kevinmcc Posted March 17, 2014 at 05:40 PM Share Posted March 17, 2014 at 05:40 PM Should keep an eye on this case. Issue: (1) Whether the Second Amendment secures a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense; and (2) whether state officials violate the Second Amendment by requiring that individuals wishing to exercise their right to carry a handgun for self-defense first prove a “justifiable need” for doing so. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/drake-v-jerejian/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmyers Posted March 17, 2014 at 06:11 PM Share Posted March 17, 2014 at 06:11 PM Interesting, I thought that SCOTUS had passed on all the gun cases for this session, but then again I can't keep up nor figure out what the courts are doing half the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miztic Posted March 17, 2014 at 06:24 PM Share Posted March 17, 2014 at 06:24 PM I don't know much about the plaintiff, hope it's a good guy like McDonald or Mary Shepard, maybe the SCOTUS will take this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted March 17, 2014 at 10:17 PM Share Posted March 17, 2014 at 10:17 PM Already being discussed here: http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=40261 Drake is still the plaintiff, but Jerejian has been substituted for Filko. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted March 18, 2014 at 01:13 AM Share Posted March 18, 2014 at 01:13 AM Seems to me that if someone is being sued in their official capacity it should be the job title not their name. This would eliminate the confusion generated when the officer leaves office, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted March 18, 2014 at 02:19 AM Share Posted March 18, 2014 at 02:19 AM Drake carries thousands of dollars in cash around, restocking ATMs. He does not have a justifiable need to carry a handgun for self protection. Another petitioner is a reserve Sheriff's Deputy in, erm I dunno, and Maenza denied his application because he doesn't have a justifiable need to carry a handgun for self protection when he's off the clock since...well, he's "reserve" not active...pfft. The former lead plaintiff was very likely issued a permit to get his name off the docket, it makes the "justifiable need" denial policy look at lot worse when victims of violent crime are told they don't have a "justifiable need" to carry a gun. Certainly not someone who was threatened by terrorists either. Mueller, the lead plaintiff prior to being issued a permit, was kidnapped by a biker gang and they threatened to kill him numerous times because they thought he was someone else. He originally did not have a justifiable need, until a superior court judge decided that he does have justifiable need. Another former plaintiff is a civilian FBI employee who was denied a permit despite multiple and specific threats made against his life by a radical Islamic terrorist group. He's off the docket because he was issued a LEOSA permit (the two most compelling cases go figure!) after retiring from the USCG. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
777GSOTB Posted March 22, 2014 at 11:15 PM Share Posted March 22, 2014 at 11:15 PM I don't know much about the plaintiff, hope it's a good guy like McDonald or Mary Shepard, maybe the SCOTUS will take this one. Being a good person has nothing to do with whether they accept a case or not. The case should meet the 10 conditions laid out in this case...ASHWANDER v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288 (1936), before they accept it for certiorari. Ernesto Miranda kidnapped and raped someone...The decision of his case requires the police to give " Miranda Warnings " when one is placed under arrest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
777GSOTB Posted March 22, 2014 at 11:41 PM Share Posted March 22, 2014 at 11:41 PM (edited) I'd be surprised if they take this case as it involves a concealed carry license. I'm thinking they will take the Embody v Cooper case now sitting at the door of the US Supreme Court....Amazing how there is no mention of this in all the major gun rags....Guy takes his case, pro se, all the way to the Supreme Court and nothing....Oh, wait,....It's an open carry case, no wonder.....The NRA, SAF, Alan Gura and company think the right protects concealed carry with the prerequisite of a license. Every case they have brought up to the SCOTUS involved concealed/licensed carrry even though Scalia cited this case in Heller v DC.... Robertson v Baldwin 165 U.S. 275 (1897) " .....the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;.." Here's a case on taxing/licensing a right: U.S. Supreme Court319 U.S. 105 (1943)MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and seven other cases, including JONES v. CITY OF OPELIKA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) "It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant [319 U.S. 105, 113] if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax – a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution." "The tax imposed by the City of Jeannette is a flat license tax, the payment of which is a condition of the exercise of these constitutional privileges. The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment." Edited March 22, 2014 at 11:56 PM by 777GSOTB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango7 Posted March 23, 2014 at 12:52 AM Share Posted March 23, 2014 at 12:52 AM Love to see this in the future: "It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant [319 U.S. 105, 113] if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax - a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution." "The fee imposed by the State of Illinois is a flat license tax, the payment of which is a condition of the exercise of these constitutional privileges and well in excess of the costs of administering the program in a manner consistent with public safety. The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
