On Friday, the Supreme Court decides if it will hear the Drake case.  If the do hear the case, this would be the first time the supreme court rules on the meaning of the right to "bear" arms and whether states can limit that right to those who have a "justifiable need" or "good cause".

 

So, What do you think SCOTUS will do?

I personally believe it they will not hear the case.  Ruling that we all have the right to have a gun in our homes is not that controversial but there are a lot of people who believe everyone has the right to own a gun but think the idea of everyone carrying is a little scary.  I suspect the SCOTUS justices are the same.  I say they'll just ignore the question because they know the answer but don't really like the answer.

I could see it going either way. I'd rather they hear it.

Ill remain optimistic..

 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

 

I think they'll hear it because of the court split and the very very poor 3ed circuit court decisions, and I don't mean just because guns, but because bad legal precedents. Plus they know this will keep on coming up until they take it.

I think ill end up buying a KFC drummy corsage friday and see how long I can wear it before giving in to temptation and eat it.

 

 

Seriously, speculating really wont help either way.. I know everyone is probably anxious to see the findings, but there's really no thing better than exercising patience and await the outcome.

I vote they hear it and we win. Not based on realistic probability but because we are right

I vote I move out of state if they don't hear it. Thats already in my 3 year plan anyway.

I don't even want to think about it right now. I need to maintain my sanity and focus on other parts of life.

A couple of years ago, I would be sure they'd hear it, because of the obvious split and the clamor of amici, and that they'd rule in favor, based on simple logic.

Having read some of the anti opinions and the Harvard Law Review articles that were linked here recently, I've lost most of my faith in the idea of an impartial judiciary. Many or judges and especially academics seem to decide on the desired outcome and torture logic to reach that outcome. The arguments I've seen against 2A are disheartening. Especially in the HLS article about the "homebound 2A."

HLS was pretty sure it was a communal right with no modern relevance before Heller too.

May work out.... Got a lot of eyes from all states watching. With the internet being so mainstream with media these days, it's hard to hide behind just a piece of paper. Be wise for them to at least listen. What happens after that, we shall see.

 

 

Sent from my iPad 2 using T2 Pro

Just curious... Assuming cert is granted and the case heard, how do you think the vote will go down? That is, I assume that the liberal side would vote against it. I'm just wondering who they might get to flip from the conservatives, if it is to be denied after hearing... Roberts perhaps? Obviously I can't see Scalia or Thomas flipping.

 

I, too, remain cautiously optimistic that cert will be granted, but I honestly have no clue what they'll do.

I vote (RELUCTANTLY) option "A". They will simply DENY this case and play it 'safe' and let each respective state and their respective Circuits decide on however they have already decided and ruled upon and do not disturb whatever status quo they see as already in place.

 

Their logic (which seems unfounded) is not to rule on yet another interpretation of the 2A, but rather uphold what they believe is each state's right to REGULATE the 2A as they see fit. So outright BANS can be decided by the SCOTUS, but NJ already has a "grid of common sense and reasonable regulatory scheme ensuring collectivist Public Safety..." Along with a HUGE pile of Bullshit "permitting system".

 

And thats THAT.

 

Do I agree??? HELL NO!!!

 

The US Consitution is so maligned now, it's beyond recognition.

 

I am very sorry.

The four libs on the bench will vote not to grant cert. That's a given. The three conservatives will vote yes. It'll come down to Kennedy and Roberts imo. And we all have seen what a coward Roberts can be. I sadly think we are going down on this one.

I think they will hear the case. As far as how they will vote on the case. Not holding my breath for it to go our way.

Their decision will not be whether we have a right to "bear" arms depending on our physical location; i.e., in "home" or "public" or "private". Anyone with a high school education knows "bear" means carry.

 

We already have that unalienable right, granted by our Creator.

 

What they are deciding is whether or not they will obey the Constitution, to protect that right, as sworn in their Constitutional and Judicial Oaths:

 

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.  So help me God."

