ryan_j

Can't move yet. My wife has a job/pension up here (not in NJ, but in NY). But if my company decides to ever move out of NYC, I will make a very strong case to do so and move with them.

ANJRPC gets some funding from the NRA and Scott Bach is an NRA board member.

First of all, welcome. Secondly, this doesn't just affect San Diego (San Diego County, to be more accurate). It affects pretty much the whole 9th circuit and beyond. Thirdly, the ruling really didn't strike down "good cause" in California or its cousin "justifiable need' here in NJ. What it did say is that roadblocking or rationing all forms of public carry is unconstitutional, and that one way of public carry at the very least must be available. It's not just mere possession of a firearm in public either, but the specific possession of an operable firearm for use in the case of confrontation, as ruled in the Heller decision. In the specific case of San Diego, it ruled that "self defense" must be accepted as "good cause" for issuance of a carry permit since the only form of carry of an operable firearm in California is concealed carry. But that doesn't mean that California, Hawaii, or even the Mariana Islands have to start issuing concealed carry permits. They could allow loaded open carry and that would comply with the ruling. But as a practical matter, you can bet that if they just allow open carry and restrict concealed carry permits to comply with the ruling, open carry activists will be showing up everywhere. There will be open carry marches and events galore. Hell, if it spread to NJ I would gladly take part in an open carry march on the state capitol in Trenton, and I would open carry everywhere I go, even to the Wawa because I neeyed to. So it would be in their best interest to allow concealed carry if they want to keep the guns hidden, you know, "for the children." As for affecting outside of CA, it creates a split and further deepens the confusion in the lower courts, therefore the Supreme Court should absolutely step in to resolve this. And there's no better vehicle to do it than the Drake case, which is our right to carry case. As for appeals, the next step is an "en banc" appeal, which in the 9th circuit means an appeal before a larger panel of judges. After that it can go to the US Supreme Court. But as with Heller, it doesn't really have to be that case.

Then you can't see very far then because the NRA in NJ (ANJRPC) is fighting this case. The 9th circuit case (Peruta) is also a NRA case. Two other cases up for consideration in the court (McCraw and NRA v BATFE) are NRA cases. SAF brought us Heller and McDonald but make no mistake the NRA is fighting too.

Donate to SAF and if you can also donate to ANJRPC litigation and special projects fund. They are a part of this case as well. Doesn't have to be a lot. Every little bit helps.

Yes, there could be an appeal, or two. First is an appeal to a larger panel, known as an en banc review. In other circuits, the entire court does the rehearing, but the 9th circuit is so large they just choose a panel of 11 (they literally cannot fit every judge in the court). The chief of CA9, Kozinski will likely seat himself on it, but there will be 10 others drawn by lots. They will vote to rehear it en banc, and the likelihood that they do is high. But it is pretty hard to turn around the Heller logic in this decision, so they will have a difficult time in doing so. But yes, a reversal of this is possible, and likely in my opinion. But there is timing. Right now we have a circuit split - 2nd, 3rd and 4th circuits have ruled against 2A outside the home or have dodged the issue entirely, in Kachalsky, Drake and Woollard. The 7th in Moore has ruled that it does apply outside the home (which is why Illinois now has a CCW law). Now the 9th has ruled that 2A applies outside the home and has deepened this split and explicitly called out the others. So the importance of this goes well beyond California. It's really a decision designed to get the US Supreme Court to hear the case. As for its applicability, yes it does apply to San Diego, but the decision said that local Governments in the entire 9th circuit cannot prohibit all forms of carry. They have to allow one, either open or concealed, otherwise they completely destroy the 2A as a right. tl;dr - This will have more benefit for cases like ours (Drake) to get heard heard at the US Supreme Court, rather than just affecting California.

Now would be a great time to get involved and commit to pro gun organizations such as the NRA, ANJRPC, SAF and others. Also we need to help get Anthony Colandro elected to the NRA board to light a fire under their asses.

AWB fight is coming, but it will be a few years. The opening shots were fired with the challenge to the SAFE act in NY and the new law in CT. We should look to challenge our laws here in NJ as well. I have no idea why we aren't. But I suspect once carry is hashed out, we can go full throttle, attacking the magazine limits, AWB and other stuff. WE WILL PREVAIL. Keep that attitude and anything is possible!

Does it give you guys some sort of pleasure to wallow in defeat like this? It's pretty pathetic, IMO. How about taking this victory, marching FORWARD and not backing down? When Illinois got a weaker decision than this (Moore in the 7th circuit) the whole system began to fall like dominoes. All of a sudden, people were being released from prison for simple possession and other simple gun charges. Yes, there IS light at the end of the tunnel. Don't invest in defeat otherwise it will be self fulfilling prophecy!

Still waiting for NJSP, been waiting since October. 3 pistol permits. They are the worst.

Never say never! If we get a court order like Illinois they'll be forced to do something.

Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor will be on Tom Gresham's Gun Talk Radio this weekend. www.guntalk.com Also Scott Bach will be on Gun for Hire Radio this weekend to discuss the cases.

Probably but the drake case that ANJRPC is involved in is from 2010? Also that 9th circuit decision with peruta is a NRA case.

Or in other words, MOLON LABE. When Governor Sweeney bans your ARs, will YOU comply? http://www.caintv.com/as-few-as-15-choose-to-comply

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/12/1056971.pdf

They won't? Malloy and the others are probably about as bad as him.

Bad example. He will say yes and cite Sandy Hook.

Yes, we can ask them. We should ask them to stand with us. But I'm not sure they still can since I believe the deadline for filing amici passed already. Nevertheless we know they stand with us because they write and introduce legislation that is beneficial to us.

Where were the voters in Greenwald's district last November? Guess what, the people who wanted to increase the minimum wage came out and voted. Gun owners stayed home.

Only pedophiles go to Catholic churches and only terrorists go to Mosques. See how easy that is?

I know you're probably kidding but I wouldn't do that. It's illegal to possess them there and they could call you a domestic terrorist like Bryan Miller did.

I used to go to Dallas BBQ but hill country is better.

Angry yet? This man wants to be Governor in 4 years. Spread the word.

Hmm. My last permit from NJSP was NCR with dot matrix printing. It didn't have the OGAM notice though.

The court does what the court does, and much of it is done out of the public eye. Everyone wants their slice of time from the court, and they can't hear every case. But the biggest driver for a grant of certiorari is a circuit split, which we got today. I can't wait for Gura's reply brief, and honestly I can't wait to see what the NJ AG will write now that this decision from CA9 is in play.