PDM

I agree that this is a big positive and I'm very hopeful. The 3rd circuit's decision in Drake was so egregious and frankly dismissive of supreme court precedent that I have trouble believing that 4 of the justices wouldn't vote to grant cert even if they aren't thrilled with hearing another 2A case. Looking at this purely as a lawyer, I truly believe that the integrity of the judicial process is at stake. I can't point to an area of constitutional law where lower courts have been so cavalier and gone to such lengths to twist supreme court precedent as the 3rd circuit did in Drake. Any idea how frequently justices write dissents to cert dismissals? I don't think it is very common. But we'll see.

My assumption that Scalia, Thomas and Alito will vote to grant cert was just that -an ASSumption. That said, I have real trouble seeing how any of the three don't vote yes -- Scalia wrote Heller, Alito wrote McDonald, and Thomas is the most conservative/libertarian judge on the Court. That would leave 1 more vote we need.

You do realize that NJ can easily amend the AWB to encompass pump action as well as semi-auto. I have no doubt they would try that if these guns became popular.

SHOULD they hear it? Yes, for the reasons Ryan mentioned and because the lower court decisions show a blatant disregard, if not contempt, for Supreme Court precedent in Heller and McDonald. No matter what their view on the 2A, the justices shouldn't be happy about that or comfortable letting it stand. Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, when it comes to the 2A, perhaps more than any other legal issue, judges seem to be swayed by emotion and what I call the "come on" factor. They simply can't get their heads around the fact that the 2A actually protects a right to carry a firearm in public (and 4 of them couldn't even get their heads around an individual right to own a firearm at all). I think this case is our best and most likely our last (yeah, I know there are a few other cases percolating) chance to have the Supremes consider 2A outside the home. But, I just can't allow myself to be optimistic -- I'd be very surprised if they actually grant cert. I think Scalia, Thomas and Alito are probably very likely to vote to grant cert. Roberts and Kennedy are question marks, and I'd handicap it slightly against there voting to grant cert. Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor are definite nos. For a reason I can't quite put my finger on, I am holding out a sliver of hope that Kagan will be a surprise. IF they do grant cert, I think the state of NJ is in deep, deep trouble.

Lead story on CNN and Fox. Just think of how much worse it would have been if the person had a gun. While knives are potentially dangerous, they have legitimate uses. The only purpose of a gun is to kill, and this incident demonstrates that, while violent will always exist in society, limiting access to guns will reduce fatalities. THAT is the response you will get from gun ban advocates. Don't expect this to be held up as an example of why gun control isn't necessary.

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.

Piers

Whenever I see that I scratch my head at how Bergen County is described as "well-to do conservatives -- Christie country." Ha! The well-to do part may be true in much of Bergen County, but conservative? Forget it. This is a bastion of liberal insanity.

There are two standards for an injunction: 1) likelihood success on the merits and 2) irreparable harm. In this case there is indeed harm, but whether it is irreparable is questionable. Can't get the property back but could be compensated monetarily. In any event, it is the first prong which is the problem -- the courts found that there is no likelihood of success on the merits -- ie their preliminary view is that the 10 rd limit doesn't violate the 2A.

Judge Kozinski, Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit, is extremely pro-2A. Don't know how much sway he has over decision to rehear en banc. In any event, en banc rehearings are generally very rare, but perhaps due to the sensitivity here they will take it.

ryan -- that's what I'm hoping. Sotomayor is a left wing ideologue. Kagan came out fairly strongly in her senate hearing acknowledging that the 2A is an individual right and I think she has some integrity. I am hoping that, despite her left leaning inclinations, she would do the right thing and respect the precedent in Heller.

I don't think it's death threats that might sway the justices not to hear Drake. Don't forget that the Second Amendment was a giant morass -- ambiguous, unloved, not taken seriously -- for several hundred years, right up until 2008. Then, in the space of a few years, we've had Drake, Heller, and myriad lower court decisions. My gut tells me that one or more of the Heller majority simply doesn't want to deal with the 2A anymore. They feel that the details need to be worked out in the lower courts and/or the legislative branch. What gives me some hope is this now glaring split AND the blatant disregard and twisting of Supreme Court precedent shown by many of the lower courts. Really, it's not just the 2A that's at stake, it's the integrity of the entire judicial process. I'm hopeful that's why the Heller 5 -- and maybe, just maybe, Elana Kagan -- may want to hear Drake. If they do, I am fairly confident that they will rule much closer to Peruta than Drake.

The 9th Cir in Peruta conducted an EXHAUSTIVE (literally) historical analysis of why the 2A applies outside the home. I believe it is the longest and most detailed analysis of that issue in any case to date. They overwhelmingly demonstrate why "bear" means what we know if means and what the Supreme Court already said it means -- to carry a firearm in public in case of confrontation for the purpose of self defense. The court then went on to analyze whether the CA good cause requirement infringes on the right. They concluded it does, noting the difference between burdening a right (which is permissible -- eg training requirement or background check) and DESTROYING a right -- which is the result of the de facto rejection of everyone and anyone apply for a permit under the good cause (in our state justifiable need) requirement. The fact that a select few could get a permit -- ie retired police -- isn't good enough. Directly spot on to our situation in NJ. This is absolutely HUGE. Even better than the Moore case in the 7th cir. I would now give the odds at 75% or higher that the S Ct takes Drake and the same odds for a ruling that the NJ/CA good cause/justifiable need requirements are unconstitutional. If the NJ legislature is paying attention and had half a brain they'd revise the NJ statute now to eliminate justifiable need to avoid the risk of a S Ct ruling. Of course they will never do that.

