ryan_j

It's just one brief from an outside party. I think it is a good reason not to take an en banc appeal.

Lots of updates in this case, including amicus briefs filed in opposition... The best is this one. http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-v.-County-of-San-Diego_Affirmation-Submitted-in-Opposition-to-Court-En-Banc-Review.pdf

The Sheriff has petitioned for en banc review. We should find out in about 5 weeks whether it was voted to be reheard en banc.

Damn, now I'm worried... lol

Reply brief is optional, but must be filed in 10 days. It's not certain but every serious case has one.

I see you guys still love to wallow in pessimism. Must be a NJ thing.

BTW, few nonresident permit apps have the question.

I knew someone would say that but others have done the same and they don't have problems. Anthony (GFH) said that he was denied once and he now has over 100 guns. Bottom line - don't fall for the skeer. That said it may not be a good idea to apply now. Wait until one of the cases shakes out.

Pretty much. I am wondering what the court will rule. There are two "gun" cases in the court this term - Abramski and Castleman.

I would say that it is likely but not certain that Drake will be granted Certiorari. The two NRA cases were in conference just after the Peruta decision was published. Their petitions didn't mention Peruta, so it is likely that it wasn't even considered. But with Drake, we have a solid, deep, established circuit split, with both sides acknowledging Peruta. The biggest wildcard to me is whether the court will consider that no mandate has been issued in Peruta, due to the fact that it has been stayed pending motions to intervene and a possible en banc review. But as it is, the decision stands and is precedential... Richards in Yolo county, CA was the first decision to be ruled on in light of Peruta. So I'd say there is a good chance but I'm not going to go out and say that it will definitely be granted. I'm really interested to see the reply brief from SAF/ANJRPC.

Probably not on the 28th. It will be soon though, early to mid April at latest is what the general consensus is. I doubt it will go all the way to June unless the court decides to hold it over.

Remember Albert Almeida? He was the guy who was threatened by his thug tenants in Newark, applied for a carry permit by his local PD in Sussex County and was denied. Afterwards he put in an application for purchase permits and had to check "YES" to the dreaded "have you ever been denied" box. Guess what? His purchase permits were approved. His carry permit is still denied (it will be going to court soon, however). There you have it folks, we have an actual test case for this. So as they say... carry on! Or rather, apply for a permit to carry on...

Not only that, but the local PD really isn't supposed to determine whether your justifiable need statement is valid. All they are supposed to do is determine whether or not you pass the other qualifications.

A better theory: http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/67500-best-theory-so-far-for-the-disappearance-o-flight-mh370/

There have been a lot of experts talking about this incident - pilots, investigators and other aviation professionals. But this pilot seems to be on the money: https://plus.google.com/106271056358366282907/posts/GoeVjHJaGBz Basically he thinks it was an electrical fire, and they started unplugging everything, and tried to turn back to another airport.

Mainor said he gave her an exception.

It will probably be in conference of the 28th and we will know the following Monday.

They've basically tried all sorts of gymnastics to acknowledge a circuit split between the 9th and 7th and the other circuits. They've even gone as far as to say NJ is a shall issue state (as long as you have justifiable need).

Especially since the 2A refers to "a well regulated militia." Can't do militia stuff in my home.

You're correct. The PA state supreme court ruled based on the PA constitution. This is why most states have nothing to worry about. Their state constitutions either have RKBA or the state itself has laws that have popular support, or both of those things.

NJ is shall issue. I never knew that. In New Jersey, on the other hand, the Superior Court “shall issue” a permit to carry if it is satisfied that the applicant is a person of good moral character, is not subject to any enumerated disability, is thoroughly familiar with the safe handling and use of handguns, and has a justifiable need to carry a handgun. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:58-4(d). Thus, California’s law gives the sheriff more discretion to refuse to issue a permit than the New Jersey law.

The only difference is where it applies. Even so, the case can be cited by different circuits as the 3rd did with the 2nd. But as a practical matter, if the Supreme Court decided that carry outside the home is not a right, nothing really changes. NJ can remain may issue and PA is unlikely to follow and would remain shall issue. Nothing is stopping PA from becoming may issue today as well. In the absence of Supreme Court guidance, nothing is stopping states from applying whatever restrictions they want. What are you worried about anyway?

We means everybody. You do realize that if this case doesn't go to SCOTUS that the appeals court decision is binding to NJ, PA and DE right?

Yes and no. It is sorta but it leaves open the door for future challenges. The court rarely reverses itself, so any precedent sticks pretty much forever.

We have nothing to lose.