 

 

 

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States.  So help me God."

 

 

If they honor their oath, I believe our State (and Country) will prosper enormously.

I'm definitely nervous, but I feel like they have to take it to resolve the circuit court splits. It's not ok to ban churches in NJ because you can go to PA to worship.

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.

I'm definitely nervous, but I feel like they have to take it to resolve the circuit court splits. It's not ok to ban churches in NJ because you can go to PA to worship.

 

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 personally believe it they will not hear the case.  Ruling that we all have the right to have a gun in our homes is not that controversial but there are a lot of people who believe everyone has the right to own a gun but think the idea of everyone carrying is a little scary.  I suspect the SCOTUS justices are the same.  I say they'll just ignore the question because they know the answer but don't really like the answer.

 

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. 

OK here is my opinion and reasoning. 

 

I think they will take it. Why? Because you have the 3rd and the 9th disagreeing 100%, AND the 9th stayed WELL within their intermediate scrutiny advice while the 3rd did not and applied what would be a weak rational basis test and basically followed the advice of the dissenting opinion of the court rather than the ruling majority decision. I think they have to hear it at least to clarify appropriate judicial reasoning on the matter. I think good or bad for RKBA, the NJ AG is going to get a spanking for their crappy job of making an argument. Based on statements made outside the court, and previous reasoning form the 5 people who we can reasonably expect a possibility of voting with us, I expect the ruling will involve the following:

 

1) it will permit the government to constrain concealed and open carry, and endorse without question the authority of the state to prohibit the act in general without permission in the form of a permitting process and the ability to declare certain public facilities off limits, and to not extend protections generally afforded to the citizenry by a private entity being a place of public accommodation to the issue of carry.

2) it will require general, non-arbitrary access to permission to open or concealed carry by any citizen that is not an exceptional hazard to themselves or the public (i.e. mentally unwell, mentally impaired, felons, etc.), and for that definition to be objectively defined and not subject to the whims of any individual judge (regardless of them leaving the case, I suspect the fact that multiple judges found no justifiable need until there was a serious court challenge and then suddenly found it to come up, as well as what situations were found to not indicate a justifiable need)

3) it will include language about what is an acceptable test for judicial review of laws regarding the 2nd amendment because they want the state supreme courts and circuit courts to be the firewall preventing them from hearing every detail of gun laws. 

4) it will include advice as to the fact that laws that are a defacto ban and strain credibility to pretend otherwise are equally unacceptable and subject to the same level of scrutiny despite ostensibly being about other subject matter. 

5) it may effectively force NJ to rapidly rewrite all of it's statutes regarding firearms due to how it is structured. 

6) I do not think that it will clearly put to rest magazine bans or feature bans like the AWB, but we will have a more clear idea about how challengeable those issues will be when we are done. 

 

As for Kennedy and Roberts, conflating this case with the obamacare case is stupid. I don't like the result, but Roberts findings were consistent with precedent. He basically called BS on it not being a tax, and found that they can indeed tax you for medical care. Like he said, his job isn't to invalidate a law because it wont effectively do anything politicians claimed it will do or because it is unpopular, he is there to determine if the law is legitimate.  I personally think Roberts will be deeply offended by the AG's argument in terms of judicial merit. Kennedy is less certain, but I'm generally optimistic. 

 

That being said, I think it is entirely possible that we get a ruling where NJ can comply by making open carry legal, and then arresting everyone that does, and we get zero help from the NJ supreme court and form the 3rd, and SCOTUS doesn't want ot hear it again. I also think it is totally possible that the "exceptionall dangerous" language could come up again in the form that what might be considered in common use for possession and recreation may be considered exceptionally dangerous for general use in the public. Would you consider it a win if the state had to grant a permit but could restrict you to calibers no larger than .32" and no more than 6 rounds in capacity and make it a felony to carry additional magazines or loading devices on your person? A win isn't necessarily a huge win. 

