“In a major announcement this morning, the Supreme Court refused to hear Drake v. Jerejian,” reason.com reports. “At issue was New Jersey’s Handgun Permit Law, which requires applicants to prove they have a ‘justifiable need’ before local officials will issue a handgun carry permit. Unlike those states that maintain a ‘shall issue’ permit regime, where applicants are required to satisfy a clear list of objective criteria, such as . . .
completing a firearms safety course and passing a criminal background check (if you meet the qualifications, the government ‘shall issue’ you a permit), New Jersey grants local officials wide leeway in determining what qualifies as a ‘justifiable need’ in their respective jurisdictions.”
In short, American citizens in New Jersey – and by extension elsewhere – will continue to have their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms denied by pettifogging bureaucrats. The only silver lining: if the Supreme Court had heard the case and upheld the “justifiable need” provision based on some technicality, it might have been decades before it was reversed.
So both Jersey’s and the NYC Sullivan Law will stand as monuments to bigotry and arbitrary State authority.
New Jersey’s arbitrary “qualification” requirements sounds very much like the “voting test” that was used to prevent blacks, and presumably other groups that were being discriminated against from voting.
“New Jersey grants local officials wide leeway in determining what qualifies as a ‘justifiable need’ in their respective jurisdictions.””
Here is an example of the impossible voting test.
Can they try again? Lower courts?
Yes, but they will need a new plaintiff and a new take on the legal argument. Then the case will have to up the appellate ladder for quite some time until it reaches the Supremes again.
One theory is that SCOTUS is holding out for a Constitutional Carry case, which would make cases like these irrelevant.
That’s on par with the theory of the easter bunny.
Looks like the SCOTUS has shifted away from its former gun friendly stance. Its about to get real ugly.
Heller and McDonald were both 5-4, as are all the abortion-related cases and Windsor. We’re in the same boat as abortion and gay rights advocates — like them, gun laws are controversial and very polarizing. SCOTUS, which is as polarized as the US population, is trying to walk the line between two worlds (or I should say Kennedy is). McDonald may be as far as they go.
Indeed, Heller and McDonald only affected handgun possession at one’s residence in DC and Chicago. A carry case would affect some 80 million people currently living in may issue States, and affect their ability to carry in public. It would thus have a much, much greater impact than McDonald.
They are just part of the keys in the cog that got broke , the Supremes are supposed to interpret law not makes new laws , this is what the anti gunners will call a victory for them , if I didn’t know better I would say that all facets of government are turning against the People . God help our nation ! Be prepared and ready . Keep your powder dry .
And so continues the perpetuation of the Two Americas, one that is infringed and the other not infringed.
A house divided….
I’m amazed that you couldn’t get four of the majority from Heller to vote to hear this case. What nonsense! You have a disparity of opinion at the Circuit level and SCOTUS is going to fail to address it? They are becoming gutless wonders.
“You have a disparity of opinion at the Circuit level and SCOTUS is going to fail to address it?”
And this isn’t even a split as to the degree of infringement (i.e. 7 rounds vs. 10 rounds – but both circuits agree that a limit of some sort is fine). This was one circuit saying justifiable need is OK, and one circuit saying it’s not. Black and white. Yet SCOTUS wimps out on actually keeping their circuit courts in check.
You think they aren’t as politically aware as the USMC?
I’m inclined to think that there wasn’t a majority willing to reverse the 3d Circuit decision, and so Scalia et al decided it was safer to deny cert. Either that, or they’re waiting on what the 9th Circuit does with Peruta.
If they were just waiting, they could have kept re-listing Drake indefinitely for the next conference.
This was them saying “we don’t want to touch the RKBA with a ten foot pole”.
Yeah, that’s why I think it’s more likely that there isn’t a majority willing to find a RKBA outside the home. 🙁
I believe you are correct about Scalia. There was talks on various SCOTUS blogs that he would not allow it to go through unless there was consensus.
I am thinking this was the case as well and that Kennedy probably told them he wouldn’t change his mind no matter how long they put it off so Scalia dropped the issues so as not to get an anti 2A ruling.
I’m sure they could get 4… they didn’t want to do it without 5.
Color me surprised.
The SCOTUS is not about to say something as radical as extending the RKBA outside the home. They barely acknowledged its existence inside the home, and made it clear “longstanding regulations” would not be covered by that decision. They sure as dirt are NOT going to establish a precedent that the Constitution of the United States supersedes state regulation and statutes.
Not to be Mr Raincloud, but once Hillary modifies the bench after 2016 they’re going to set about reversing the precedent set in Heller posthaste, paving the way for the antis to roll us in the next decade. You heard it here first.
Youre more likely to see a unicorn than Hilary as the Dem nominee for Pres in 2016.
