NJ/NRA Supreme Court carry permits Dist. for Conf. 2/22/19 GO TEAM!

[bushmaster1313]

LOCKED PER bushmaster1313 Request.

THIS IS A BIG DEAL!

Update February 6, 2019:
Distributed for Conference February 22, 2019
Could hear on February 25, 2019 if Supreme Court will hear the case

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

Link to the Petition for Certiorari here

Link to entire Supreme Court Docket here

Link to Amicus Brief of 22 Pro-2A States

Link to Waiver by New Jersey Here

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

Another waiver by a New Jersey Respondant
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-824/86640/20190201125217825_00000001.pdf

Here are the issues presented to the Court:

The questions presented 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.

The Supreme Court does not have to accept the appeal for consideration. However, there is now a split in the Circuits. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia says there is a right to carry and the government cannot make the citizen show a special need. Other Circuit Courts of Appeals say there is no such right, or that the government can make you show a special need, which of course, no ordinary citizen can.

Let's follow this closely. It could be the one that the Supreme Court will finally hear, now that they are not able to take a case from the District of Columbia.

Here is a summary of the law in NJ from the Petition:

In addition to these eligibility requirements, New Jersey also imposes a more restrictive criterion on the availability of Handgun Carry Permits: an applicant must demonstrate “that he has a justifiable need to carry a handgun.” N.J. STAT. ANN. § 2C:58-4(c). For an ordinary “private citizen,” this requirement is satisfied only if the applicant can “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 that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun.” Id. “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.” Id. “Generalized fears for personal safety are inadequate and a need to protect property alone does not suffice.” In re Preis, 573 A.2d at 152.

Accordingly, typical law-abiding citizens of New Jersey—the vast majority of responsible citizens who cannot “demonstrate a special danger to [their] life,” N.J. STAT. ANN. § 2C:58-4(c)—effectively remain subject to a ban on carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense. Petitioners challenge only this “justifiable need” restriction.

 

[GaryS]

There has been a split between the circuits on this issue for several years. SCOTUS has consistently denied cert since that time. Peruta, which was a CA case that we had great hopes for and had a good plaintiff was denied cert after sitting in conference at SCOTUS for over a year.

Maybe with Justice Kavanaugh now on the court, cert will be granted to a 2A "shall issue" case, but the Chief Justice is a question mark on this issue even though he voted to affirm Heller and McDonald.

It might take one more conservative justice for the issue to be "ripe" for a decision.

I'm not that optimistic, as you can tell.

 

[bushmaster1313]

The difference is that now the Supreme Court is not waiting for a case to come out of the District of Columbia. To me, this is a bit like Heller. In Heller, the Supreme Court first held that there was a 2A right in the District of Columbia and then in a second case held that the right extended to the States under the 14th Amendment. Here, I think the Supreme Court wanted to hear a carry case from the District of Columbia. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the pro 2A plaintiffs in the carry case out of D.C. won at the D.C. Court of Appeals, and under pressure from anti 2A States, the District of Colombia did not appeal to the Supreme Court for fear of a loss. The time is now ripe for the Supreme Court to hear the case out of New Jersey.

 

[345sire]

Bushmaster, I hope you are right. But I'm concerned Mr. Murphy will once again disregard federal laws and put his own additional restrictions on us irrespective of the SC. He's been at us for a while now, and wants even more.

Respect for the people here stop me from expressing my opinion of him in terms I'd like.

 

[bushmaster1313]

IMHO, the strategy of New Jersey and the Anti-2A faction is to hope that the Supreme Court will not choose to hear the Appeal. To this end, it seems that the State of New Jersey might have chosen to not file a Brief in response to the Petition that the Supreme Court hear the Appeal. To me this is a sign that New Jersey does not have a lot of convincing things to say.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Several additional Amicus Briefs in favor if the Supreme Court hearing the appeal have been filed:


Unfortunately, no matter what the briefs say, the Supreme Court will decide to hear the case only if enough Justices decide to hear the case.

