March 20, 201412 yr Looks like we have a decision in the Baker case out of Hawai'i. I would have posted the decision but NJGF has decided to keep its attachment file size limit small, so I guess you'll have to go fetch it yourselves. I've posted it on NJ2AS facebook group, NJ2AR and Gun for Hire Radio's facebook.
March 20, 201412 yr Looks like we have a decision in the Baker case out of Hawai'i. I would have posted the decision but NJGF has decided to keep its attachment file size limit small, so I guess you'll have to go fetch it yourselves. I've posted it on NJ2AS facebook group, NJ2AR and Gun for Hire Radio's facebook. Can you please try to compress or something? Some of us don't do Facebook!
March 20, 201412 yr Looks like we have a decision in the Baker case out of Hawai'i. I would have posted the decision but NJGF has decided to keep its attachment file size limit small, so I guess you'll have to go fetch it yourselves. I've posted it on NJ2AS facebook group, NJ2AR and Gun for Hire Radio's facebook. Ryan, Thank you. I am not a Facebook member and don't wish to join. I cannot find the release on the NJ2AS site, not under the members only section either. Can you please provide us with a web link to read the decision? Thanks, Tom Sorry, you published it when I wrote this note Edited March 20, 201412 yr by TR20
March 20, 201412 yr Executive Summary - Hawaii likely becomes a shall-issue state for CCW: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/03/daniel-zimmerman/breaking-ninth-circuit-makes-hawaii-shall-issue-state/ In an earlier decision in Baker v Kealoha, a District Court refused to rule in favor of the plaintiff, Christopher Baker. Baker had moved for an injunction against state agencies that had denied him a carry license. As a Ninth Circuit panel put it today, the District Court denied the motion because, “Baker was not likely to establish that Hawaii’s restrictions on carrying firearms in public were unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, and therefore, Baker was not likely to succeed on the merits.” But that was pre-Peruta . . . Now that Ninth Circuit panel has ruled, In light of our holding in Peruta, the district court made an error of law when it concluded that the Hawaii statues did not implicate protected Second Amendment activity. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s decision denying Baker’s motion for a preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings consistent with Peruta. So while there are still some formalities involved, the Peruta decision that is transforming California appears likely to have the same effect on the Aloha State. Just another day in paradise.
March 20, 201412 yr Oh another one shall issue. When do you think we will become shall issue? Surely we are next. Oh wait, NEVER. Even our AG is trying to get the Supreme Court to not hear our cases.
March 20, 201412 yr Sounds like Dwyer expects Peruta to be heard en banc. The odd thing is that it is the same 3 judges that passed all 3 decisions. You would think they would have held up the last 2 (which were Peruta based) if they thought that the 9th would do an en banc hearing. I assume those guys talk among themselves and would have postponed passing the other two if they saw an en banc coming. If there is an en banc decision coming down that those 2 other cases would have to come back up, so why wouldn't they just postpone the decision?
March 21, 201412 yr Author I have a feeling that the judges talk among themselves, and nobody really wants to do an en banc review... because let's face it, they've already been through this clusterf**k with Nordyke, which was stuck in the court for a whopping 12 years. And yes, it was the same 3 judge panel that heard all 3 on the same day.
March 21, 201412 yr Oh another one shall issue. When do you think we will become shall issue? Surely we are next. Oh wait, NEVER. Even our AG is trying to get the Supreme Court to not hear our cases. someone please correct me if im wrong but my understanding is the nj AG needs to file to not hear the case in the supreme court. Since it is law with precedent in state he needs to argue for it. Whether or not he agrees with the law is a different story. But its his job to uphold nj law. someone please correct me if im wrong but that was my understanding.
March 21, 201412 yr Author someone please correct me if im wrong but my understanding is the nj AG needs to file to not hear the case in the supreme court. Since it is law with precedent in state he needs to argue for it. Whether or not he agrees with the law is a different story. But its his job to uphold nj law. someone please correct me if im wrong but that was my understanding. The AG does not have to oppose certiorari for Drake, but is generally expected to, since the AG is supposed to defend all NJ laws. Now, if Christie really wanted to do something for us, he could have instructed the AG to file a brief in support of certioarari... but that would make absolutely no sense.
March 21, 201412 yr The AG does not have to oppose certiorari for Drake, but is generally expected to, since the AG is supposed to defend all NJ laws. Now, if Christie really wanted to do something for us, he could have instructed the AG to file a brief in support of certioarari... but that would make absolutely no sense. Maybe he instructed the AG to use pre-Heller data so goes through the motions of not supporting but provides the open door for those that do.
March 21, 201412 yr Like all law enforcement, the AG is supposed to enforce the law - starting with the constitution. But that didn't happen.
March 22, 201412 yr Like all law enforcement, the AG is supposed to enforce the law - starting with the constitution. But that didn't happen. Technically as of now p, in no, there is no constitutional 2nd amendment right outside the home. So they are defending currently constitutional law in a way.
March 22, 201412 yr There is a constitutional Technically as of now p, in no, there is no constitutional 2nd amendment right outside the home. So they are defending currently constitutional law in a way. There certainly is a constitutional 2nd amendment right outside the home. It's right there...in the constitution. It's not reasonable to believe that the founders believed we needed a militia that stayed inside their houses.
March 22, 201412 yr Thats nice, but LEGALLY that is not currently established, at least were it comes to bearing arms. Think of it this way in most places you have a duty to retreat and all that.
March 22, 201412 yr Author Thats nice, but LEGALLY that is not currently established, at least were it comes to bearing arms. Think of it this way in most places you have a duty to retreat and all that. Even the NJ courts have agreed that 2A applies outside the home. They are now arguing that going to the range or place of business and the limited justifiable need carry permit scheme satisfies that.
March 22, 201412 yr There is a constitutional There certainly is a constitutional 2nd amendment right outside the home. It's right there...in the constitution. It's not reasonable to believe that the founders believed we needed a militia that stayed inside their houses. I'm not trying to say that I agree. I'm just saying that until the courts change it, they aren't unconstitutional Hell. I believe we all should constitutionally be able to own full auto SBRs produced in the current day without a tax stamp. Many may agree with me. But that doesn't mean anything.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.