The store was worthless. Meager selection of guns and ammo, way overpriced. Dicks next door has the same cleaning supplies, accessories, etc. REI up the road has the same camping and outdoor gear.

Response date means the date NJ's response opposing the writ of certiorari is due, not the date the Court decides whether to hear the case. NJ will almost certainly file a brief opposing cert, and the court will make the cert decision in the Spring. If Cert is granted this will be heard late 2014 or in 2015.

If this bill passed (which it won't because even if it got throught the senate of course Obama will veto it), out of staters with carry permits from their home state could carry in NJ, but we could not. Beyond absurd. I am writing to the sponsors of this bill to oppose it, as we all should. We need a FEDERAL carry law, that will not pre-empt state law in any way, leaving the current state system and reciprocity in place. The federal law would require training and background checks, which should address the hysterical concerns of people like Chucl Schumer. and be good in all 50 states. If someone wanted such a permit, they could get one. If, on the other hand, someone wants to rely on their own state's law (eg, Vermonters don't need any permit) and reciprocity, they could. No states rights issue. No coercion. And helps people in all 50 states. The current reciprocity bill is ridiculous.

This was a great brief. Gura correctly portrays this as not just about the 2A but also about lower courts' willful disregard of supreme court precedent. He really pulled out all the stops and made the 3rd circuit majority in Drake look bad. I'm hopeful that at least 4 justices will want to take this case to send a message, even if they are not eager to wade back into the 2A. And by the way, the brief isn't 200 pages. It's about 40 or so -- the rest are attachments (such as the lower court decisions). It took me about 20 minutes to read the brief.

Absolutely right, but the proposed fixes (limiting carbon emissions, at great economic cost) to a phony problem (global warming caused by carbon emissions) will 1) do nothing whatsoever to leave our planet in a better state and 2) harm the environment because it detracts from other much more pressing (and real) environmental problems. Over-fishing and pollution of the oceans are a huge problem -- perhaps #1. Wild fish stocks are being rapidly depleted and within a matter of a decade or so we may find that we are eating catfish sushi instead of tuna. Air pollution and water pollution are still huge problems in many parts of the world. Rain-forest destruction and destruction of other irreplaceable natural habitats. Over-development right here in the US. Mercury emissions and poisoning. Those are all problems that can and should be addressed. There are serious questions as to whether global warming is occurring at all, and even more serious questions about whether such warming is caused by man or by natural cycles. We have much more important, and real, environmental issues to deal with.

Thanks. I see it now -- that's where all the controversial and/or stupid threads go to die.

So, I was reading another thread where people were bitching and moaning about NJ2AS and now it says that it's been moved and when click on the thread it tells me I need a forum password. Is there some sort of super-secret access that certain people get to certain threads? How does this work?

And even better, the primary rationale for retired cops carrying is that they MAY be targeted by people they arrested. Their prior training isn't really the primary reason they can carry, according to this court. So, in other words, they get a pass on justifiable need -- under the standard applicable to the rest of us you need to show an actual, imminent threat.

There is no "state appeals court". That decision was rendered by an intermediate appellate court for Essex county. The Pantano case will be heard by the NJ Supreme Court (and we will lose there as well). I'm amazed that people don't see the benefit of doing this. Lack of CCW is the number 1 problem with NJ gun laws. Yes the permit process and delay is annoying, but we can still buy firearms. Yes the AWB is annoying but we can still buy AR-15s even if they don't have flash hiders or collapsible stock. The inability to obtain a CCW completely forecloses the possibility of armed defense outside the home AND exposes everyone transporting a handgun to a possible 7 year prison sentence at the whim of the local PD and judge (see, for reference, the case of Brian Aitken). So yes, CCW is far and away the number 1 problem in NJ. As for what will be accomplished, if enough people apply state - wide this WILL get the attention of the State Police, possibly the state AG, and just maybe the Governor and certain assembly people. It just MIGHT give the governor cover if he ever were inclined to relax the justifiable need requirement through administrative action (which I believe he could do). It just MIGHT be useful in briefing if the Drake case makes it to Scotus. It just MIGHT be one additional pressure point if a federal carry reciprocity bill is passed; such a bill would most certainly cause our legislators to get their collective panties in a twist and just maybe someone would stand up and point out how ridiculous it is for out of staters but not qualified in state residents to carry. As things stand now, the state of NJ STILL has gun owners running scared and thankful for whatever crumbs they are tossed. Widespread CCW applications will send the message that people are no longer taking this crap lying down.

I'm in pretty good shape and work out regularly including martial arts so not too worried about conditioning. I have a retinal problem in my right eye, which used to be my dominant eye until my body adjusted to compensate. So I have no choice but to use my left eye. This is really for self defense not competition and the point shooting comment is well taken. I still think having a presentation where the sights are lined up is important.

All very good advice. 2alpha your advice seems spot on. I will do much more dry fire practice. I get the point about vision, but my problem is that my sight are only sometimes lined up after my draw. It usually take half a second or so to adjust the gun after I've extended my arms which is an eternity. As for guns, I shot my sign p226, hk p2000 and sig 1911 a few days ago. The 1911 was far and away easiest to shoot quickly and accurately, not because of the lighter trigger but because it just pointed the most naturally. Makes me think that a 1911 is not a bad choice for carry notwithstanding the manual safety.

Thanks guys. The Ayoob article was very helpful. I do indeed shoot rifle and shotgun leftie as there really is no way to compensate fro cross-dom. I will practice more at home with dry firing to help get sights on target more quickly. I've found that the old saying "slow is smooth and smooth is fast" to be very true, but much easier said than done.