Cert Denied :( NJ carry permit pushed to June 11, 2020 Conference

[bushmaster1313]

UPDATE 6.9.20
On June 8, 2020, the New Jersey "May Issue" case, and probably the nine other Second Second Amendment Petitions pending before the Supreme Court, were pushed again, this time to the Conference of June 11. The last conference before the Summer Recess is June 25 and the last announcement on Petitions before the Summer Recess is probably June 29.

UPDATE 6.3.20
On June 1, 2020, the New Jersey "May Issue" case, and the nine other Second Second Amendment Petitions pending before the Supreme Court, were pushed again, this time to the Conference of June 4. The last conference before the Summer Recess is June 25 and the last announcement on Petitions before the Summer Recess is probably June 29.

SECOND UPDATE 5.17.20
At least the New Jersey case was pushed to the May 21, 2020 Conference. I am not following the others.
Earliest result of that Conference is likely May 26, 2020, the Tuesday after Labor Day.

UPDATE 5.17.20
Nothing happened
Maybe we see something Tuesday May 26
Don't hold your breath

UPDATE 5.15.20
Various bloggers report that today, May 15, 2020, the Supreme Court is considering in Conference which - if any - of the TEN (10) Second Amendment/Firearms appeals that are pending will be heard on the merits. These bloggers predict that we could get important information Monday morning, May 17.

To me, the most important is the "May Issue" carry permit case out of New Jersey. The issues in the New Jersey case are:

1) Does the 2A grant People the Right to Bear Arms (outside the home). [Bushmaster's comment: Duh!];

2) Assuming there is a Right of People to Bear Arms [Duh!], can the State force the applicant for a carry permit to show that the person has a special personalized need to exercise their Right to Bear Arms over and above the need of the general public.

IMHO, Issue (2) goes way beyond just the Second Amendment. It actually goes to the question of do we want the Government to be able to force us to show:

a) Why do YOU need to practice THAT religion;

b) Why do YOU need to read THAT newspaper;

c) Why do YOU need a lawyer more than any other accused;

d) Why does YOUR group need to assemble;

e) What is so special about YOUR need to not self-incriminate;

f) What is so special about YOUR right to vote;

g) What is so special about YOU with respect to any other fundamental right protected by the Constitution.

Issues that will never be decided are:
Ford or Chevy
Vanilla or Chocolate Ice Cream
Ginger or Maryann

Stay tuned Boys and girls

UPDATE May 11, 2020
“Distributed for Conference of May 15, 2020.”

I hope we find out before the end of June if the Supreme Court will hear this case.

Till now, there were good reasons for the Supreme Court to wait. In particular, I think the Supreme Court wanted to hear a carry permit case out of the District of Columbia first. But that reason went away when the District chose to NOT appeal the decision declaring the District's ban on carry permits unconstitutional. IMHO, this time, there seems to be no judicial reason for the Supreme Court to push this important Constitutional issue off any longer. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has complete discretion in deciding whether or not it will hear this case.

UPDATE April 29, 2020

The Parties asking the Supreme Court to review New Jersey's "May Issue" carry permit laws filed a virtuoso Supplemental Brief on April 29, 2020:

Link to April 29, 2020 Supplemental Brief

From the Supplemental Brief:

At issue in this case is a New Jersey law that
effectively bars ordinary, law-abiding citizens from
carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.
Under N.J. Stat. Ann. §2C:58-4(c), a “private citizen”
(i.e., an ordinary New Jersey resident) cannot obtain
the permit necessary to carry a handgun in public
unless she can show “justifiable need,” which state law
defines as “a special danger to [her] life that cannot be
avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit
to carry a handgun.” (Emphasis added.) The statute
means what it says: “Generalized fears for personal
safety are inadequate, and a need to protect property
alone does not suffice.” In re Preis, 573 A.2d 148, 151
(N.J. 1990). Instead, a New Jersey citizen must
establish a “special” need for a permit that
distinguishes her from the ordinary people whose
rights are guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