God I hope so. Really I do, please give me the reasons why she wouldn’t. Not being an ass, I’m serious, I want to know because in the media they’ve already crowned her king, and I don’t see anyone from our side that could beat her, and I seriously worry about her enforcing a total gun ban. She wants that, and isn’t afraid to start a civil war.
In her mind’s eye, because she has no concrete accomplishments there is nothing that can be held against her.
Hillary will be the nominee, and unless some extraordinary event occurs she will be President. Actuary tables show their are decent odds Obama would replace one of the five that voted for Heller, and Hillary in her first term would replace two justices that did.
People saying she won’t be the Democrat nominee are imagining their hopes, not thinking rationally.
And after winning Hillary will be much more strident — and effective — promoting gun control than Obama ever was.
I’d like to hear one of POTG law scholars chime in and weigh in if there is another angle to this. Meaning, is there a better, more sweeping case in the system that Scalia/Alito see as a down the road to take to possibly get a 6-3 decision and be more impactful.
Inteligentsia, please enlighten?
I posted upthread, but it’s possible they’re waiting on Peruta. The other possibility is that a majority of SCOTUS just isn’t willing at this time to recognize a RKBA outside the home.
We are DONE at the SC until such time as they are replaced with Americans.
I know you probably are not doing this, but it’s not fair to paint them all with the same brush. Scalia, at least, generally has his head screwed on straight.
Scalia is the most openly partisan judge on the court (with Sotomayor a close second), openly so and proud of it. He represents the worst a judge can be. Don’t let the fact that his partisanship on your side cloud your judgment on this.
He’s also quite a dick as a person, because he still believes that sodomy laws were not only constitutional, but generally a good idea.
If they affirmed that the RKBA outside the home as a right; it would make it almost impossible to pass an assault weapons/hand gun ban in the future.
These tyrants in black robes do not truly want the people to have a right like the second amendment as an un-infringed right. They want it ultimately as a privilege they can take away when convenient.
Judicial review… the new, living Constitution.
The argument that SCOTUS is waiting for the right case is looking less and less likely. At this point, it would take an unbridled optimist to remain hopeful.
An opinion posted on a shooting forum i’m on suggested maybe the court doesn’t want to have two ground breaking gun rulings both argued by the same lawyer (Gura). Don’t know if it’s right or not. But I guess anything is possible.
Called it. SCOTUS won’t touch another gun case for a very long time. Heller and MacDonald were as far as SCOTUS can go without seriously limiting government power and as we’ve seen time after time, SCOTUS’s main agenda anymore is providing legitimacy to power grabs by the government.
I’ll disagree in one respect- the post 2016 liberal bench packed by Hillary will take a gun case, to ensure that Hellers precedent is well and truly destroyed. That will clear the way for handgun bans to return, and return they will to the liberal cities fed up with having to comply with the Constitution thus far.
I agree; the USSC has consistently supported government laws increasing the control over the people, conservative or not. Just look at ObamaCare and the NDAA as only two examples among many. There was no way the court would affirm the Second amendment out side the home as a right; the government would lose to much power and control over the people.
You know there might be some major irony here. I wonder if the U.S. Supreme Court would have heard the case and found in favor of Drake had the Bundy Ranch incident never occurred. However, having seen “uppity” citizens standing up against perceived government tyranny, they decided to tip the balance of power back to government.
Possible that the BLM confrontation influenced a swing voter, like Kennedy, and Scalia et al wanted time because of this new uncertainty, but they could have still punted. Hoping Volokh will share further insight.
Remember that SCOTUS is a giant humongous crap shoot. While we wait for them to hear an outside the home 2A case, those justices ain’t getting any younger. Very easy to see any number of them die or retire. Them to be replaced by someone like Eric Holder or some other communist. We could end up with a 7 – 2 court. With the 2 being on our side. That would close down our options for several generations.
Odds always favor the house. Government is the house, hence, shall not be infringed.
Where do these ahole judges get off, and who do they think they are.They are paid US taxpayer paid for officials Required by USLaw to uphold rhe Constitution.The are not Zues and the Greek Gods s they think they are! They do not have the Right to refuse a case! They just don t want to make a decission as the Constitution would force their Hand.Arrogant Political Aholes. You can bet the Whitehouse us behind this!
The Supreme Court of the United States spends much, if not most, of its time on a task which is not delegated to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. That task is: Hearing cases wherein the constitutionality of a law or regulation is challenged. The Supreme Court’s nine Justices attempt to sort out what is, and what is not constitutional. This process is known as Judicial Review. But the states, in drafting the Constitution, did not delegate such a power to the Supreme Court, or to any branch of the government.
