: Got this email today. https://www.anjrpc.org/page/SupremeCtRequiresNJFileResponseinCarryAppeal?fbclid=IwAR16fMMtsRjfwwZbrkfI47FK5IQkHHonpu63NUCrMCyDFqqgERJ-OA6r4qc I think I like this move by SCOTUS. They seem to be forcing NJ arrogance on this. By NJ "not" filing the brief from the outset, sends a message that they (NJ) think they "know better" on the matter than the SCOTUS. Hope it bites them in the rear. I am optimistic of the chances that between NYC and NJ carry cases, we may get our rights back. I've recently seen a few other state lawmakers go constitutional carry/permit-less carry. I hope SCOTUS is paying attention there as well as they hear the NYC case. Here's hoping. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Glock guy 1,127 Posted February 24, 2019 That's our only hope, as there is no chance of a legislative solution at this point. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,433 Posted February 24, 2019 There was an article posted somewhere. I forget if here or somewhere else that mentioned that it isn’t unusual for the state not to respond if they feel the court is going to deny Cert anyway. Why waste the resources. I think It was also mentioned that the court couldn’t grant cert without a response from the state. Its encouraging in that the court could deny cert without a response but explicitly asked for one. Doesn’t mean they’ll ultimately grant cert though. Chances are they’ll hold off a decision until the NYC case is decided and then use that to base their action in this case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chic013 16 Posted February 24, 2019 5 hours ago, voyager9 said: There was an article posted somewhere. I forget if here or somewhere else that mentioned that it isn’t unusual for the state not to respond if they feel the court is going to deny Cert anyway. Why waste the resources. I think It was also mentioned that the court couldn’t grant cert without a response from the state. Its encouraging in that the court could deny cert without a response but explicitly asked for one. Doesn’t mean they’ll ultimately grant cert though. Chances are they’ll hold off a decision until the NYC case is decided and then use that to base their action in this case. Valid point. However I think with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on board now, they may press the states harder to make the case against 2A rights of the people. Again my hope and wish, by no means a given. Agree with you that they may stay in a holding pattern with NJ as they review the NYC case. If by some miracle they rule the NYC case favorably for those folks we could be a “carry”over in NJ depending on the case wording. Stay hopeful and strong i guess. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chic013 16 Posted February 24, 2019 5 hours ago, Old Glock guy said: That's our only hope, as there is no chance of a legislative solution at this point. I dream of a Murphy/Grewal slap down. Overreach of government needs to end. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
njJoniGuy 2,131 Posted February 24, 2019 59 minutes ago, chic013 said: I dream of a Murphy/Grewal 2C:39 and 2C:58 total slap down. Overreach of government needs to end. Fixed it for you to conform with my most fervent hope and prayer. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,259 Posted February 25, 2019 I know judges can consolidate cases at lower levels, can SCOTUS do the same if they want? Because I could see wanting the state's response so you could consider such an action. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dilbert1967 145 Posted February 25, 2019 On 2/20/2019 at 12:17 PM, reloaderguy said: Got this email today. https://www.anjrpc.org/page/SupremeCtRequiresNJFileResponseinCarryAppeal?fbclid=IwAR16fMMtsRjfwwZbrkfI47FK5IQkHHonpu63NUCrMCyDFqqgERJ-OA6r4qc In the article it states that "New Jersey has previously ignored the appeal". If New Jersey fails to present their case, can the Supreme Court arbitrarily rule in favor of ANJRPC without hearing the state's argument? If yes, I'll count that as a "win" and take it any way I can. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Glock guy 1,127 Posted February 25, 2019 18 hours ago, chic013 said: I dream of a Murphy/Grewal slap down. Overreach of government needs to end. That would be a joyous day, indeed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,259 Posted February 25, 2019 1 hour ago, dilbert1967 said: In the article it states that "New Jersey has previously ignored the appeal". If New Jersey fails to present their case, can the Supreme Court arbitrarily rule in favor of ANJRPC without hearing the state's argument? If yes, I'll count that as a "win" and take it any way I can. I don't see why not. That's essentially what happened in US vs. Miller, except on the side of Miller. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobA 1,235 Posted February 25, 2019 1 hour ago, dilbert1967 said: In the article it states that "New Jersey has previously ignored the appeal". If New Jersey fails to present their case, can the Supreme Court arbitrarily rule in favor of ANJRPC without hearing the state's argument? If yes, I'll count that as a "win" and take it any way I can. I believe but not sure but I think it could mean they won’t be invited to oral arguments. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
