SCOTUS Denies Cert In Concealed Carry Case
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > SCOTUS Denies Cert In Concealed Carry Case

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-05-2014, 05:43 PM   #1
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SW OK
Posts: 4,827
Liked 2421 Times on 1324 Posts
Likes Given: 3862

Default SCOTUS Denies Cert In Concealed Carry Case

SCOTUS has declined to hear an appeal of Drake vs Jerejian. Subject was New Jersey "may issue" concealed carry. The federal appeals court upheld the unfair NJ permit system: SCOTUS let that law stand.

Quote:
One of the litigants, John Drake, runs a business that services and restocks bank ATM machines. The work requires that he carry and handle large amounts of cash. His application for a gun permit was denied because he failed to demonstrate a “justifiable need” for a firearm.

Another litigant, Finley Fenton, is a reserve sheriff’s deputy who wanted to carry a firearm while off duty for protection from criminals with whom he interacts while on duty. His application was denied for failure to demonstrate a “justifiable need.”

In dismissing their lawsuit, the federal judge declared that there is no Second Amendment right to carry a handgun outside the home.

A divided panel of the Philiadelphia-based Third US Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.
There is a federal appeals court split: Different rules for folks under the jurisdiction of other federal appeals courts:

Quote:
The Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Seventh Circuits and the supreme courts of Illinois, Idaho, Oregon, and Georgia have held or assumed that the Second Amendment includes a right to carry a handgun outside the home for self defense, Mr. Gura said.

He added that the highest courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia had embraced the more restrictive view upheld by the Third Circuit in the New Jersey case.

“No serious person believes that people in New Jersey today enjoy their right to ‘bear arms’ – defined by this court as ‘carrying [arms] for a particular purpose – confrontation,' ” Gura wrote in his brief.

“Even the [Third Circuit] majority below found that New Jersey’s ‘justifiable need’ requirement is incompatible with a right to carry defensive handguns,” he said. “It thus held – exactly backwards – that the requirement’s adoption defeats an understanding that the Second Amendment secures that right.”




http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0505/Strict-N.J.-rule-on-gun-permits-stands-as-Supreme-Court-refuses-case
alsaqr is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 05-05-2014, 07:51 PM   #2
Lifetime Supporting Member
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
7point62's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Decisive Terrain
Posts: 2,100
Liked 1447 Times on 731 Posts
Likes Given: 1062

Default

The Supremes were afraid to take the case. Gutless bastards. So New Jersey's Nazi gun laws stand.
__________________
Hijo de mala leche
7point62 is offline  
alsaqr Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2014, 10:04 PM   #3
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,761
Liked 1374 Times on 739 Posts
Likes Given: 780

Default

Lots of speculation as to why, but rest assured Peruta V San Diego has something to do with it, whether good or bad.

At present Peruta is going round and round with Sheriff Gore and a possible en-banc review.

As it looks right now, Peruta may also die without SC review. That leaves an unprecedented Circuit Split.

Not looking good folk, not looking good.

A Prime example that elections do have consequences.
mseric is offline  
Cnon Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2014, 12:13 AM   #4
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SW OK
Posts: 4,827
Liked 2421 Times on 1324 Posts
Likes Given: 3862

Default

The SCOTUS delayed this one a few times. It requires four justices to grant cert. The fact that four did not sign on tells us something: The SCOTUS may be done with the right to bear arms.
alsaqr is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2014, 12:51 AM   #5
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,007
Liked 352 Times on 258 Posts
Likes Given: 358

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mseric View Post
Lots of speculation as to why, but rest assured Peruta V San Diego has something to do with it, whether good or bad.

At present Peruta is going round and round with Sheriff Gore and a possible en-banc review.

As it looks right now, Peruta may also die without SC review. That leaves an unprecedented Circuit Split.

Not looking good folk, not looking good.

A Prime example that elections do have consequences.
Peruta on appeal ruled in favor of the gun owner.