Since the constitution does not give this power to the court, you might wonder how it came to be that the court assumed this responsibility. The answer is that the court just started doing it and no one has put a stop to it. This assumption of power took place first in 1794 when the Supreme Court declared an act of congress to be unconstitutional, but went largely unnoticed until the landmark case of Marbury v Madison in 1803. Marbury is significant less for the issue that it settled (between Marbury and Madison) than for the fact that Chief Justice John Marshall used Marbury to provide a rationale for judicial review. Since then, the idea that the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of constitutionality issues has become so ingrained that most people incorrectly believe that the Constitution granted this power to the federal judiciary.
Who did the Constitution say gets to decide whether laws are unconstitutional?
IIRC, the linked website addresses such questions. I couldn’t formulate most answers better than the site so have a go at the link.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
10th Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Oh c’mon. There’s no TENTH amendment. Everyone knows that. But there are lots of penumbras and emanations, that’s obvious; and the commerce clause aggregation principle is right there explicit in the text of Article I, Section 8 (just take a look); and the right to free speech is all about ensuring your instant access to porn sites (read the first amendment again, you’ll see).
TT, the Constitution does not say explicitly whether any single branch gets to decide matters of constitutionality, and therefore strongly implies that no single branch gets to decide. Like many other political matters, the expectation may have been that questions of constitutionality would ultimately be settled by the people as expressed through repeated elections. Furthermore, the idea of one branch, and the least representative and responsible branch, having full and exclusive control over the Constitution, runs contrary to the very idea of popular government as embodied throughout the Constitution.
Yep, Skeptical_Realist has the correct answer, TT. It’s also towards the bottom of the first page of the linked website. The author proposes three essential questions and provides pretty good answers, IMHO, for them.
So under this framework, the legislature passing a law would be its way of saying the law is constitutional. The executive deciding whether and to what extent to enforce the law would be the executive’s way of deciding the law’s constitutionality. That sounds exactly like how things work under the Obama administration. Maybe John Marshall had it right after all.
I don’t know about that, TT. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. It appears to me like if an individual state is not granted that privilege in that respective state’s constitution then it falls to the people of that state. Here’s an idea… why don’t you go to the website and read. It’s well written but a real easy read. It’s also a short website with the main topics on the left hand side. Start from the first one. That is preferable to you commenting with all of these elementary questions.
Besides, do you support the federal government exercising power beyond the Constitution? If so then why do we even have a constitution?
So under this framework
Um, that framework is the Constitution. To what framework are you referring.
I read the website. The author advocates serious changes to the structure of the U.S. government. All of the changes are democratic (meaning power exercised directly by voters rather than through elected representatives) in nature. The Founders feared democracy as much or more than monarchy. Therefore, they set up a representative republic. I suggest that a representative republic will keep your gun rights around a lot longer than a more democratic form of government.
The system of judicial review, largely voluntarily respected by the executive and legislative branches throughout our history, has worked quite well at keeping our republic intact. Most complaints about the system really boil down to “the system is wrong when I disagree with the ruling and great when I agree with it.” Which is a very democratic point of view and ultimately quite in line with the system advocated on the website you linked to.
Thank you for reading the information at the website. However, you either misunderstood or are misrepresenting the information there. The site calls for adherence to the Constitution. It’s not suggesting changes in the structure of the legitimate federal government. Quite to the contrary, it is pointing out where the current government has deviated from it’s constitutional powers. Our federal government does not legitimately nor lawfully exist beyond powers vested in it by the Constitution. Furthermore, the site’s suggestions do not, AFAIK, suggest pure democracy to supplant our representative republic. That’s hogwash. If you read something that lead you to believe that then it’s probably from the author’s suggestions. You see, whenever any of us point out that Judicial Review is beyond the enumerated powers loaned the Supreme Court by the Constitution, practically the first thing people do is as you did here; ask how constitutional matters are to be decided. IMHO, the idea that the Supreme Court has usurped power and made, all of these many years, rulings that don’t amount to a hill of beans in our Constitutional government, unsettles people. Their knee-jerk reaction is to ask things like, “If not the Supreme Court then who?” But, for the sake of argument, let’s suppose the site advocates in its suggestions what you claim. So what? That isn’t the important part of the site. The meat is in that the Supreme Court lacks constitutional authority for Judicial Review. Suggesting what you did is deflection from the main subject.
First and foremost, one must ask them self if a federal government formed and defined by the Constitution is important to our nation. Second, one must ask them self if Judicial Review is is a power granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. These two questions must be answered before anyone can even approach what to do about it, if anything. Now, what is your answer to those two questions? Without agreement on them, further discussion is pointless.