SHOULD they hear it?  Yes, for the reasons Ryan mentioned and because the lower court decisions show a blatant disregard, if not contempt, for Supreme Court precedent in Heller and McDonald.  No matter what their view on the 2A, the justices shouldn't be happy about that or comfortable letting it stand.  Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, when it comes to the 2A, perhaps more than any other legal issue, judges seem to be swayed by emotion and what I call the "come on" factor.  They simply can't get their heads around the fact that the 2A actually protects a right to carry a firearm in public (and 4 of them couldn't even get their heads around an individual right to own a firearm at all).  I think this case is our best and most likely our last (yeah, I know there are a few other cases percolating) chance to have the Supremes consider 2A outside the home.  But, I just can't allow myself to be optimistic -- I'd be very surprised if they actually grant cert. 

 

I think Scalia, Thomas and Alito are probably very likely to vote to grant cert.  Roberts and Kennedy are question marks, and I'd handicap it slightly against there voting to grant cert.  Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor are definite nos. For a reason I can't quite put my finger on, I am holding out a sliver of hope that Kagan will be a surprise.  IF they do grant cert, I think the state of NJ is in deep, deep trouble.

Star Ledger:

 

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

I think Scalia, Thomas and Alito are probably very likely to vote to grant cert.  Roberts and Kennedy are question marks, and I'd handicap it slightly against there voting to grant cert.  Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor are definite nos. For a reason I can't quite put my finger on, I am holding out a sliver of hope that Kagan will be a surprise.  IF they do grant cert, I think the state of NJ is in deep, deep trouble.

 

How many votes are required to get a case heard? My understanding is that it's not a "full majority" of SCOTUS, but some kind of "sub-majority"  like 3-4 of whatever sub-committee of justices are evaluating cases....

 

Update:  According to my Googling, it takes only 4 of 9 justices to grant cert, based on a SCOTUS conference.... So, assuming Scalia, Thomas, and Alito all vote for cert, we only need either Roberts *or* Kennedy, not necessarily both.

 

Fingers crossed.

If the conference results are not reported until Monday...damn, this is going to be a long weekend!

They will completely screw us.

 

NSA has dirt on all their families. And, where there is no dirt, NSA can mill it. They have every single detail of their lives, crap they don't even know themselves, and can piece it together any way they want. With no requirement to provide exculpatory evidence and with no opportunity to face the accusers.

 

I think this is an Obamacare moment where this reaches the level that the regime is willing to step in and say, "Better not do this."

My assumption that Scalia, Thomas and Alito will vote to grant cert was just that -an ASSumption.  That said, I have real trouble seeing how any of the three don't vote yes -- Scalia wrote Heller, Alito wrote McDonald, and Thomas is the most conservative/libertarian judge on the Court.  That would leave 1 more vote we need.

They will completely screw us. NSA has dirt on all their families. And, where there is no dirt, NSA can mill it. They have every single detail of their lives, crap they don't even know themselves, and can piece it together any way they want. With no requirement to provide exculpatory evidence and with no opportunity to face the accusers. I think this is an Obamacare moment where this reaches the level that the regime is willing to step in and say, "Better not do this."

 

Why would it matter to them? They're all at the ultimate in their careers, now anyway... What difference does it make? Unless it's stuff for which they could be "impeached" or "disbared," and I'd figure that would already have come to light in the confirmation hearings... As for the NSA manufacturing stuff.... if it's of a severity to get any of them impeached or disbared, then we're all in a lot more trouble than this one decision.

 

Why would it matter to them? They're all at the ultimate in their careers, now anyway... What difference does it make? Unless it's stuff for which they could be "impeached" or "disbared," and I'd figure that would already have come to light in the confirmation hearings... As for the NSA manufacturing stuff.... if it's of a severity to get any of them impeached or disbared, then we're in a lot more trouble than this one decision.

 

 

I said their families.

 

This isn't amateur hour. It's Marxism.

OK.....

 

Let's keep this out of the tin foil hat arena......

 

Mipa.....  your excused from this conversation.....