b47356 21 Posted February 27, 2019 Why is anyone thinking this makes it a win? https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-323.html is just one example of the court asking for a reply from the defendant.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,433 Posted February 27, 2019 18 minutes ago, b47356 said: Why is anyone thinking this makes it a win? https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-323.html is just one example of the court asking for a reply from the defendant.. Obviously not a win. But the thinking is that if the court was going to flat out deny cert they could do so without asking for N.J. to respond. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,259 Posted February 27, 2019 5 minutes ago, b47356 said: Why is anyone thinking this makes it a win? https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-323.html is just one example of the court asking for a reply from the defendant.. That's an example of the court asking for stuff from the petitioner before denial. That basically makes up the case they are being asked to hear. Denying without at least asking for that would be bad judicial juju as it would be essentially uninformed denial. By nature of the appeal, there is the assumption the petitioner has issues with previous courts' decisions. SCOTUS would, in that case like to know what they are trying. In something like the NJ case, the petitioner submitted their case, and those who have not responded were happy with previous courts' decisions. Being in possession of the lower court decision and the petition means they fully know what they are being asked to consider. If they wish to deny cert, it is not required for the defendant to submit anything. To grant cert they need to at least demand it. Is it a slam dunk? No. They could get both sides and decide it is too broad, or well represented by another case they like better or got there earlier. Or it could just be a tactic by one (or more) of the judges in hammering out the NY case. IMO, worst case scenario? There's bargaining going on over the NYC case and someone on the RKBA side said basically.. hey.. you can vote yes for a narrow decision in the NYC case, or you can roll the dice the RBG doesn't go on an indefinite worm feeding expedition, and vote no. Because this is the next one up in the queue and if we have one more Trump appointee there is every chance we hand down a much more broad decision for that case instead of remanding it back to the lower court saying see our NYC ruling. This would be something along the lines of being willing to say that an effective ban on transportation for general sporting use is definitely in violation of the 2nd, but we won't say here the line is and some regulation is ok. Best case scenario? they remand to the lower court saying WTF? Regardless of the outcome, there is definitely material harm to those affected and an injunction is appropriate until the case is finished. Vast middle ground? It's just book keeping. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
b47356 21 Posted February 28, 2019 1 hour ago, raz-0 said: That's an example of the court asking for stuff from the petitioner before denial. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-323.html Err, no. "Response requested" from the defendant (the US) (10/22/18) Multiple motions to extend the time before the US's response is due (11/14-12/12) US response filed 1/22 Petitioners reply 1/31 Cert denied 2/25 1 hour ago, raz-0 said: Denying without at least asking for that would be bad judicial juju as it would be essentially uninformed denial. Someone should tell them never to do that then. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-7151.html Really, the best possible outcome for the CCW case would be a SCOTUS bench ruling that said "please read the ruling in Wrenn if you are confused about the meaning of Heller, McDonald, & the 2A in general" Which will never happen. If anyone is still following the mag ban case, I'm pretty sure the case itself will be dismissed sometime soon after 3/18. Can't wait to see what ANJRPC files in opposition to the motion to dismiss. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,259 Posted March 1, 2019 My bad, my brian just didn't process that document correctly for some reason. As for the not talking to the petitioner thing. That's if information is lacking. The case you cited has a petition and is a poorly worded and critically typoed document, but it is there. The petitioner did in fact get to state their argument. The fact they are a self represented jailhouse lawyer who's central argument, because they can't type straight is that a .32 special can't be fired out of a .32 special.. well. SCOTUS doesn't hold hands. They don't make your argument for you, and even when they ask, they don't necessarily care if they get the response, jsut that it's on record they asked. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites