Drake v. Jerejian

[kevinmcc]

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/

[bmyers]

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.

 

 

[miztic]

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.

[press1280]

Already being discussed here: http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=40261

 

Drake is still the plaintiff, but Jerejian has been substituted for Filko.

[Federal Farmer]

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.

[skinnyb82]

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

 

 

[777GSOTB]

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.

[777GSOTB]

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 Court

319 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

[Tango7]

 

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."

[777GSOTB]

 

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.

[ryan_j]

Reply brief filed.

 

Read it. It will be sure to brighten your day.

Drake v Jerejian Reply to NJ.pdf

[TyGuy]

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.

[skinnyb82]

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 New
Jersey today enjoy their right to “bear arms” – defined
by this Court as “carrying [arms] for a particular
purpose – confrontation.” District of Columbia v.
Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 584 (2008). Even the majority
below found that New Jersey’s “justifiable need”
requirement is incompatible with a right to carry
defensive handguns. It thus held – exactly backwards
– that the requirement’s adoption defeats an understanding
that the Second Amendment secures that
right."

[solareclipse2]

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 New

Jersey today enjoy their right to “bear arms” – defined

by this Court as “carrying [arms] for a particular

purpose – confrontation.” District of Columbia v.

Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 584 (2008). Even the majority

below found that New Jersey’s “justifiable need”

requirement is incompatible with a right to carry

defensive handguns. It thus held – exactly backwards

– that the requirement’s adoption defeats an understanding

that the Second Amendment secures that

right."

 

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.

[skinnyb82]

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

 

 

[ryan_j]

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.

[RoadyRunner]

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?

[skinnyb82]

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

 

 

[RockerXX]

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

Yep, 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...

[RoadyRunner]

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.

[chislinger]

I like how they put "intermediate" and "scrutiny" in scare quotes, because it was anything but that.

[ryan_j]

It was rational basis disguised as intermediate scrutiny.

[colt-45]

So we lost this one going toSCOTUS to than?

[ghk012]

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.

[RoadyRunner]

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

[skinnyb82]

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

 

 

[C0untZer0]

I thought there was a chance we might hear something yesterday, but no dice.

 

The suspense resumes on Monday.

[Davey]

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?

[BobPistol]

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!"

[RoadyRunner]

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......