SCOTUS appeal regarding NJ concealed carry

[JN01]

Last month, SCOTUS asked representatives of the State of NJ to respond to a request for cert from Thomas R Rogers & Association of NJ Rifle and Pistol Clubs which challenged the states' discretionary CCW system.
https://www.guns.com/news/2019/02/20...arry-challenge

New Jersey's response was supposed to be in by March 21.

Anyone know where the case stands at this point?

[JN01]

Found an update. NJ was given an extension to file their brief. New deadline is April 19. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/18-824.html

Here is a thread on the case: https://www.njgunforums.com/forum/in...-grewal-et-al/

[JN01]

NJ response was filed on April 19.

Questions presented by petitioners are:
1. Whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self- defense.
2. Whether the government may deny categorically the exercise of the right to carry a firearm outside the home to typical law-abiding citizens by conditioning the exercise of the right on a showing of a special need to carry a firearm.

[JERRYS.]

it would be nice if NJ was brought a little closer to America.

[danco]

Originally Posted by JERRYS.

it would be nice if NJ was brought a little closer to America.

It would be nice if SCOTUS slapped down all this crap once and for all. Then maybe state and local governments could spend more time on actual criminals, rather than harassing honest firearms owners.

[Chuck Norris]

Brovo

[azretired]

BRAVO!

[JERRYS.]

Originally Posted by danco

It would be nice if SCOTUS slapped down all this crap once and for all. Then maybe state and local governments could spend more time on actual criminals, rather than harassing honest firearms owners.

didn't stop Pittsburgh (yet).

[44 AMP]

It would be nice if SCOTUS slapped down all this crap once and for all.

Yep, it sure would be nice. But if you read what they say, that's not their job.

Some think it ought to be, but they don't.

They see their job as ruling on specific cases brought before the court. It's not their job to see everyone else abides by those rulings, or interprets them correctly. That is someone else's job, not the Supreme Court's.

[JN01]

Update:

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/23/2019.

[Aguila Blanca]

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/23/2019.

What does this mean? Is this when/where the justices decide whether or not they'll grant certiorari?

[JN01]

They could, although sometimes cases are re-scheduled for conference (sometimes several times) before there is a vote on whether or not to grant cert.

[raimius]

I kind of doubt they'll take another 2A case, with the NY case on the schedule.

[Doyle]

I kind of doubt they'll take another 2A case, with the NY case on the schedule.

They will frequently consolidate cases that are related.

[JN01]

It is encouraging that although NJ had no interest in responding to the appeal, SCOTUS instructed them to file a response. To me this would indicate that at least someone on the court is interested in hearing the case.

This one would dovetail very nicely with the NYC case.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JN01

It is encouraging that although NJ had no interest in responding to the appeal, SCOTUS instructed them to file a response. To me this would indicate that at least someone on the court is interested in hearing the case.

Or it could indicate that someone on the court thinks the appeal would be a slam dunk against the State of New Jersey and that justice doesn't want that, so he or she prompted the State to submit a brief in the hope of salvaging some argument on which to hang their judicial hat.

[JN01]

But if the court doesn't grant cert, the case is done, NJ wins. Unless the Justice wanting to help out NJ thinks that cert WILL be granted, there wouldn't be any need for the assist.

We can hope, anyway.

[dreaming]

If NJ doesn't file opposition to the petition, what happens? Does the court set it for conference and at conference does SCOTUS vote to grant or deny cert? At the time, if there is no response to the petition, can the court go ahead and issue a decision without calling for more? Why call for briefs and consider holding orals if the petition isn't even opposed? Too allow for amicus briefs?

[JN01]

NJ HAS filed a response, the petitioners replied. On May 23rd, SCOTUS will vote on whether to accept the case, unless they re-schedule it for a later date.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If the case is not taken, to my non-legal mind, it indicates that the Court has little interest (or the supposed 4 +1 Maybe progun justices) in actually expanding the implementation of gun rights. It would support the lower court decisions that have legitimized various anti-RKBA state laws. It would also indicate that the savior role for the RKBA - given to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch is misrepresented.

But I could be wrong on this analysis. However, sometime the SCOTUS has to get off the pot and come down with a clearer support of the right without the ambiguity we saw in Heller.

[Aguila Blanca]

Glenn, I agree with the above, except that I don't think the SCOTUS is currently at 4 pro and 1 maybe. I have no faith in Roberts. I think the potentially, sorta, somewhat "reliable" pro-gun votes are Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Who would you consider to be even "probably" pro-gun beyond those three? Alito? I had high hopes for him after his decision in McDonald, but since then he has been largely a disappointment to me.

I think we need one more liberal justice to retire (or keel over) and be replaced by a reliable pro-gun justice before it's really safe to bring up any more serious gun rights cases unless they're so blatant that even RBG couldn't vote against them.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The 4 antis will never find a case so blatant that they will support gun rights.

I had hope for a legislative solution but we can see that the supposed pro gun party has little interest in pursuing the issue.

I'm afraid you are correct, but the next election is a crap shoot and who knows after that. Even supposed conservative justices may not support a wider RKBA. It really isn't a priority for many.

[Aguila Blanca]

I think the key point is that for a true conservative, original constructionist, "textualist" justice the RKBA shouldn't matter. What matters (or should) is the Constitution. They shouldn't care if they're ruling on the right to keep and bear arms or the right to attend the church of your choice on the sabbath day of your chosen denomination's belief. The Constitution says what it says, and they should be ruling on that.

The problem is that we need a reliable majority if we hope to avoid another decision like Heller that was crafted to assuage Kennedy and keep him on the side that wanted to rule in favor (as much as possible) of the RKA (remember, Heller didn't even address the "bear" part). This is why we absolutely need one more secure vote. Thomas is solid, Gorsuch looks okay, Alito is (IMHO) "squishy," Roberts is "squishy," and Kavanaugh is an unknown quantity.

[Tom Servo]

I think the potentially, sorta, somewhat "reliable" pro-gun votes are Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.

I'll wait and see with Kavanaugh. While he did come down on our side in Heller II, he's also a big supporter of state power over civil liberties.

I still remember John Sununu recommending David Souter as a "slam dunk for conservatism" back in the day. Souter would go on oppose us in Heller and McDonald.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

You may also recall the opposition to Robert Bork as being a conservative extremist. However, according to Wiki (I've seen this before and only using for convenience), he:

Bork denounced what he called the "NRA view" of the Second Amendment, something he described as the "belief that the constitution guarantees a right to Teflon-coated bullets." Instead, he argued that the Second Amendment merely guarantees a right to participate in a government militia.[52]

Being a conservative is no guarantee of supporting gun rights. Bush, Romney and Tromp supported the AWB.