So if Peruta stands without SCOTUS review as currently constituted, then that would be a good thing in California.

It all depends on whether the full en banc CCA-9 court leaves it as it now stands or reverses it.
Shoobee is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2014, 12:53 AM   #6
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,007
Liked 352 Times on 258 Posts
Likes Given: 358

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alsaqr View Post
SCOTUS has declined to hear an appeal of Drake vs Jerejian. Subject was New Jersey "may issue" concealed carry. The federal appeals court upheld the unfair NJ permit system: SCOTUS let that law stand.



There is a federal appeals court split: Different rules for folks under the jurisdiction of other federal appeals courts:







http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0505/Strict-N.J.-rule-on-gun-permits-stands-as-Supreme-Court-refuses-case
Thanks for the update on Drake.
Shoobee is offline  
alsaqr Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2014, 01:03 PM   #7
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,761
Liked 1374 Times on 739 Posts
Likes Given: 780

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoobee View Post
Peruta on appeal ruled in favor of the gun owner.

So if Peruta stands without SCOTUS review as currently constituted, then that would be a good thing in California.

It all depends on whether the full en banc CCA-9 court leaves it as it now stands or reverses it.
Yes, but from what I have read, Peruta is still not final as there is a stay on the ruling.

If the en-banc panel overturns, then off to the SC for review. If the en-banc panel upholds the ruling, then off to the SC for review.

If Peruta is upheld, then there would be a clear circuit split and the SC might just have to review to clarify. If Peruta is overturned, there will be no circuit split and they will most likely deny review.
mseric is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2014, 02:19 PM   #8
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
locutus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 10,864
Liked 7193 Times on 3982 Posts
Likes Given: 6949

Default

This court doesn't want another gun case. However, with two opposing circuit court rulings they will eventually have no choice.

That makes it even more important that we stop Hillary in 2016. The next president will probably have the opportunity to appoint 2 or even 3 justices.

I'll do everything I can to make sure that president isn't Hillary. Even if I have to vote for Walter Mitty or Casper Milquetoast.
__________________
For those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know

“There aren't any great men. There are just great challenges that ordinary men like you and me are forced by circumstances to meet.”http://thinkexist.com/i/sq/as0.gif Admiral William Frederick Halsey Jr. (Bull) quote

locutus is offline  
TDS92A Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2014, 02:35 PM   #9
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,761
Liked 1374 Times on 739 Posts
Likes Given: 780

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by locutus View Post
This court doesn't want another gun case. However, with two opposing circuit court rulings they will eventually have no choice.

That makes it even more important that we stop Hillary in 2016. The next president will probably have the opportunity to appoint 2 or even 3 justices.

I'll do everything I can to make sure that president isn't Hillary. Even if I have to vote for Walter Mitty or Casper Milquetoast.
Sadly you are becoming more of a minority than a majority. It is clear that more and more Gun Owners are either going to vote Democrat funded third party spoiler (L) or stay home in protest on election day, thus handing the WH, the Senate and the House to the Democrats.
mseric is offline  
locutus Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2014, 03:35 PM   #10
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Detroit,mi
Posts: 3,406
Liked 1293 Times on 767 Posts
Likes Given: 246

Default

The most important thing we as 2A advocates can do is make sure the senate flips to R with a House R super majority. Then I would want a D president.
partdeux is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
SCOTUS Rules On Domestic Violence Case alsaqr Legal and Activism 9 03-29-2014 02:33 PM
2A Amicus brief on HB2 / Open Carry Case - Forming MS Carry. StogieC Mississippi Gun Forum 1 07-26-2013 10:42 PM
1st Amendment dealt blow in MI, SCOTUS case in the future? BigByrd47119 Politics, Religion and Controversy 13 05-22-2013 02:45 AM
SCOTUS passes on Gun Rights Case danf_fl Legal and Activism 0 04-15-2013 05:47 PM
SCOTUS to take another gun case Yunus Politics, Religion and Controversy 5 10-02-2009 10:32 AM