John, your points are well-taken and, of course, correct. I suspect that TT is a Progressive (or a complacent “moderate”) who does not want to consider just how many of the Court’s decisions over the last century have undermined or simply destroyed portions of the Constitution and stolen away fundamental liberties of the people and traditional powers of the states. TT’s dismissive comment that the real concern here is only that we don’t LIKE certain decisions – not that the decisions objectively run contrary to the text and intent of the Constitution (and often the Declaration and natural rights) – indicates where he stands.
Thanks for the kind comment, MothaLova, and you are probably right about TT. When I reply to comments like TT’s, I try to bear in mind truly uninformed people who might be reading the exchange. Hopefully, someone gets the information and understands it. I didn’t know about that website until a kind commenter posted the link sometime back on TTAG. Before seeing the site, my notes were all over the place. The author has placed so much in one place that I intend on contacting him one day to ask if he needs me to contribute to the hosting costs or something.
1. The Constitution should limit the powers of the federal government.
2. The Constitution does not say who should decide whether a law is Constitutional. The Constitution intentionally left a lot of things out (what to do about slavery, the extent of the general welfare and commerce powers, etc.). The founders had to punt on lots of issues — like who would decide the constitutionality of laws — to get the thing ratified. The structure of the government was meant to be flexible.
Here is Warren Michelson’s (the author of the site John linked to) proposal for determining constitutionality:
“I envision a system much like the Initiative and Referendum mechanism used in many states. Petitioners wishing to challenge an existing federal law or regulation would collect signatures of the state’s citizens on a petition to the state legislature. The state legislature would determine the petition signature requirements. When these requirements were met, the state legislature would issue a declaration that the law or regulation had been found to be unconstitutional.”
“Additionally, the state legislature would be free to declare a federal law or regulation unconstitutional by whatever other mechanisms it adopted — a simple majority vote, for example — without receiving petitions, if it saw fit to do so. Each state is within its rights to determine for itself, by whatever mechanism(s) it chooses to employ, whether any federal enactments, laws, rules and regulations are unconstitutional.”
“When the legislatures of greater than one-fourth of all the states had found that a given law or regulation is unconstitutional, that law or regulation would be considered null and void, inasmuch as it had not passed the three-fourths test required of constitutional amendments.”
“The petition/state legislature mechanism described would return this reserved power to the states and to the people, as is required by the Constitution.”
Michelson is saying that 13 states — by legislative decree or referendum petition — should be able to get together and undo any federal law, regardless of when it was passed. That is without question a radical overhaul of our governmental structure and a much more democratic structure than we have today. It’s a democratic opt-in scheme for the federal government. If it only takes 13 states to decide a federal law is void, the federal government will cease to function. It’s an incredibly bad idea.
Just as an aside, when I say things like “the founders had to punt” I base those statements on studying the minutes of the constitutional convention and the minutes of a good number of the state’s ratification conventions, the Federalist Papers, and the individual writings of Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, George Mason, and some others. Source documents are the way to go. There is a lot of misinformation out there about the founding.
Given the failure of any other method to stop the growth of the imperialist federal behemoth, the majority of which is unconstitutional (and growing more unconstitutional by the day), we are in need of new proposals such as the one to which you object. That specific proposal would not gather much political support these days, but the goal of the author is correct: to restore republican (not democratic) government.
I am glad you have read various documents by both Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Both camps were in widespread agreement on the purposes of government, despite their differences. I recommend that you read something on the wholesale rejection of their views by the Progressives and the radical departure from popular and limited government that the Progressives brought about.
This article on the birth of the modern administrative state by scholar Ronald Pestritto is a good starting point: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/11/the-birth-of-the-administrative-state-where-it-came-from-and-what-it-means-for-limited-government.
TT, the Constitution not only limits the federal government, it actually defines it. For one thing, the Tenth Amendment says this. Our federal government can act outside of the Constitution but the fact that it acted so doesn’t make the action legitimate, no matter how long the federal government does it. The way to re-define government, adding or removing powers, is through the amendment process.
Even the Supreme Court has determined that the preamble cannot confer additional powers, BTW. 😉 Also, even the Supreme Court has, in the past, apparently agreed with my view regarding the Constitution defining federal government. Evidence of this can be seen in the bending over backwards to make so much fit the commerce clause. Why would our government do this if legislators didn’t know that they had to stick within defined powers?
Hate to say I told you so, but… Yeah, I’m not surprised at all. As a NJ resident I thought all the unconstitutional laws that NJ had in place restricting gun owners could finally be done away with, but I guess not. Then again, the court ruled before that “reasonable” restrictions by the states are fine and dandy, so there you go. Although how is this ‘justifiable need’ nonsense reasonable, I’ll never know.
Soooo… if the SCOTUS doesn’t want to do the only thing they are supposed to do, which is to enforce (and not to interpret) the Constitution, why are they even there? Just close up shop or take a never-ending golf vacation. At least I’d have more respect for them then.
Because just like the rest the government, the Supes also harbor under the illusion that what they do is some sort of useful to people. And who can blame them, with 90+% of so called “citizens” indoctrinated enough to stand around and cheer them on?
AFIAK, it’s not a power granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. We are right where Jefferson lamented we would be after Marbury v. Madison. Government has been at this game since the beginning. That was expected of government. The People are expected to keep in in check.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Generations have grown up bathed in a statist mindset. The Second Amendment makes no sense if government itself can nullify it with Supreme Court decisions.
As should always be expected when we crawl to the master’s table to beg for the scraps of our freedom.
As a people, we’ve forgotten our heritage.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
I think the conservatives on the court don’t want to risk the court upholding the law and setting a precedent. Probably a wise move. As concealed carry becomes more common and legal in more places it becomes harder and harder to keep your head buried in the sand, believing that Chicago and DC are safer than Omaha. Some things just take a generation or two.
For those of you who live in the northeast or California my only advice is move. Even if they grant you the privledge of self defense, you’re still living in a fascist state in every other sense.
Concealed carry is already shall issue in some 40 States. The holdouts won’t ever budge without a court order.
Or pitchforks and hot tar.
The concern is when it starts to go in the other direction and 40 becomes 39, then 38
I’m in Cali, and I do realize the proper way to deal with it, is simply to move.
Even in so called free states, people are still heavily restricted as to what kind of weapons they can tote around. Even in their own home. IOW, they’re still hapy to bend over and grab their ankles, letting some taxfeeder ream them raw while profusely thanking him for letting them retain a slightly larger whiff of “freedom” than the ankle grabbers across some state line.
I can see some reasonable arguments for local law enforcement not wanting to deal with the perceived fallout of anyone who wishes, to roll up and down Market Street in SF with big, beltfed guns and mortars on their trucks, but there is no reason why the Fed’s should to such an extent limit the effectiveness of the Militia. The guns protected by the 2nd were state of the art military arms of their time. It’s no different now. Nukes and WMDs perhaps reasonably excepted, as they were never really on the horizon in the 18th and early 19th century, plus aren’t really the tools of a well regulated militia to begin with.
As an aside, to prevent the most egregious violations by local strongholds, the Feds ought to clarify a certain minimum firearms “class” that anyone across the land should be able to carry anywhere, and at any time. Whether a HiCap Semi and an AR, or a single action revolver and a cowboy style levergun; something. Then let local jurisdictions sort out where on the spectrum between minimum gins and WMDs they want to position themselves.
Whelp… say goodbye to the Peruta decision, too. Now that SCOTUS has denied Drake, that’s as good upholding justifiable need. Now the en banc appeal of Peruta can commence and use the Drake cert. denial as a basis to overturn the 9th circuit ruling. That means there will no longer be a split at the circuit level, and future cases will be shut down.
Enjoy “may issue”. It’s here to stay.
A denial is not precedent.
Technically not on the Supreme level, but the 3rd court’s ruling now is precedent.
Yes, but it’s only binding precedent in the 3d Circuit.
Superior – Ralph is correct. Denying cert does not set precedent.
Here is a useful reference on SCOTUS procedures:
and the relevant explanation:
“The Supreme Court has made that point crystal clear, explaining that the “denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case.” In 1950, Justice Felix Frankfurter stated that a denial “simply means that fewer than four members of the Court deemed it desirable to review the lower court decision.… A variety of considerations underlie denials of the writ.” Indeed, some justices may disagree with a lower court ruling but nevertheless decide for other reasons that a particular case is not suitable for considering the merits of the underlying legal issue.”
False. The 7th Circuit ruled the same way as the 9th did. There’s still a split. It wouldn’t be as pronounced a split, but there’s a split nonetheless.
And all the gun owners in NJ will just roll on their backs and accept the ruling. NJ is lost, it is done. If you respect human life and freedom, moving will be the best option. That or civil disobedience. The law can’t check your pockets if you conceal well enough.
There was an armed robbery at a gas station in North Jersey not too long ago, just minutes from my house. I happened to be driving and pulled up to the pump not even 10 minutes after the robbers stole the money and fled. And that’s about the same time when the cops showed up. And as we all know, when seconds count, cops are just minutes away.
Although I was always cynical about the idiots at the SCOTUS, I was hoping that the court would take the Drake case and strike down this ‘justifiable need’ nonsense, so that next time I won’t have to worry about not braking any laws by having to leave my gun at home, but I could legally protect myself instead. No such luck though. As of now, it’s only criminals and cops (who have this nasty habit of showing up AFTER a crime has been committed) who end up armed. Everyone else is taking their chances.