New Jersey’s regime deems specific, entirely
reasonable fears for one’s personal safety insufficient.
The facts involving one of the petitioners starkly
illustrate this point. Petitioner Thomas Rogers was
robbed at gunpoint while working as the manager of a
restaurant, and his current work—running a large
ATM business within high-crime areas—places him at
a high risk of another crime. Pet.App.56a-57a. Yet
under New Jersey’s regime, that was not enough to
make Rogers “special,” see N.J. Stat. Ann. §2C:58-4(c)
(applicant must “specify in detail the urgent necessity
for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or
previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger
to the applicant’s life”), or “to establish Justifiable
Need” sufficient for a carry permit. Pet.App.64a.
Because Rogers’ “previous attack[]” was deemed
unrelated to his current work, and because his current
work, though undoubtedly dangerous, has not given
rise to documented “specific threats,” N.J. Stat. Ann.
§2C:58-4(c) (“Where possible, the applicant shall
corroborate the existence of any specific threats or
previous attacks by reference to reports of the
incidents to the appropriate law enforcement
agencies.”), the assigned Chief of Police denied Rogers’
application, and a judge on the Superior Court
affirmed. Pet.App.64a-67a. Petitioner Association of
New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc., joined in this
lawsuit after another of its members was similarly
denied a permit on the basis of a failure to
“‘demonstrate a special danger to [his] life,’” even
though he too “has been threatened several times in
the past” and “frequently travels in remote areas for
his work.” Pet.App.58a-59a.

New Jersey’s law cannot be squared with the text,
history, or tradition of the Second Amendment, and
this case provides an ideal vehicle for this Court to
develop its Second Amendment law and correct the
mistaken approach of the Third Circuit and other
courts in applying watered-down scrutiny and
effectively rendering the Second Amendment a homebound right. The Second Amendment plainly protects
a right to keep and bear arms, and the decision below
is emblematic of decisions effectively denying the
second half of the framers’ guarantee.

This case is an ideal vehicle to resolve that
question and erase all doubt about the Second
Amendment’s protection of a meaningful protection of
the right to keep and bear arms. First, “the New
Jersey law challenged in Rogers is a perfect
representative of the types of ‘good reason’-style
restrictions that have created the split of authority” on
the right-to-carry issue. Gould Pet. 18. Indeed, New
Jersey’s requirement that an applicant demonstrate
not mere danger, but a “special danger” that
distinguishes her from the rest of the people equally
protected by the Second Amendment, perfectly
captures what makes such regimes antithetical to the
guarantee enshrined in the constitutional text.

This Court granted review of New York’s effort to
prevent its citizens from crossing the Hudson to
exercise their Second Amendment rights, but the
City’s tactics prevented the Court from clarifying its
Second Amendment jurisprudence for the people and
the lower courts. This case provides a suitable
sequel—indeed, a vital opportunity to ensure that the
promise of the Second Amendment extends not only
across the Hudson, but across the Nation.

UPDATE April 27, 2020:

Supreme Court just threw out the appeal of the NYC travel ban as moot. This was not unexpected.

However, as predicted here, now that the NYC case is gone the Supreme Court will now consider whether it should take up the New Jersey may issue carry permit law.

Link to Supreme Court Docket for New Jersey May Issue Case:

Apr 27 2020 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/1/2020.

As the Petition is Distributed for the Friday May 1, 2020 Conference, we could hear as early as Monday May 4, 2020 whether the Supreme Court will hear the New Jersey case now that the NYC case is gone.


Musings as of 12.16.19
Seems to me that the NJ case at the Supreme Court is waiting for something to happen at the Supreme Court with the NYC case.

In the NJ case the Petition for Certiorari has been fully briefed at the Supreme Court since May 2019 and remains in limbo.

In the NYC case Oral Argument was heard December 2, 2019 and a lot of the argument was about whether or not the case was moot.

