Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS: Drake v. Jerejian denied (2A self-defense carry outside the home)
U.S. Supreme Court ^ | 5/5/2014

Posted on 05/05/2014 9:08:50 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan

Today, SCOTUS denied, without comment, the petition for a writ of certiorari in Drake v. Jerejian, which leaves in place the Third Circuit's ruling.

The questions presented in Drake are (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.

The Third Circuit held (1) that carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense falls outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection; and (2) that the legislature’s policy decisions need not be supported by any findings or evidence to survive a Second Amendment challenge, if the law strikes the court as reasonable. It thus upheld New Jersey’s “justifiable need” prerequisite for carrying defensive handguns.

The petitioners were John M. Drake, Gregory C. Gallaher, Lenny S. Salerno, Finley Fenton, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., and Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc.

Members of the 113th Congress, the Gun Owners Foundation, the National Rifle Association of America, Inc., and the Cato Institute were among those who filed amici curiae briefs in support of the petition for certiorari.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2a; banglist; scotus

1 posted on 05/05/2014 9:08:50 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; Salvation; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

2 posted on 05/05/2014 9:10:39 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I’ve got their ‘justifiable need’ right here.


3 posted on 05/05/2014 9:11:09 AM PDT by Gaffer (Comprehensive Immigration Reform is just another name for Comprehensive Capitulation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Can anyone now think of a reason why a number of Supreme Court Justices are not now liable for impeachment for a breach of their oath of office with regard to the Constitution and its Second Amendment mandate a citizen has the right to keep and bear arms?


4 posted on 05/05/2014 9:15:24 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan; All

The states need to amend the Constitution so that the states can fire activist justices.


5 posted on 05/05/2014 9:20:12 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
The states need to amend the Constitution so that the states can fire activist justices.

The ruling here (the one in the lower courts that SCOTUS didn't review) upheld a New Jersey state law.

6 posted on 05/05/2014 9:27:57 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Only a true statist could possibly think that the right to bear arms had anything to do with behavior within ones own castle. It’s an absurdity.


7 posted on 05/05/2014 9:40:07 AM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

One could make a case that this was a decision in favor of states’ rights. Residents of NJ need to vote with their feet, as soon as possible.


8 posted on 05/05/2014 9:44:16 AM PDT by afsnco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Wow. A well-regulated militia stays indoors?


9 posted on 05/05/2014 9:45:06 AM PDT by Salvavida (The restoration of the U.S.A. starts with filling the pews at every Bible-believing church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX; Lurking Libertarian
I know that one should not infer anything about the Court's opinion from a denial of cert, but I find it hard not to do so with Drake. The 3rd Circuit's ruling was particularly egregious and out of sync with a majority of rulings from the other circuits.

SCOTUS had the chance to make a definitive ruling here on whether or not the 2nd Amendment extends to carrying a weapon outside the home for self defense. That they chose not to hear Drake leaves me to wonder many things:

I hope that someday when Scalia or Thomas are gone, they'll publish their conference deliberation notes. Wouldn't that be a fly-on-the-wall glimpse into the inner workings of SCOTUS!

10 posted on 05/05/2014 9:46:05 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
Most here understand the 2d clearly recognized and protected our preexisting right to bear arms, and was thought an essential element for ratification of the proposed Constitution.

Clearly, that recognition and protection seems to be slipping away.

D.C. v Keller (the right to bear within one’s home, limited to federal enclaves) was a 5/4 decision.

McDonald v. Chicago, which extended “within the home” to the states, was a 5/4 decision.

Those are close calls under any view.

11 posted on 05/05/2014 9:58:17 AM PDT by frog in a pot (The 2dA didn't grant a right - it preserved an existing right in order to obtain ratification.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
Can anyone now think of a reason why a number of Supreme Court Justices are not now liable for impeachment for a breach of their oath of office with regard to the Constitution and its Second Amendment mandate a citizen has the right to keep and bear arms?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a series of words whose meaning, scope, extent, is pretty much undefined. Pro 2A folks continually emphasize "shall not be infringed" when they should put more emphasis on exactly what it is that shall not be infringed.

12 posted on 05/05/2014 10:02:24 AM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the and breadth of "ignorance. individual be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: afsnco

“Residents of NJ need to vote with their feet, as soon as possible.”

They need to vote with their ballots.


13 posted on 05/05/2014 10:03:28 AM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the and breadth of "ignorance. individual be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

The pre-Civil War SCOTUS ruled that one of the rights blacks would have if they were considered citizens of the USA was, “The right to go about armed wherever they went.”
Dred Scott vs Stanford.


14 posted on 05/05/2014 10:16:50 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Sometimes you need 7+ more ammo. LOTS MORE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot

just about anything that upholds the constitution is a 5-4 decision these days. not good.


15 posted on 05/05/2014 10:18:24 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

“Can anyone now think of a reason why a number of Supreme Court Justices are not now liable for impeachment for a breach of their oath of office with regard to the Constitution and its Second Amendment mandate a citizen has the right to keep and bear arms?”

The Republican House can vote articles of impeachment on any federal judge at any time it wishes. The absence of any effort to impeach indicates agreement with the decisions.


16 posted on 05/05/2014 10:31:51 AM PDT by Soul of the South (Yesterday is gone. Today will be what we make of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Soul of the South

“The Republican House can vote articles of impeachment on any federal judge at any time it wishes. The absence of any effort to impeach indicates agreement with the decisions.”

Not necessarily. There is a long-standing practice in Congress to not proceed with an action until and unless it is calculated there are enough votes available to approve the motion. In the case of impeachments, the Congressmen in the House of Representatives are reluctant to act on impeachments which it is believed the Democrats in the Senate will vote to defeat. I disagree with worrying about losing the vote in the Senate, but they are the elected representatives.


17 posted on 05/05/2014 10:37:14 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
KrisKrinkle said: "... emphasis on exactly what it is that shall not be infringed. "

How is your statement relevant to the virtually total ban on law-abiding citizens carrying arms outside the home in New Jersey?

What do you think the people who fired the "shot heard round the world" were thinking when they denied to government the authority to "infringe" the right to keep and bear arms?

Please recall that the militia gathered outside Boston in April of 1775 were fighting their own government and their own regular army. The fighting started with government attempts to confiscate arms.

18 posted on 05/05/2014 11:03:53 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
Pro 2A folks continually emphasize "shall not be infringed" when they should put more emphasis on exactly what it is that shall not be infringed.

In the majority opinion for Heller, Justice Scalia thoroughly dissected the words arms, keep, bear, and people. He also discussed the linguistics of the 2nd Amendment text, noting that the prefactory clause A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State does not grammatically limit the operative clause the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I'd say it's crystal clear what it is that shall not be infringed. The problem is that the libtards now require that we also specify where it shall not be infringed.

19 posted on 05/05/2014 1:04:39 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
How is your statement relevant to the virtually total ban on law-abiding citizens carrying arms outside the home in New Jersey?

I was responding to the question "Can anyone now think of a reason why a number of Supreme Court Justices are not now liable for impeachment for a breach of their oath of office ...?" by pointing out that the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is an undefined series of words, trying to show that the thing in regard to which they are accused of breaching their oath is undefined and needs better definition before we can accuse anyone of a breach in regard to it.

You wrote "virtually total ban on law-abiding citizens carrying arms outside the home in New Jersey" but I thought the case at hand was about self defense carry outside the home in New Jersey, which is not quite the same thing.

What do you think the people who fired the "shot heard round the world" were thinking when they denied to government the authority to "infringe" the right to keep and bear arms?

As I recall, they were thinking the government was coming to take the ordnance, munitions etc. held in their armory. I don't recall that they were thinking the government was coming to take anything from their homes, their houses.

Please recall that the militia gathered outside Boston in April of 1775 were fighting their own government and their own regular army. The fighting started with government attempts to confiscate arms.

I didn't know the case at hand was about confiscation beyond any confiscation that took place when the defendant was arrested.

My turn for questions: What is the scope-extent-definition of the words "the right of the people to bear arms"? Does one of the people who happens to be standing on the gallows awaiting execution have the right to keep and bear arms? Does someone on another's property have the right to keep and bear arms against the wishes of the property owner? Is a five year old one of the people with the right to keep and bear arms?

Regarding whatever your answers are, how do we know so just from the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"?

20 posted on 05/05/2014 1:23:12 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the and breadth of "ignorance. individual be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
KrisKrinkle said: "I don't recall that they were thinking the government was coming to take anything from their homes, their houses."

The citizens of Boston were required to submit to having their personal arms housed in a government controlled armory and they were subject to search for smuggling weapons on departing the city.

You seem to be saying that, because we don't know everything about what the Second Amendment means, we then know NOTHING about what it means.

Law-abiding people in Arizona now require no government permit to carry whether open or concealed. Is there blood running in the streets?

The burden is completely on you to make the case that the right, as exercised in Arizona, is not fully protected by the Second Amendment. We are not a nation of limited rights. We are a nation of limited government.

It's a very Soviet idea to presume that everything that is not permitted is prohibited. That is not what our Founders intended. Rather they intended that whatever was not prohibited was permitted. Why do you think otherwise?

From whence comes the federal regulation infringing the right to possess a short-barreled shotgun? What clause in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to control this?

21 posted on 05/05/2014 2:05:59 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

What I take from your post is that you have no thoughtful answers for my questions, so you’re going to go off on tangents, make false attributions to me, try to get me to defend a case I didn’t make, and in general obfuscate, undoubtedly so you can play “William Tell wins”.

As they say: “No Thanks.”


22 posted on 05/05/2014 5:02:02 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the and breadth of "ignorance. individual be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
KrisKrinkle said: As they say: “No Thanks.”

I think you were asking me to outline the limits of the right to keep and bear arms.

My answer is that absolute ANYTHING having to do with self-defense, protecting our communities, and stopping tyranny is included. It is not properly my burden to decide where the limits of my unalienable rights are. It is the burden of the government to convince me that they are COMPELLED to involve themselves in ANY WAY.

If there is another question you expected me to address, perhaps I overlooked it in favor of answering what I thought was most important.

23 posted on 05/05/2014 8:48:35 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Salvavida

The British are coming!

The British are coming!

(You may engage when they knock down your doors. I’m sure that’s what the Founders had in mind.)


24 posted on 05/05/2014 8:56:43 PM PDT by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
KrisKrinkle said: "Does one of the people who happens to be standing on the gallows awaiting execution have the right to keep and bear arms?"

Not after having been convicted by a jury of his peers of a serious crime, since the government is compelled to disarm him in order to carry out its justified incarceration and punishment.

KrisKrinkle said: "Does someone on another's property have the right to keep and bear arms against the wishes of the property owner?"

Yes. The property owner is obligated to inform trespassers that they are not welcome and is justified in using only that force which is necessary to eject them. Absent any resistance on the other person's part, there would be no right to disarm them."

KrisKrinkle said: "Is a five year old one of the people with the right to keep and bear arms?"

My four-year-olds were armed by me as part of the training they needed to appreciate the responsibility of using firearms. The government has no authority to interfere with what they were doing without my permission. To the extent that the exercise of any rights by minors are subject to control by their parents, yes they have such rights.

25 posted on 05/05/2014 9:13:16 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson