|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 18, 2013, 04:35 AM | #101 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
Waiting for a ruling. It's also been renamed(again)-now Drake v. Filko
|
April 19, 2013, 05:47 PM | #102 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 5, 2000
Location: AoW Land, USA
Posts: 1,968
|
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...
|
April 19, 2013, 06:01 PM | #103 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 1,934
|
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 Evan Thomas; April 19, 2013 at 06:05 PM. Reason: invective. |
July 31, 2013, 05:34 PM | #104 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The opinion has been issued. Two of the three judges on the panel joined to affirm the lower court. Judge Hardiman has dissented.
|
July 31, 2013, 05:51 PM | #105 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
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. |
July 31, 2013, 07:28 PM | #106 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
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.
|
July 31, 2013, 08:29 PM | #107 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
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? |
July 31, 2013, 10:04 PM | #108 | |||||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
|||||
August 1, 2013, 09:34 AM | #109 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
|
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.
|
August 2, 2013, 06:13 PM | #110 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
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 |
August 2, 2013, 07:08 PM | #111 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
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. |
August 2, 2013, 07:11 PM | #112 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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. |
August 2, 2013, 09:32 PM | #113 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
I still think Woollard is our most persuasive case.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
August 3, 2013, 06:15 AM | #114 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
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.
|
August 3, 2013, 07:29 AM | #115 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
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 |
August 3, 2013, 12:43 PM | #116 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
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.
|
August 3, 2013, 01:35 PM | #117 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
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 craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
|
August 4, 2013, 11:57 AM | #118 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
|
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.
Last edited by NJgunowner; August 5, 2013 at 09:38 AM. |
August 4, 2013, 05:36 PM | #119 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
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. |
August 4, 2013, 06:28 PM | #120 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
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. |
August 7, 2013, 10:35 AM | #121 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I would like to draw your attention to pg 51 of the PDF, Part B of the dissent.
Quote:
Quote:
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). |
||
August 7, 2013, 04:09 PM | #122 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
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. |
August 7, 2013, 06:01 PM | #123 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
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. |
August 15, 2013, 04:43 PM | #124 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
|
August 27, 2013, 05:39 PM | #125 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|