If the NYC case is decided on the merits, I would expect the NJ case to be remanded back to the Third Circuit to be reconsidered consistent with the Supreme Court decision in the NYC case.

If the NYC case is declared moot, it is possible that Certiorari could be granted in the NJ case.


Update 10/4/19
The update is that there is no update
Still in limbo since May 2019

Update July 5, 2019

It looks official that there will be no action on the Petition for Certiorari until at least September 2019.

Update June 26, 2019

June 26, 2019, is the second to last day of open court at the Supreme Court and no word. Last day before Summer recess is June 28, 2019.

Update June 5, 2019
The good news is that following the May 23, 2019 Conference the Petition was not denied. The bad news is that nothing has happened since and the Petition is sitting in procedural limbo with the People necessarily relegated to keep and bear it mode while twiddling our collective right thumbs.


Update May 7, 2019
On May 7, 2019 the Briefs on the Petition for the Supreme Court to hear the case were “Distributed” for the “Conference” of May 23, 2019. This means that we could hear as early as May 28, 2019 whether the Supreme Court will hear the case. Unfortunately, on that date the Supreme Court could announce that it is taking the case, not taking the case or pushing off its decision as to whether it will take the case. When the Peruta case came up to the Supreme Court they pushed the decision many times until they finally announced that they would not hear the case.

Update May 3, 2019, 2019
On May 3, 2019, the Petitioners filed their Reply, further explaining why the Supreme Court should hear the case. In responding to New Jersey's arguments as to why the Supreme Court should not hear the case, the Petitioners argued in their Reply:

1. There really is a split in the Circuits.

2. The time has come for the Supreme Court to reject the opinions that do not follow the Supreme Court's reasoning in Heller

3. The New Jersey case is an excellent case to consider the issue of whether it violates the Constitution to require carry permit applicants to show "good reason."

4. The Constitution does indeed prohibit requiring a carry permit applicant to show "good cause."

Typically, this week the papers for and against the Supreme Court hearing the case would be "Distributed" for the "Conference" of May 23, 2019. At the Conference the nine Justices will vote whether to hear the case, with 4 votes needed to hear the case. Typically, we should know by the middle of June, and as early as May 28, 2013, whether the Supreme Court will hear the case.

On April 19, 2019 New Jersey filed its opposition to the Petition for Certiorari.

New Jersey stated the Question Presented as follows:

For nearly two centuries, numerous states across
the country have required residents who wish to carry
a loaded firearm in public to establish a need to do
so. The question presented is whether the Second
Amendment prevents New Jersey from maintaining
such a law.

According to New Jersey's Opposition, the right to carry outside the home for self defense is not at the "core" of the Second Amendment.

As the Third Circuit found, the core does
not include public carrying of firearms.

Therefore, according to New Jersey, the requirement to show a "justifiable need" is subject to "Intermediate Scrutiny." New Jersey goes on to argue that "justifiable need" passes Constitutional muster because New Jersey's law is sufficiently tailored to the furtherance of New Jersey's interest in "public safety", without burdening more conduct than is reasonably necessary.

Under U.S. Supreme Court Rule 15.5, the Petition and the Opposition will not be distributed for consideration by the Justices until at least May 3, 2019 (which is two weeks after April 19, 2019). If they want, under U.S. Supreme Court Rule 15.6, the Petitioners may file a Reply to the Opposition.


Update March 16, 2019:
On March 12, 2019 the State of New Jersey asked for a 30 day extension of the time to respond to the Petition for Certiorari, with consent by the pro-2A plaintiffs. On March 15, 2019 the Supreme Court granted the extension and the State's Response is now due on April 19, 2019.

Update February 19, 2019:
The state of New Jersey chose to not respond to the Petition for Certiorari, and on February 6, 2019, the case was set for Conference on February 22, 2019, so that the Justices could vote on whether to hear the Appeal. On February 19, 2019, the Supreme Court Docket says that New Jersey has been asked by the Supreme Court to respond to the Petition for Certiorari by March 21, 2019. This means that it will likely be until at least April 2019 before the Supreme Court votes on whether to hear the Appeal.