 

[fordson]

Several additional Amicus Briefs in favor if the Supreme Court hearing the appeal have been filed:

Law Enforcement Groups

American Civil Rights Union

National Rifle Association

Coalition of New Jersey Firearms Owners and the Second Amendment Foundation

Unfortunately, no matter what the briefs say, the Supreme Court will decide to hear the case only if enough Justices decide to hear the case.

Are five enough?

 

[GaryS]

I don't know that there is a magic number. Or if numbers alone are persuasive. Very often it comes down to whether enough Justices think that the case before them is "ripe" for cert.

One thing that seems to go into that calculus is the make up of the court. A borderline case can go against us and then we're stuck with bad law.

"Bad cases make bad law" as the saying goes.

Look at "Abramski" which arguably makes it harder to buy a gun as a gift for someone.

Are five enough?

 

[HeyJoe]

the number is four...four justices have to agree to hear the case

 

[GaryS]

I thought he was talking about the number of Amici briefs, but maybe not.

the number is four...four justices have to agree to hear the case

 

[bushmaster1313]

Four Justices need to vote to hear an appeal.

But I would bet that in most cases they do not agree to take a case until they know what the final result will be.

 

[American1776]

I believe it will finally come to pass that eventually, SCOTUS will bring the holdout states like NJ, NY, CA, MA, HI, MD, kicking and screaming into the rest of America with respect to carry rights.

When the DC carry case was up for a possible SCOTUS hearing, NJ was literally BEGGING DC not to fight it to SCOTUS. NJ is scared that their monopoly on weapons will finally come to an end. And it will.

 

[bushmaster1313]

To me, it looks like New Jersey is resigned to having this case heard by the Supreme Court.

 

[schutzen-jager]

will be years even if supreme court rules in favor of petitioners - was years before DC abided by court decision to process permits w/o over burdening restrictions - New Jersey will be more then 1 court case + many appeals + massive legal fees -

 

[bushmaster1313]

Update February 6, 2019:
Distributed for Conference February 22, 2019
Could hear on February 25, 2019 if Supreme Court will hear the case

 

[Winch]

I sure hope that the SCOTUS will finally hear and decide a case which confirms the clear right of every citizen to carry a weapon for self defense and self protection. This is the only path for those of us who live in NJ, NY, CA, MA, HI, MD, etc. It probably won't happen in my lifetime though. And the older I get, the more I need CC.

 

[GaryS]

Of the states you list, MA is the best. In the other states it's neigh impossible to get a concealed carry permit or license. In MA, depending on the local police chief, it can be hard or easy.

That being said, I'd like to see SCOTUS take the case. My one worry is that the Chief Justice is a bit wobbly of late, so it's not a sure thing.

I sure hope that the SCOTUS will finally hear and decide a case which confirms the clear right of every citizen to carry a weapon for self defense and self protection. This is the only path for those of us who live in NJ, NY, CA, MA, HI, MD, etc. It probably won't happen in my lifetime though. And the older I get, the more I need CC.

 

[ladder13]

It’s certainly not impossible to get a license in NYS, outside NYC.
The last county I lived in had 13,000 permit holders in a population of 100,000. That’s just one of 62 counties.

Plenty of NYers on this forum can attest.

 

[bushmaster1313]

There are three reasons to be hopeful that if the Supreme Court chooses to hear the appeal the decision will come down in favor of the right to carry.

1) Plain reading of the 2A. The right of the People to . . . bear arms shall not be infringed

2) The issue as to whether a State can condition a right protected by the Constitution on a showing of "individualized need" goes well beyond the Second Amendment, and should be decided in favor of no individualized need. (Think, why do you need an attorney more than the average accused person, why do you need to read that newspaper).

3) The Supreme Court does not like it when the lower courts do not follow its rulings. Heller said that the right to keep arms in the home for self defense was "at" the core of the 2A, but the Third Circuit and other anti-2A courts have misquoted Heller to say that the right to to keep arms in the home is "the" core of the 2A-to the exclusion of any right to bear arms outside the home.

 

[schutzen-jager]

bottom line - state law can not conflict with federal law , but is allowed to be stricter than federal law - NJ has already been ruled in numerous courts that it restrictions are reasonable - I seriously doubt that it will happen in my lifetime -