The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old April 18, 2013, 04:35 AM   #101
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 223
Waiting for a ruling. It's also been renamed(again)-now Drake v. Filko
press1280 is offline  
Old April 19, 2013, 05:47 PM   #102
Dead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2000
Location: AoW Land, USA
Posts: 1,934
I just purchased a Nano, so I will require legal carry in PRNJ or it will be time to move across the river to America...
__________________
Dead [Black Ops]
www.therallypoint.org
Dead is offline  
Old April 19, 2013, 06:01 PM   #103
Brit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 867
I bet the Governor has a CCW, demonstrate a need? Simple, I can give you funds? Sounds like a need to me!

Last edited by Vanya; April 19, 2013 at 06:05 PM. Reason: invective.
Brit is offline  
Old July 31, 2013, 05:34 PM   #104
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,319
The opinion has been issued. Two of the three judges on the panel joined to affirm the lower court. Judge Hardiman has dissented.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf 12-1150 Piszczatoski Opinion.pdf (431.9 KB, 28 views)
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 31, 2013, 05:51 PM   #105
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 223
Other than upholding the status quo, the majority opinion's reasoning differed from Kachalsky. They pretty much confined the right to the home-and the dissent clearly pointed this out.
NJ didn't even try to offer any evidence how their scheme was a proper "fit" for intermediate scrutiny: "To be clear, New Jersey has provided no evidence at all to support its proffered justification, not just no evidence that the legislature considered at the time the need requirement was enacted or amended. The majority errs in absolving New Jersey of its obligation to show fit. Our role is to evaluate the State’s proffered evidence, not to accept reflexively its litigation position"
Reason they didn't is because their "studies" date back to the 1960's and were proven false with so many shall-issue states not erupting in violence.
press1280 is offline  
Old July 31, 2013, 07:28 PM   #106
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
I would love to see New Jersey be the vehicle through which 'bear' is restored by the supreme court. Hopefully, their decision would be struck with a humiliating majority opinion written by Scalia. Few states are so richly deserving of that dubious honor.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old July 31, 2013, 08:29 PM   #107
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 727
The Cliff Note's version of the decision seems based solely on the 'longstandingness' of New Jersey's firearms laws. But, based on my (admittedly) cursury(? is that a word?) review of the New Jersey constitution, there isn't any mention of any right to keep or bear arms, so the New Jersey legislature was free to write whatever gun laws they wanted without impunity.

Given that I'm not a lawyer, is it a point worth arguing that the precedent of 'longstandingness' no longer applies because the 2A was only recently incorporated, rendering much of the decision null?
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old July 31, 2013, 10:04 PM   #108
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,319
Now, having read both the majority opinion and the dissent, I would like to focus on the dissent. Mostly because it conveys everything that Gura, Sigale and Jensen have been trying to hammer in all their carry cases. Also, because it shreds the majority opinion.

The majority simply stated that the law was "longstanding" and did not impinge upon the 2A. The majority did not stop there, however. They went on to use what they termed "intermediate scrutiny" in the same manner as the Kachalsky and Woolard panels. That is, intermediate in name but rational in use.

On page 19 of the dissent (pg 51 of the PDF), Judge Hardiman states (my emphasis):

Quote:
One facet of New Jersey’s history of firearm regulation is particularly important to the longstandingness inquiry. Until 1966, New Jersey allowed the open carry of firearms without a permit. Only concealed carry without a permit issued upon a showing of need has been banned since 1924. This distinction is significant because courts have long distinguished between these two types of carry, holding that although a State may prohibit the open or concealed carry of firearms, it may not ban both because a complete prohibition on public carry violates the Second Amendment and analogous state constitutional provisions.
Judge Hardiman goes on to explain exactly why the SCOTUS cited Nunn, Chandler and Andrews as the relevant precedents as it regards carry.

Quote:
The crux of these historical precedents, endorsed by the Supreme Court, is that a prohibition against both open and concealed carry without a permit is different in kind, not merely in degree, from a prohibition covering only one type of carry. After all, if a State prohibits only one type of carry without a permit, an opportunity for the free exercise of Second Amendment rights still exists. That opportunity disappears when the prohibition is extended to both forms of carry.
Judge Hardiman continues his first prong attack (Mazzarella) and ends up with the conclusion that the right is in fact burdened and that the law in question cannot be "longstanding."

After showing that the majority (and the State) did not show any "langstandedness" of the law at issue, the Judge then turns to the second prong: At intermediate scrutiny, the State has failed to show any fit between the impediment of the law on the right and the goal of the law.

Quote:
An example demonstrates the absence of a fit between the justifiable need requirement and reducing misuse or accidental use of handguns. Imagine that a 21-year-old with no criminal record is shot in the leg while leaving his home in a high-crime area. Citing the portion of the justifiable need requirement that allows handgun permit issuance to those who have suffered from previous attacks, he applies for and is granted a permit to carry a handgun. Unbeknownst to the permitting officials, however, the 21-year-old is a street-level drug dealer who wants the gun to retaliate against the rival who shot him. It borders on the absurd to believe that this 21-year-old is less likely to misuse or accidentally use a handgun than a reserve sheriff’s deputy who wishes to carry a gun for self-defense while off duty, like Appellant Finley Fenton; or a civilian FBI employee who received specific information that a terrorist organization might target him or his family, like former Appellant Daniel Piszczatoski; or an owner of an ATM restocking company who routinely carries large amounts of cash, like Appellant John Drake.
Judge Hardiman then quotes New Jersey courts in establishing that the law is in fact a rationing system. The Judge then borrows a line from a district court Judge in the 4th circuit:

Quote:
Even assuming that New Jersey is correct to conclude that fewer guns means less crime, a rationing system that burdens the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right by simply making that right more difficult to exercise cannot be considered reasonably adapted to a governmental interest because it burdens the right too broadly.
Finally, after much thought on the majority and their unbridled reliance, not on the constitutionality of the law, but upon their deference to the State, Judge Hardiman concludes with:

Quote:
Because I am convinced that New Jersey’s justifiable need requirement unconstitutionally burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment as interpreted in Heller and McDonald, I respectfully dissent.
This is a powerful dissent. Most especially because it aligns (if not parrots) to Judge Legg's decision at district court (CA4 - referenced upstream), in Woollard.

Expect this decision to be appealed to the SCOTUS and expect that the odds of a grant of cert in Woollard have just gone up.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 1, 2013, 09:34 AM   #109
NJgunowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,103
The general consensus I've been hearing is that this case has less than a 25% chance to make it to scotus, so we'll see what happens next I guess.
__________________
Sig 1911 Traditional reverse two tone, Sig p226 .40, Sig 556 Swat patrol, Baby Eagle/jerico steel .45
NJgunowner is offline  
Old August 2, 2013, 06:13 PM   #110
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,328
This decision and Woolard are so similar at the respective circuit levels that we really don't care which one The Supremes hears. BUT with both of these cases in clear conflict with the 7th Circuit and the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, the US Supremes have to take this or Woolard or Kachalski.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old August 2, 2013, 07:08 PM   #111
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 223
I think the PR opinion was a lower court, and I haven't heard another word on it.
This opinion is definitely at odds with Moore, but the laws aren't the same unfortunately. There's one thing that this case and Woollard have over Kachalsky:no CCW specific permit.
press1280 is offline  
Old August 2, 2013, 07:11 PM   #112
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,319
Jim, Kachalski was denied cert back on April 16th.

What makes this case stand out from the other cases was the dissent.

Judge Hardiman had the judicial courage to not only agree with Judge Legg (Woollard, CA4 district court opinion), but also with Judge Posner (Moore, CA7). Judge Hardiman "gets it." The right (self protection) exists as much outside the home as inside, differing only in a very small way. He recites the proper research of the Supreme Court and dismisses the so-called history that the majority uses as being at odds with Heller.

He recognized that the "intermediate scrutiny" used by the majority was intermediate in name only, as it was merely rational basis. He trashed the majorities supposed reliance on "longstanding" law as being presumptively lawful. He called them on refusing to hold the State to its duty to justify the infringement, an infringement the majority said didn't exist.

The dissent was a very powerful piece of writing. It may well be reason enough for the SCOTUS to grant cert.

However it turns out, this dissent does give both Drake and Woollard a slightly better chance at a grant of cert.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 2, 2013, 09:32 PM   #113
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,618
Quote:
I think the PR opinion was a lower court, and I haven't heard another word on it.
I haven't either. I've been in touch with a friend of the attorney who argued it, but I'm still waiting for the translation. I need to bug him again about that.

I still think Woollard is our most persuasive case.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old August 3, 2013, 06:15 AM   #114
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 223
Assuming Gura goes for en banc in this case, I'm hoping for more dissenting opinions since getting the en banc is a pretty remote possibility. The more differing opinions on the matter, the better.
press1280 is offline  
Old August 3, 2013, 07:29 AM   #115
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,618
It's been announced that the NJ Supreme Court will be hearing this case.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old August 3, 2013, 12:43 PM   #116
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 228
I too found Hardiman's dissent to be a wonderful piece of writing. I simply cannot understand how the majority found no infringement--how can there be no infringement if only a few can exercise the right? To say that a special need, greater than the needs of the general public, is required to exercise the right is the same as saying that the general public do not have the right to bear arms. At that point it is no longer a right but a privilege or license, a conclusion that is incompatible with the essence of the Bill of RIGHTS.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old August 3, 2013, 01:35 PM   #117
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, IA, WA
Posts: 1,296
Quote:
I simply cannot understand how the majority found no infringement
It's called judicial activism -- the theory that judges know better than the legislature what's good for us sheeple. The most egregious example I can think of is in Mississippi, where the State Constitution very plainly says that a firearm may be carried openly, but not concealed. Obstructionist judges have ruled that if any part of the firearm is not visible to a law enforcement officer, the firearm is concealed. In other words, the only way to legally openly carry a firearm in Mississippi is to carry it by a pencil in the barrel. Even holding it between one's thumb and finger "conceals" part of the firearm, making it prohibited without a license.

That was changed by recent statutes defining "concealed" but that statute was overturned by some activist judge because it was "vague."
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old August 4, 2013, 11:57 AM   #118
NJgunowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,103
Yes Tom, for the first time in decades the NJ supreme court will hear a 2A case. It's doomed to failure of course, but this one has a pretty good chance of going to SCOTUS after they rule against it which is why Evan Nappa is pushing it.
__________________
Sig 1911 Traditional reverse two tone, Sig p226 .40, Sig 556 Swat patrol, Baby Eagle/jerico steel .45

Last edited by NJgunowner; August 5, 2013 at 09:38 AM.
NJgunowner is offline  
Old August 4, 2013, 05:36 PM   #119
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 223
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/cal.../sc_appeal.htm

Look at how long it takes the NJSC to hear and then decide a case in most instances.
They'll most likely be batting clean up after SCOTUS rules.
press1280 is offline  
Old August 4, 2013, 06:28 PM   #120
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
I have long been saying that courts aren't holding the state to it's burden under heightened scrutiny. The courts seem to be making the plaintiffs prove that the law doesn't furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest.

I think we can assume that public safety is an important government interest. But the government still must prove that the law in question furthers that interest and does so in a way that is substantially related to that interest.

It seems to me a plaintiff could defeat any "in a way substantially related to that interest" by showing that the real interest is in making the exercise of the RKBA more difficult.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old August 7, 2013, 10:35 AM   #121
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,319
I would like to draw your attention to pg 51 of the PDF, Part B of the dissent.

Quote:
One facet of New Jersey’s history of firearm regulation is particularly important to the longstandingness inquiry. Until 1966, New Jersey allowed the open carry of firearms without a permit. Only concealed carry without a permit issued upon a showing of need has been banned since 1924. This distinction is significant because courts have long distinguished between these two types of carry, holding that although a State may prohibit the open or concealed carry of firearms, it may not ban both because a complete prohibition on public carry violates the Second Amendment and analogous state constitutional provisions.
This is significant as Judge Hardiman has just stated what Alan Gura has been arguing from the first carry case filed after McDonald. The dissent doesn't just stop there. Judge Hardiman next lays out the cases that the Court in Heller cited with favor, and tells the majority why those cases were cited. Judge Hardiman then ends that portion of his dissent with:

Quote:
The crux of these historical precedents, endorsed by the Supreme Court, is that a prohibition against both open and concealed carry without a permit is different in kind, not merely in degree, from a prohibition covering only one type of carry. After all, if a State prohibits only one type of carry without a permit, an opportunity for the free exercise of Second Amendment rights still exists. That opportunity disappears when the prohibition is extended to both forms of carry.

The same logic applies to the 1966 New Jersey law. Prior to that year, New Jersey prohibited only concealed carry without a permit. Accordingly, individuals were able to exercise their Second Amendment rights without first obtaining permission from the State. By enacting a prohibition on open carry without a permit in the 1966 law, New Jersey eliminated that right.

Thus, when the majority identifies 1924 as the operative date for its longstandingness inquiry, it does so in derogation of historical precedents, cited approvingly by the Supreme Court in Heller, that draw an important distinction between concealed and open carry. Under these precedents, when New Jersey eliminated the ability of its residents to openly carry arms without a permit in 1966, it was, as a constitutional matter, enacting an entirely new law.
Having destroyed the Majorities "Long Standing" argument, Judge Hardiman goes on to destroy their reliance upon the Kachalsky case, that was just as rife with error as the Majority is here.

There are many more things in that dissent that can be drawn upon in requesting a hearing en banc.

What we should look for, is that the request is granted and that Hardiman's dissent carries the day. That would force the State to petition the SCOTUS for cert, which would almost guarantee a grant (the Supreme Court is more likely to grant cert to a State whose law has been struck down).
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 7, 2013, 04:09 PM   #122
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 223
3rd Circuit en banc upheld the "right" of middle schoolers to wear bracelets reading,"I (heart) boobies!" Does that give us any hope! The school district had to prove that the bracelets would cause a disruption, but apparently NJ using 40 year old cooked stats by Zimring and "blood in the streets" is good enough for some of the 3rd circuit at least.

http://pennrecord.com/news/10971-thi...ee-speech-case

I think Gura has 2 weeks or so to request en banc?

Last edited by press1280; August 7, 2013 at 04:22 PM.
press1280 is offline  
Old August 7, 2013, 06:01 PM   #123
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 223
Interesting that the en banc procedures will actually eliminate the majority in this case(Aldisert is senior status, Stark is a District judge).

Composition of En Banc Quorum
For purposes of determining the majority number necessary to grant a petition for rehearing,
all circuit judges currently in regular active service who are not disqualified will be counted.


Odds are still stacked against us though.
press1280 is offline  
Old August 15, 2013, 04:43 PM   #124
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,319
Late yesterday, the plaintiffs filed for Rehearing by the Court En Banc.

Reading it now.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 27, 2013, 05:39 PM   #125
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,319
The petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc was denied. The vote was 8-4 against.

The clock for a petition for cert is now ticking and takes us into Nov. before it's due.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf 12-1150 Piszczatoski Order Denying Rehearing.pdf (23.2 KB, 6 views)
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.18737 seconds with 10 queries