I read that if there is no response to a Petition for Certiorari the Supreme Court will ask for a Response before agreeing to hear the case. Therefore, now that the Supreme Court has asked for a Response, the pro-2A folks can take heart that the Supreme Court is seriously considering whether to hear this Appeal.

No Editorial Comments on this informational thread please
(I asked the Moderators to lock the original thread)

This case is an example of how supporting the NRA supports well-executed 2A litigation

Update February 6, 2019:
Distributed for the Supreme Court Conference of February 22, 2019. A Conference is where the Supreme Court votes to hear an Appeal
It takes the votes of 4 Justices for an Appeal to be heard. We could hear on February 25, 2019 if the Supreme Court will hear the case. On February 25 the Supreme Court could grant the Petition for Certiorari (decide to hear the case), deny the Petition for Certiorari (decide to not hear the case), or push a decision on hearing the case off to a future Conference.

Petition for Certiorari (the formal request that the Supreme Court hear the appeal) was filed December 20, 2018

The State of New Jersey did not file a Brief in opposition to the Supreme Court hearing the Appeal

All of the Amicus Briefs were by pro-2A organizations in favor of the Supreme Court hearing the Appeal. All of the Amicus Briefs were well written, especially the Brief of the NRA (signed by Paul Clement)

Link to the Petition for Certiorari here

Link to NJ Opposition to Petition for Certiorari here

Petitioners' Reply

Link to entire Supreme Court Docket here

Link to Amicus Brief of 22 Pro-2A States

Link to Amicus Brief of National African American Gun Association

Link to Amicus Brief of Law Enforcement Groups

Link to Amicus Brief of American Civil Rights Union

Link to Amicus Brief of National Rifle Association -- GO TEAM!

Link to Amicus Brief of Coalition of New Jersey Firearms Owners and the Second Amendment Foundation

According to the Petitioners, the issues presented to the Supreme Court for review:

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.

 

[GaryS]

This is a related case out of New York,

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

The city tried to moot the case by stating that they were going to modify the regulations. They had moved for SCOTUS to hold the briefing schedule in abeyance until the city had drafted new regulations.

Yesterday, SCOTUS denied the motion, so the briefing schedule will continue. This case could be granted cert on its own or combined with the NJ case.

Also, the First Circuit denied the appeal in a MA right to carry case. That case will likely be appealed to SCOTUS as well.

Lots of activity going on.

 

[zogger]

Could you explain for the layman what all this means? Is SCOTUS going to hear all of these cases or not? Thank you!

 

[Skwirl]

On my brief reading;
It seems as though if NJ were to win its case. Then they could ban concealed carry for law abiding citizens. That would set a precedent for other states to follow, or use.
Very, very, very bad for law abiding citizens.

 

[GaryS]

Great summary. The MA case, Gould v O'Leary is also a right to carry suit challenging the "May Issue" law.

It's similar to the NY and NJ challenges and a petition for a Writ of Certiorari was filed on April 1. If granted, that won't be heard until the fall session at the earliest.

The Supreme Court already agreed to hear the case out of New York City. That case is about a New York City ordinance which says that a lawful handgun owner in New York City cannot take their unloaded gun to a Pennsylvania gun range or even to a second home in upstate New York. In response, New York City is trying to change the ordinance real quick so that the case becomes moot. If the ordinance is not changed the Supreme Court will almost certainly hear that case.

The New Jersey case is up in the air. After the Petition was filed the State of New Jersey chose to not file any brief on the question of whether the Supreme Court should hear the case. Then, the Supreme Court ordered New Jersey to file a brief explaining why the Supreme Court should not hear the case. Many consider this to be a signal that the Supreme Court is likely to decide to hear the New Jersey case. However, we will not know if the case will be heard until a decision on whether to hear the case is announced.