777GSOTB Posted March 23, 2014 at 01:16 AM Share Posted March 23, 2014 at 01:16 AM Love to see this in the future: "It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant [319 U.S. 105, 113] if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax - a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution." "The fee imposed by the State of Illinois is a flat license tax, the payment of which is a condition of the exercise of these constitutional privileges and well in excess of the costs of administering the program in a manner consistent with public safety. The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment." You never will unless they argue that position and the gun groups don't seem to want to. You have to understand that when rights are involved, the government must use the least restrictive means to accomplish their compelling interest to restrict the right. They can issue a Certificate Of Competence in place of a license for the safety of the public if the courts side with that state interest. Anyone subscribing to licensing(contract) is acquiescing to all future regulations placed upon the holder....Such as Firearm Carry Insurance when they get around to implimenting that. Bouvier's Law Dictionary....The legal definition of a license: LICENSE, contracts. A right given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal. The instrument or writing which secures this right, is also called a license. Vide Ayl. Parerg, 353; 15 Vin. Ab. 92; Ang. Wat. Co. 61, 85. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan_j Posted April 2, 2014 at 06:52 PM Share Posted April 2, 2014 at 06:52 PM Reply brief filed. Read it. It will be sure to brighten your day. Drake v Jerejian Reply to NJ.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted April 2, 2014 at 06:59 PM Share Posted April 2, 2014 at 06:59 PM I always love reading these things. It's a right and we won't deny it to you if you have a true need for it. It's not our fault that only 0.02% have a real need for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted April 2, 2014 at 08:34 PM Share Posted April 2, 2014 at 08:34 PM Wow, Gura drafted this. Jensen wouldn't use this kind of...stern, borderline offensive language. Seems like Gura is fed up with SCOTUS passing on cases (obviously if anyone read the cert petition).... "No serious person believes that people in NewJersey today enjoy their right to “bear arms” – definedby this Court as “carrying [arms] for a particularpurpose – confrontation.” District of Columbia v.Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 584 (2008). Even the majoritybelow found that New Jersey’s “justifiable need”requirement is incompatible with a right to carrydefensive handguns. It thus held – exactly backwards– that the requirement’s adoption defeats an understandingthat the Second Amendment secures thatright." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solareclipse2 Posted April 2, 2014 at 09:22 PM Share Posted April 2, 2014 at 09:22 PM I always love reading these things. It's a right and we won't deny it to you if you have a true need for it. It's not our fault that only 0.02% have a real need for it. That right there is clown shoes. Absolutely ridiculous. It boggles my mind how they equate "right" with "need". You have a right to something, absolutely all the time whether you have a need for it or not. Wow, Gura drafted this. Jensen wouldn't use this kind of...stern, borderline offensive language. Seems like Gura is fed up with SCOTUS passing on cases (obviously if anyone read the cert petition).... "No serious person believes that people in NewJersey today enjoy their right to “bear arms” – definedby this Court as “carrying [arms] for a particularpurpose – confrontation.” District of Columbia v.Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 584 (2008). Even the majoritybelow found that New Jersey’s “justifiable need”requirement is incompatible with a right to carrydefensive handguns. It thus held – exactly backwards– that the requirement’s adoption defeats an understandingthat the Second Amendment secures thatright." That's pretty bold, flat out saying NJ has it back-arsewards in an opinion. He's not wrong, and it's funny but it's probably going to draw some attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted April 2, 2014 at 10:34 PM Share Posted April 2, 2014 at 10:34 PM Gura's frustration is in full bloom. His reply brief in Woollard was pretty stern but when SCOTUS denied cert in Woollard I think he lost it. The Drake cert petition is just like the reply brief. Goading SCOTUS to take the case, the good old "What's it gonna take? How far are you going to allow this to go before you do something?" Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan_j Posted April 3, 2014 at 12:14 AM Share Posted April 3, 2014 at 12:14 AM Gura's frustration is in full bloom. His reply brief in Woollard was pretty stern but when SCOTUS denied cert in Woollard I think he lost it. The Drake cert petition is just like the reply brief. Goading SCOTUS to take the case, the good old "What's it gonna take? How far are you going to allow this to go before you do something?" Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2 Pretty much. I think he thought it would have been resolved by now but they keep passing on cases. With the split with the 9th it is going to be VERY interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted April 3, 2014 at 04:49 PM Share Posted April 3, 2014 at 04:49 PM I love the 'Questions Presented' page of the CATO brief... or Was this Court serious in District of Columbia v. Heller when it ruled that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted April 3, 2014 at 05:44 PM Share Posted April 3, 2014 at 05:44 PM Oh wow and I thought Gura's briefs were in-your-face. CATO basically told SCOTUS to put its money where its mouth is and hear the case. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockerXX Posted April 3, 2014 at 07:36 PM Share Posted April 3, 2014 at 07:36 PM Oh wow and I thought Gura's briefs were in-your-face. CATO basically told SCOTUS to put its money where its mouth is and hear the case. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2Yep, I really wish the SCOTUS would stop playing the politically correct "We don't want to send the controversial wave across the US" game and put an end to several of the hot topics of today that are being fought over and over again in multiple states... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted April 3, 2014 at 10:04 PM Share Posted April 3, 2014 at 10:04 PM Oh wow and I thought Gura's briefs were in-your-face. CATO basically told SCOTUS to put its money where its mouth is and hear the case. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2 They did indeed - more that once in their brief. I also love how they call out the responds brief with 'FALSE' in response to their claim of a precedent, when they actually quoted dissent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted April 3, 2014 at 10:37 PM Share Posted April 3, 2014 at 10:37 PM I like how they put "intermediate" and "scrutiny" in scare quotes, because it was anything but that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan_j Posted April 4, 2014 at 08:09 PM Share Posted April 4, 2014 at 08:09 PM It was rational basis disguised as intermediate scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colt-45 Posted April 4, 2014 at 08:34 PM Share Posted April 4, 2014 at 08:34 PM So we lost this one going toSCOTUS to than? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghk012 Posted April 4, 2014 at 09:20 PM Share Posted April 4, 2014 at 09:20 PM When does SCOTUS review Drake and determine if they will "take up" the case. Does anyone have the CATO argument. Gura's was a blast to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted April 4, 2014 at 09:45 PM Share Posted April 4, 2014 at 09:45 PM (edited) Everything you need is at the link OP posted.. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/drake-v-jerejian/ Conference is schedule for April 18th. Many times cases get punted to later conference, but its possible we will find out the decision to take or deny on April 21. Edited April 4, 2014 at 09:45 PM by RoadyRunner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted April 4, 2014 at 09:51 PM Share Posted April 4, 2014 at 09:51 PM Here is the direct link but ya SCOTUSblog has all briefs. http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/13-827-tsac-Cato-Institute-et-al.pdf Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted April 19, 2014 at 04:41 PM Share Posted April 19, 2014 at 04:41 PM I thought there was a chance we might hear something yesterday, but no dice. The suspense resumes on Monday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted April 20, 2014 at 01:58 PM Share Posted April 20, 2014 at 01:58 PM I had a dream this morning that Drake got denied for cert. I woke up thinking how ridiculous the court was being and that this crap needs to stop. Then I realized it was still Sunday. Stressed much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobPistol Posted April 20, 2014 at 03:27 PM Share Posted April 20, 2014 at 03:27 PM Wow. I'm wondering if SCOTUS will deny cert to give a slap in the face of Gura. "How dare you smart off to us! We da boss here!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted April 20, 2014 at 04:52 PM Share Posted April 20, 2014 at 04:52 PM I thought there was a chance we might hear something yesterday, but no dice. The suspense resumes on Monday. Petitions get (privately) discussed by the Justices and a decision is made on Fridays (during their conferences), and the decisions made at conference are released the following Monday. SCOTUSblog will live blog the opinions being read. Not all petitions on the docket for a conference actually get decisions though - some get relisted for future conferences, often if more info is sought. Rarely, the court publishes a decision while the conference is going on. This is very rare though...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now