That’s not fair to us. When you have the voting majority getting free things from the government, how do you think the vote’s gonna go? The guy that promises free stuff or the guy that promises to work for gun rights? The gun climate in this state isn’t a result of a lack of trying.
The Supreme Court is as chicken about guns as any court.
They are afraid we are right and will upset the apple cart too much.
Get used to it a divided country, waiting for the one side to blink then all hell will break loose.
Keep your powder dry, because SCOTUS doesn’t have the balls to uphold the 2A. Or to overturn Obamacare. At this point I don’t think they’d take a case against 4th Amendment / DHS / NSA spying.
Justice Antonin Scalia said, “No because it’s not absolute. As Ruth has said there are very few freedoms that are absolute. I mean your person is protected by the Fourth Amendment but as I pointed out when you board a plane someone can pass his hands all over your body that’s a terrible intrusion, but given the danger that it’s guarding against it’s not an unreasonable intrusion.
Couple of take aways. Since the obamacare decision, me thinks Roberts doesn’t want to be a poltically divedd court and seen as another poltical wing of government. A LOT of establishment type Repubs, the big money guys don;t like this issue. Notice how they seem to line up for the immigration reform. . .
So Roberts doesn’t want a big poltical bombshell about carrying guns outside the home in his lap to divie a court even further.
Add to it you have Ginberg and Breyer campaigning to undo Heller, they won’t take anything because even a win for them on carry means they have to at least acknowledge Heller and cement the individual right. Somehting they are loathe to do. for them it will be wait until they can reverse Heller.
This is precisely the left leaning BS I expect from these scumbags.
If a New Jersey citizen applies for a concealed carry permit and is refused despite his/her demonstration of “reasonable need” such as living in a high crime area, having been robbed several times, armed home invasions happening next door, etc. and a crime happens in which he/she is wounded or otherwise legally injured, this citizen would be able to sue the state of New Jersey for an “arbitrary and capricious” law or interpretation of the law. In that manner, the citizen/litigant would have standing to bring the suit and after a long time it would arrive at the SCOTUS. This may take years, just as the D.C. case took.
For that reason, we need motivated citizens working hard to provide open carry and free and easy concealed carry (anything short of that, should be improved, as we are working on in Louisiana).
And this just made me cranky, well more cranky than usual
Exhibit # 1,982 in support of why the courts will not save us:
The obvious solution was made available to the nation 150 years ago with the passage of the 14th Amendment, one of whose most important purposes was to protect the right of every citizen to keep and especially bear arms in light of the militias and local authorities who were unconstitutionally preventing citizens from doing so.
Congress has the authority to pass legislation guaranteeing us these rights, and the Supreme Court has nothing to say about it. The Leftist Zealots on the Court may try, and the armies of Leftist Zealots at the federal district and appellate levels surely will try, but they must be ignored. The Constitution is not the exclusive province of the courts, no matter how much they may try to usurp that power.
Correct, and that leads us back to the solution, both for 2A rights which are really the canary in the coal mine for our larger freedom from a tyrranical state-
to change the laws by changing the politicians- and that means get out the wallets, get off the sofa reading blogs, and get out the vote. We lost 2012 by the margin of conservatives who stayed home vs 2008, for whatever reason- lazyiness, distaste for a pablum RINO candidate, or the assumption that surely the moronic Empty Suit In Chief couldnt win again…
But we cant afford to be complacent, this time, and here is why we need to get off the couch, and mobilize and act as voters, to take back the Senate, and deepen majority in the House, with new blood and tune up for the biggest battle of all in 2016:
Punt again. What are these guys good for again? Oh, but thank Roberts that corporations can legally bribe politicians. Good thing they’re looking out for freedom!
Totally Chickens**t if you ask me.
Dang. I had really hoped they would hear this case. There’ll be other cases and other opportunities, but I’m not getting any younger. It feels like you’re letting them win if you move. On the other hand, you have to know when to fold. For me, I think it’s time to fold and move to PA or VA. The patriots there always need a hand and I need my freedom. Seems like a pretty good trade.
VA seems to be teetering somewhat – the NOVA influence is still strong.
I’m disappointed but not surprised. IMO, SCOTUS just doesn’t want any new 2A cases.
My guess is that in the discussions Scalia couldn’t get Kennedy to agree to uphold the “bear” portion of the right, and therefore didn’t see the point of hearing the case only to risk setting the wrong precedent.
That said, upholding the RKBA in its entirety should be a no-brainer, even for a Supreme Court justice. It shows you just how far we have descended when the majority of the legal class in this country is so opposed to upholding the Constitution rather than imposing their Leftism onto the Constitution.
I suspect that you are right. But I think instead of outright dismissal by refusal to hear, the USSC may just feel it’s more prudent to wait and see how the Districts each handle the mess.
