Wisdom from New Jersey's Attorney General

[bushmaster1313]

From New Jersey's Brief arguing against cetiorari Drake v. Jeregian:

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/NJ_AG_Brief_Opposing_Sup_Ct_.pdf

The alternative to requiring a justifiable need would be to allow the widespread carrying of handguns.

 

[plattincreek]

At what point is this case? Awaiting a verdict?

 

[American1776]

At what point is this case? Awaiting a verdict?

Last I read, it is now up to the SCOTUS to decide if they will hear this case in the fall session.

While I'm not a NJ resident, I do have an aardvark in this race. I work in NJ and have family there. I hate having to disarm everytime I travel there. Plus, it's obscene that NJ continues to violate the constitutional rights of its citizens. While those of us who live n free states might not care what happens in NJ, it does matter, b/c this stuff CAN spread.

I get the feeling that IF the SCOTUS does take the case, NJ has a good chance of becoming shall issue. The AG of NJ is basically pleading with the SCOTUS to not hear the case; that means they are very worried on what the ruling would be. I like it when tyrants are worried. This means freedom is coming.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Drake is set for conference at SCOTUS on April 4.
SCOTUS needs to decide whether they will hear the appeal.
SCOTUS refused to hear all of the recent shall issue cases.

 

[adwjc]

From New Jersey's Brief arguing against cetiorari Drake v. Jeregian:

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/NJ_AG_Brief_Opposing_Sup_Ct_.pdf

Bushmaster,

Thanks for the update and link. Perhaps a better title would have been UNINTENDED wisdom from NJ's Attorney General.

This is the state that didn't allow retired cops to carry until 1997. You can count the number of civilian CCW's on the fingers of one hand per county.

Time for a change, and it won't come from the legislature!

 

[jtpur]

While I agree NJ is oppressive and wrong! I do not see SCOTUS overruling the Carry portion of the law. If they uphold it. I predict it will 6-3. Roberts,Sotomayor, Kagan Ginsberg, Bryer will vote to uphold NJ. I would not even be surprised to see Scalia side with NJ. All these justices have stated the second is not without limits.

If my worst fears come true, other States may begin to amend their. Shall issue laws. These are States that are in transition. Colorado comes to mind. Iowa perhaps, and there are other states also. I fear this can be a can of worms we do not want opened.

 

[American1776]

While I agree NJ is oppressive and wrong! I do not see SCOTUS overruling the Carry portion of the law. If they uphold it. I predict it will 6-3. Roberts,Sotomayor, Kagan Ginsberg, Bryer will vote to uphold NJ. I would not even be surprised to see Scalia side with NJ. All these justices have stated the second is not without limits.

If my worst fears come true, other States may begin to amend their. Shall issue laws. These are States that are in transition. Colorado comes to mind. Iowa perhaps, and there are other states also. I fear this can be a can of worms we do not want opened.

I can see where you're coming from here. But nothing worth doing is without risks.

19 states got behind Drake (the guy named in the lawsuit against NJ) and signed petitions in his favor. The 2nd Amendment foundation, NRA, and a few other high profile organizations are behind this one. Alan Gura, the attorney who successfully litigated the Heller case and the McDonald case, is counsel on this case, and has been filing briefs. I believe that these folks believe that the time is right for a favorable decision if the SCOTUS decides to take the case.

I do take some solace in the fact that the NJ Attorney General seems to be sh**ting his pants and pleading with the SCOTUS to NOT take this case. Why would the AG be so scared of SCOTUS simply hearing the case? The only reason would be, that he thinks there's a good chance that NJ's carry laws would be found to be unconstitutional.

I am concerned on how this will turn out, nonetheless.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Some of the truest words ever spoken by a Judge:

From Moore v. Madigan (Seventh Circuit holding that the right to bear arms extends outside the home)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10665754353092136977&q=moore+v+madigan&hl=en&as_sdt=3,31

For example, the opinion states that "in Lawrence v. Texas, the [Supreme]
Court emphasized that the state's efforts to regulate private sexual conduct between consenting adults is especially suspect when it intrudes into the home." 2012 WL 5907502, at *9. Well of course — the interest in having sex inside one's home is much greater than the interest in having sex on the sidewalk in front of one's home. But the interest in self-protection is as great outside as inside the home.

(emphasis added)