US Supreme Court - "NJ Concealed carry - denial certiori"

[GeneCC]

The United States Supreme Court said on Monday morning it will not consider a case that would define rights related to concealed gun permits in New Jersey and potentially across the country.

The denial was first reported by SCOTUSblog, which received a printed version of the court orders before they were posted online. (At 9:50 am ET, the Court’s official orders were posted on its website.)

The case of Drake v. Jerejian was heard in private conference by the nine Justices recently. Orders were issued today and the Drake case was listed among those cases denied by the Court.

A petition was filed with the Court in January 2014. The petitioners, led by attorney Alan Gura, wanted answers to two questions: whether the Second Amendment secures a right to carry handguns outside of the home for self-defense and if New Jersey officials violated that right by requiring people to prove a “justifiable need” for carrying a handgun for self-defense outside their homes.

Gura argued that four federal district courts, along with several state supreme courts, have ruled that the Second Amendment extends the right to carry handguns to outside of the home for self-defense, while several other federal courts have disagreed.

The Third Circuit was among the courts that decided self-defense rights were restricted to inside the home, and it upheld New Jersey’s “justifiable need” law.

Gura said the state’s handgun laws are so restrictive that “few ordinary people can hope to obtain” a permit.

In response, the state has argued that a federal district court and the Third Circuit stated that “[i]t remains unsettled whether the individual right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense extends beyond the home.” The state also argued that the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller allowed New Jersey to have restrictive gun permitting laws under language from the Court’s decision about licensing provisions.

In late February, the Justices denied petitions for certiorari for three other Second Amendment cases: NRA v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms , NRA v. McCraw and Lane v. Holder.

In NRA v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and NRA v. McCraw, the National Rifle Association wanted the Court to address the Second Amendment right to bear arms in public, including the rights of some people under the age of 21.

Lane v. Holder focused on the constitutionality of laws regulating the sale of firearms.

Since the Supreme Court issued its ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010, it hasn’t accepted new cases about the rights of gun owners. The McDonald case extended the decision in the 2008 Heller decisions to the states.

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-...-politics.html

[GeneCC]

Bears repeating.....

Anyone who thinks that the US Supreme Court is going to legislate from the bench is dreaming.

I do NOT know why these nine characters refused to rule on this case.

I do know that relying upon them to "protect our rights" is futile.

We are on our own. To hang together or to hang separately.

[LTCcarrier]

Very disappointing. The most clearly wriiten Amendment is the 2nd. And they will not even hear the case.

[Pilot321]

Well IL got concealed carry, so why can't NJ using Miller, and Heller decisions?

[PSUWaz00]

Well IL got concealed carry, so why can't NJ using Miller, and Heller decisions?

IANAL, but NJ "technically" has CCW, unlike an outright ban like IL did. But as we all know, the average joe isn't getting a CCW there. However, by the letter of the law, they do have it, so you can't argue against that. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

[Pilot321]

IANAL, but NJ "technically" has CCW, unlike an outright ban like IL did. But as we all know, the average joe isn't getting a CCW there. However, by the letter of the law, they do have it, so you can't argue against that. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

That could be, but I believe IL is now "shall issue", and people are actually getting their CCW's, so I am wondering why they just didn't do what NJ does if that is a way to get around the laws.

[American1776]

That could be, but I believe IL is now "shall issue", and people are actually getting their CCW's, so I am wondering why they just didn't do what NJ does if that is a way to get around the laws.

I thought about this as well. I THINK that there are a few differences between IL and NJ.

IL as a state is in the mid-west, and the general attitudes concerning the 2nd Amendment there is MUCH different then the general attitudes in the Northeast, particularly NJ and NY.

Also, a lower court ruled against IL, and IL decided to go shall issue. Chicago was probably the only real dissent on this, and they didn't get their way.

In NJ's case, the lower court there ruled in favor of NJ, which prompted Alan Gura to petition the SCOTUS. Had the lower court rule against NJ, we can bet our bottom dollar that NJ would have appealed to the SCOTUS.

Bottom line: NJ and NY are STAUNCHLY against the 2nd Amendment, while in IL, many there were pro-2nd Amendment, with Chicago being their only pain in their ass.

[Pilot321]

^^^^^ Interesting analysis. That sounds plausible. Thanks.

So it seems the lower courts really call the shots, and if they are largely anti 2A the state is screwed.

Still, the Supreme Court should be motivated to enforce the 2A, as well as precedent from other case law when there are obvious violations, like in NJ.

[GeneCC]

I think after we settle things here in PA this fall that we need to give NJ residents a helping hand. Lead and finance groups to lighten restrictions on their rights.

Slavery, Jim Crow, Prohibition - lots of bad stuff came to an end. We don't need a Civil War to reduce Gun Control. We just have to get to work.


After we secure Pennsylvania first..... Charity begins at home.

[gator39]

I don't have time to research it right now, but there was another case that I think was decided by US supreme court dealing with the very issue of the right to keep and bear outside the immediate residence for self defense.
Had to do with people living in federal housing.
It was very positive but I cant remember all the details and it may have even been a circuit court but it allowed that self defense did extend outside the home.
It could be because of this ruling that might be flying under the radar that they feel it has been settled.
Or my wishful thinking and feeble memory are failing me!

When I have time I will try to find it.