That’s unless an absolute ironclad blockbuster of a case surfaces before the court; say, a completely capricious and vindictive case of license refusal after, for example, a shooting AFTER the victim had been previously rejected for a permit for “lack of a clear and compelling need.”
Scalia, Alito, and Thomas wisely dont want any more 5-4 landmark cases that can be reversed when Ginsberg retires a month before the elections if its going badly,
so Obama and the Democratic Senate can abuse the Nuke Option to install the next unqualified nitwit,
whatever token diversity flavor of the month he hasn’t covered yet…
he’ll have to have DOJ invent a new victimhood category- maybe get a twofer:
Rehabilitated Workplace Violencers and Genital Mutilators for Healthy Food Choices?
Mommies Demanding Immigration Action?
whatever…PS: I dont include Roberts that spineless spit spit spit…
So in Heller, the court held that you have a right to defend yourself in your home, but in this case you don’t have a right to defend yourself outside the home. well, that’s pretty clear. “Supreme Court Says Never Leave the House”
Well, they all have weapons at home, don’t they?
I think they are waiting to see what California does in Peruta. Reason being is you have different standards applying across the state, county by county, vs an entire state like NJ. Plus, given how liberal California and the 9th circuit are, if the “most attractive AG in the country” pushes the issue, then it would be better to have had the ruling appealed be written by the 9th rather than the 3rd. Just my thoughts.
Had Drake gone against the antis, I doubt Peruta would have gone past the 9th -either way. Pro 2A can’t appeal a win and antis wouldn’t risk it. After Drake though, does that pretty much mean any Peruta decision will be appealed to the USSC? Is there reason to consider Peruta a better case for 2A from the courts perspective?
It’s going to depend heavily on how Peruta shakes out procedurally. The San Diego County sheriff (the losing party at the 3-judge panel) does not seem at all interested in appealing. He made it clear he wasn’t going to seek an en banc review. Hence the State’s motion to intervene, as well as the Brady Campaign’s motion to intervene. I don’t see the Brady Bunch’s motion being granted, but there’s a possibility the State’s motion will be granted – if CTA9 doesn’t find that the case is moot because of the sheriff’s acquiescence with the ruling. (Latest development: CTA9 has ordered the sheriff to indicate what his stance is on the motions to intervene and whether he thinks the case is moot. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000722)
Teal deer: If CTA9 says the case is moot, no appeals. If CTA9 says it isn’t moot and grants the State’s motion to intervene, the case stays alive.
There are two major potential hurdles in Peruta as Wendy touched upon. First of all, the 9th Circuit could decide internally on an en banc review. If they choose an en banc review and overturn the decision, then Peruta could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Second, no one currently has legal standing to appeal the 9th Circuit’s decision other than the San Diego County Sheriff — and the San Diego County Sheriff has already indicated that they do not intend to appeal.
Don’t rule anything out at this point.
1. Sheriff Gore ignored the 9th courts instructions to respond to AG Harris petition to intervene,the first time, and only a day after deadline, did the
2. Sheriff instruct his lawyer to write back, BUT,
3. it was a “non-answer”: “my client wont let me answer”..
4. Some concluded that Sheriff Gore was hiding under a rock, on an abundance of caution, given he has an election coming up in June, and that the County Board of Supervisors have indicated publicly its time to move on, ie they don’t want any more taxpayer money wasted on this…
5. Maybe the Hero of Ruby Ridge was heaving a vast sigh of relief, hoping the 9th would just let him off the hook.
HOWEVER, some less idealistic observers wondered- in this small small town that San Diego is…
6. If Gore was playing a deeper game- by stepping back, he was giving more credence to the CA AG Harris’ technically incorrect but debatable assertion she was in charge of ALL Sheriffs and
7. By Gore refusing to give an answer, either way, then that put it back on the 9th,
to make the decision to simply deny intervenor, and thus put this charade to bed, without giving her the chance to kick this embarrassment up to SCOTUS. Remember, Peruta is settled law, published, as returned and remanded to the lower court, and its precedential, now, with the mandate on including good cause for CCW only stayed until the AGs petition is decided.
8. Remember that AG Harris doesn’t have REALLY have a case, which is why she dodged getting involved the first time when invited. She doesnt REALLY really have a case now, nor any good reason to intervene, despite a technical loophole, that Peruta’s lawyers generously chose not to contest.
9. Some opined that the 9th, by taking the reasonable time to consider her petition, could get a smoke signal from SCOTUS on Drake, which would also politely signal the one or two potential loose screws among progtard contingent, like the sole dissenter in Peruta, and their fanatical supporters in the the Peoples Republic of Kali, and at the WH, desperate for a win on gun grabbing, that repeating the lame argument that the Heller case law, and masterful presentation by Gura, set up for the impressive legal writing and potentially landmark opinion by O’Scanllion, simply would make the 9th look even more foolish, and lose in the end anyway.
Except Justice Kennedy, who oversees the 9th, apparently isnt playing along…and the smoke signal on Drake is that the wind is blowing uncertain…
So… think of the huge money invested by the Left, and the PR on this, and collusion with Moms and War on Women messaging…the segment they are losing for good, and desperate to avoid talking about ANYTHING to do with jobs, economy, ACA, NSA spying on citizens, IRS voter suppression, Left Behind in Benghazi, ah… you know what I mean.
and dont forget just how Corrupt things are in San Fran and San Francisco— remember who got the #3 job in DOJ for raising campaign money in SF in 2012?
And have we so quickly forgotten Uncle Leland?
And now let us turn our attention on the signals in the small small town of San Diego for the local elected LEO races…and follow the money…
Mark N, anyone- want to take the next part?
Isn’t NJ the residence of that A##-HAT Chris Christie who wants to represent the Republicans in 2016? Just MAKE A HUGE MENTAL NOTE FOLKS!
Gun rights are won and lost at the ballot box. Too many gun owners think of the Constitution like it’s some kind of Santa Claus or Easter Bunny. McDonald and Heller were lucky aberrations. The Supreme Court has only heard (I think) seven Second Amendment cases in its history. Five of those limited gun rights. The Supreme Court is and has always been a highly political animal, despite its claims to the contrary. The people who pass laws and appoint judges are the important ones.
No, not like some sort of Santa Claus or Easter Bunny, the Constitution defines government. Any government action outside of that definition is illegitimate government. Voting has only gone so far and usurpation of power has gone farther. At some point, the People must decide if they wish to remain in a free nation or not.
Too many people think of government and the Constitution as some sort of rights dispensing bubble gum machine. Rights do not come from government. Government cannot confer or take away that which it does not posses.
You left “should” out of your first sentence. The sentence is accurate if it reads “. . . the Constitution should define government.” There’s a big difference between “should” and “does” and even more difference between “I believe it should” and “does.”
The Constitution does not define government and has not since darn near the beginning of the country. While that’s too bad, it’s the real world.
The real world also includes a Supreme Court whose opinions follow popular sentiment (regardless of whether they should), demographic trends that are likely to increase the raw number of those who are unlikely to support gun rights compared to those who are likely to support gun rights, an electoral college that has flipped to favoring the Democrat party, and a constitutional system where the president appoints Supreme Court judges. More gun owners should confront these realities, think about what they mean for the best ways to preserve gun rights, and stop quoting “shall not be infringed” to each other like it’s part of a magic spell.
No, my statement is correct as written. Our federal government is defined by the Constitution. Any part of it outside of those powers granted it by that document is called tyranny. It’s illegitimate, invalid, and null on its face.
Unfortunately for our Republic, there are those that don’t understand that legitimate government doesn’t exist beyond the narrow definitions in our constitutions. We will never have a restored nation as long as those who think as you do have any major influence. You’ve lost the fight before you even began it. You’re an appeaser and statist trying to cover your fear by calling it reality. Between your type and the extreme liberal, this country is bound for either bloody confrontation or despotic, horrible tyranny.
By the way, shall not be infringed!
What do you do to resist the tyranny that is imposed on you?
In this day and age, how could someone prudently answer such a question in a public venue?
This, again, and again, This.
If too many of us POTG, conservative, independent, libertarians- anyone who believes in freedom from an overwhelming State, dont step up to the plate in these elections, and go full out 200% to support the candidate with the R, or I, doesnt matter if he/she is imperfect,
only that we beat the D, then it will be no one’s fault but our own:
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
― Samuel Adams
At the ballot box, you don’t vote pro-2A or anti-2A. You vote for bundles of rights upheld and rights taken away from you, and you only have two to choose from (or so you’re told).
I also think they are waiting for California. No sense leaving any loose ends.
I would like to agree… Like they say- “percolating up from state courts”.
And if Peruta is denied en banc? Then it is impossible for it to be heard at the SCOTUS level. It would be foolish to wait for the ninth when their decision may never have the chance to be heard by the SCOTUS.
This is just pure chickenshit. Our rights are a very dangerous game to be playing with. Just ask the BLM.
“He Survived The Nazis, He Had Endured Unspeakable Horrors. He Was Robbed and Beaten To Death On The Streets Of Jersey City New Jersey, He was 75 Years Old And Died From Head Trauma, this is what happens when the people are NOT ALLOWED to defend themselves. Jersey City New Jersey does not allow concealed carry. The people cannot defend themselves, my father Wasyl Wladylo was 75 years old.