ryan_j

Well, Nappen is still suing them. So "close but no cigar"

We are the 99.98%!

All of these wouldn't pass muster.

Eventually? They'll get a deadline when the mandate is issued, OR it will go into effect immediately. In IL they got relief after a delay but only because IL had no carry law, so they were given time to craft one. We have one, and striking justifiable need from it just leaves the rest of the law intact and we can apply (*and be approved) under that system.

Ignoring a ruling from the Supreme Court has dire consequences. If they disobey the ruling outright, the state can be held in contempt. In fact, people can even go to jail. This is serious business.

Cert being granted means they'll hear the case. If they hear it, earliest it will be argued is in the fall. The ruling could be a few months after that, or more likely at the end of the term in June 2015. If they rule in our favor and it is a solid decision, NJ has zero wiggle room. However, I predict that they'll keep the rest of the requirements like range qualification and renewal every 2 years. It is up to us then to persuade lawmakers to change the law to get something better. It is also up to every one of us to flood the system with applications to force NJ to make it better. The other possibility is a decision in favor of "some sort of carry." If I am reading it right, it would be just like Peruta in the 9th. If NJ opts for open carry, it is your duty to peacefully exercise your right. The antis will call the cops but it is your right to bear arms. I know I will be open carrying everywhere proudly if they restrict it to open carry.

I agree it is not the end of the story but we need a cert grant to get anywhere.

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

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.

It's a good brief. Calls out every one of NJAG's distortions and outright lies. It won't guarantee that the Supreme Court will take the case though. That is entirely up to them. Basically the procedure is that the petition for writ of certiorari is filed by the Plaintiff (Drake), the respondent gets to file a Brief In Opposition (BIO) and then the Plaintiff gets to file an optional reply brief. In some cases, supplemental briefs may be filed to draw attention to new facts in the case or other things. SAF/ANJRPC filed a supplemental brief to draw attention to Peruta in this case. The case then goes to conference and then the justices decide whether or not to grant it (hear the case). It takes 4 votes to grant and there are 9 justices.

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.

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

Conference of 4/18 is now official and on the docket. We will know on 4/21 whether they are taking the case. http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-827.htm

Frank has posted it up on the NJ2AS website. http://www.nj2as.com/resources/PDF/DrakeReply.pdf

NJ2AS has also put it on the website. http://www.nj2as.com/resources/PDF/DrakeReply.pdf

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

It's over at IllinoisCarry. Enjoy. http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=46956&p=713221

I have a copy again but once again NJGunForums has such a tiny file size limit I cannot upload. Ugh.

Reply brief has been filed. I don't have a copy but apparently nj.com does http://www.nj.com/sussex-county/index.ssf/2014/04/sussex_county_mans_handgun_lawsuit_about_second_amendment_rights_attorneys_claim.html

Sure. You can transport them out of state, or within the exemptions in NJ. NJ state law only applies to NJ.

Yep... Steve Malzberg lives in NJ btw.

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

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.

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.

Timely: http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/wireStory/flying-nyc-leave-guns-home-23057809 DO NOT fly out of any NYC airports if you are flying with firearms unless you have a NYC permit.