ryan_j

Nope. There's no compliance required for NJ. Justifiable need will be gone, OR "self defense" will be accepted as a justifiable need. This will happen as soon as the mandate is issued, usually in 2 weeks. Illinois had time to comply because they completely banned any form of carry and thus, no carry permit law. They were given time to craft one. NJ has a law and just needs justifiable need gone, or neutered.

No, I really don't think so. A mandate (court order) is serious business. John Hoffman and Rick Fuentes can go to Federal prison if they disobey a court order.

Check here on Monday morning at 9:30AM. http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx

We won't know until Monday after 9:30AM when the order list is released.

IF they take the case (big IF) they may mirror the Peruta opinion, which says that the state is not obligated to allow concealed carry, but must have some avenue to exercise the right to bear arms. This can mean concealed carry, open carry or both. Immediately though it will force NJ to accept "self defense" or maybe even "all lawful purposes" as a justifiable need. This is, incidentally what is done in other states.

Definitely Monday. Likely 9:30am but could be later.

Kewl! I can print up to 11x17 so I'll be printing some.

Monday most likely. There's an extremely slim chance we will know today. But I wouldn't count on it.

Monday most likely. There is an outside chance we may know today. There is also an outside chance they could hold it for another conference.

I can't remember where I saw it, might have been Volokh.

Good. They believe it has a good chance of being granted. However, since SCOTUSblog is not the court, it means nothing. Woollard and Kachalsky also made the petition of the day page.

Drake v Jerejian is now SCOTUSBlog's petition of the day.

By the way, if it is heard, legal experts are expecting a similar decision to Peruta. Peruta used the same reasoning and historical analysis as Heller.

You'd need a new job too. Can't EDC if your job is in a restricted state. But easier said than done, especially if you own a home.

Whether or not they grant cert, I will say this - the Court typically does not let circuit splits stand. You can't have one circuit ruling one way and another ruling the other way. That simply will not stand for very long. So if it's not our case, it will be some case, and I predict sometime soon. It might even be Pantano from the NJ Supreme Court, or Peruta/Richards/Baker out of the 9th. But this has to be resolved one way or the other. We have ONE constitution and circuit splits seriously undermine that.

That doesn't mean that.

Update from the Nappen firm - Jeremy Perez received his FID.

Yep, four votes. Also, from the Supreme Court rules: Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, al­though neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers: (a) a United States court of appeals has entered a deci­sion in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a de­parture by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power; (b) a state court of last resort has decided an impor­tant federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals; © a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court. A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law. With Peruta, Richards and Baker in the 9th, and Moore in the 7th, if they go strictly by Rule 10, we should get a grant.

Star Ledger: http://www.nj.com/sussex-county/index.ssf/2014/04/nj_mans_handgun_case_before_us_supreme_court_on_friday.html

Here's where this falls apart though. Most states have carry in public, and the right is expanding, literally every single day. The only states/areas left that have a de-facto or outright ban are: NYC, Long Island, Westchester Washington, DC New Jersey Maryland Boston, MA and environs California coastal counties, especially LA and SF Hawaii Guam, Mariana islands And in MA and CA you can live in a county which is permissive may issue or de-facto shall issue and get a permit, and carry in Boston, LA or SF.

Yep. It's also not OK to ban private blogs because Fox and MSNBC have websites. In other words, because the police and military can carry it doesn't mean that the 2nd amendment "bear arms" is upheld. And really, did the founding fathers have to make an amendment to arm the armed forces? It would make no sense. The 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms was for the people.

I vote for "they will hear the case and rule in our favor" because of the split with CA9, Judge O'Scannlain's well written, thoroughly researched opinion and Judge Hardiman's well written dissent. There is also the split with CA7 and the Illinois Supreme Court. The whole "blood in the streets" thing just won't fly, because Illinois has CCW and crime is actually dropping. I will say that the Court simply can't let a well established split stand, and there is extreme confusion in the lower circuits and state courts of last resort. IF the case is granted, I predict that the opinion will mirror Peruta in CA9, where it doesn't specifically protect CCW, but does guarantee "some form of carry." So if NJ wanted to allow open carry and still ban CCW, it could. But I could be wrong.

So what is it then?

If she has his permission, it's the same thing. And there is no "just took it." There is a transfer or there is theft.

No, it's a transfer. The gun changes hands. It's the same as if you left it on the shooting bench at the range and your friend picked it up to shoot. That said, this crosses the line of jointly owned property because in a marriage there really is not property that the individual married persons own, they own pretty much everything jointly.