I do not know anything about the third case, which is out of Massachusetts, but if the Supreme Court decides to hear the New Jersey case I would expect it to also decide to hear the Massachusetts case.

IMHO the time is ripe for the Supreme Court to decide whether the right to carry is protected by the Second Amendment.

 

[swsig]

Update May 3, 2019, 2019
On May 3, 2019, the Petitioners filed their Reply, further explaining why the Supreme Court should hear the case

On April 19, 2019 New Jersey filed its opposition to the Petition for Certiorari.

New Jersey stated the Question Presented as follows:


According to New Jersey's Opposition, the right to carry outside the home for self defense is not at the "core" of the Second Amendment....

Does this mean the State of New Jersey is arguing that the authors of the Second Amendment intended that members of a well-regulated militia could not carry their firearms outside of their homes?

Hmmph!

 

[GaryS]

Cases are pushed back for conference for many reasons. Sometimes, it's to give Justices on one side or the other to lobby each other for a decision. Other times, it's because Justices are counting potential votes, even before the case is even going to be heard, to try to determine if there is a likelihood of their position prevailing.

I seem to recall that in the case of Peruta, cert was denied because it was felt that the then existing composition of the Court made it likely that the decision of the 9CA would be upheld. As that decision had overturned the three judge panel ruling, it would have been very, very, bad for the Second Amendment.

 

[zogger]

Thanks for the updates

 

[bushmaster1313]

Cases are pushed back for conference for many reasons. Sometimes, it's to give Justices on one side or the other to lobby each other for a decision. Other times, it's because Justices are counting potential votes, even before the case is even going to be heard, to try to determine if there is a likelihood of their position prevailing.

I seem to recall that in the case of Peruta, cert was denied because it was felt that the then existing composition of the Court made it likely that the decision of the 9CA would be upheld. As that decision had overturned the three judge panel ruling, it would have been very, very, bad for the Second Amendment.

We have no idea why the Supreme Court refused to hear the Peruta case. My hunch is that the Supreme Court was waiting to first hear a case out of the District of Columbia. Wrenn, out of D.C. would have been a good case, but lo and behold the pro-2A plaintiffs won at the D.C. Court of Appeals and Peruta never made it to the Supreme Court. Now that the issue was decided in favor of may issue in DC., I believe that there is nothing holding the Supreme Court back from hearing the case out of New Jersey.

 

[ladder13]

It’s 3pm, any news to report?

 

[Watchdog]

The Supreme Court doesn't get in a hurry for anyone or anything. Period.

 

[GaryS]

Not on the Orders List for today. Back to the waiting game.

 

[Watchdog]

I suppose it's always fun to speculate about this and that, but until the Supreme Court actually does something, speculating is the same as guesswork.

 

[schutzen-jager]

great point !

 

[zogger]

Thanks for keeping us updated.

 

[fordson]

Thanks for the continued updates. I suppose this is neither good nor bad news?

 

[Watchdog]

No change as of 10.4.19.

NRA backed NJ carry permit case at U.S. Supreme Court. Still in limbo since May 2019.

The wheels of justice grind slowly.

 

[GaryS]

SCOTUS doesn't officially reconvene until next Monday, the 7th. There could be a lot of decisions and orders released. It will be important to keep an eye on the news from the Court that day.

 

[schutzen-jager]

even if court hears + rules on it NJ will not comply with it for decades unless there is a complete change in state government + politics - just look how well the supreme court rulings have worked in DC + Chicago -

 

[ladder13]

even if court hears + rules on it NJ will not comply with it for decades unless there is a complete change in state government + politics - just look how well the supreme court rulings have worked in DC + Chicago -

Correct, they just ignore SCOTUS rulings, nothing will change unless the tyrants are voted out. Good luck in NJ. They may get Shall Issue but not carry, so what good is it?