Skip to comments.Supreme Court denies potential major guns rights case (no right to carry outside home)
Posted on 05/06/2014 3:50:51 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
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.
.. View photo .750px-Supreme_Court_Front_DuskThe 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 Courts 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Section 6. The Militia and the standing army of 1,000. So as to insure and guarantee the rights guaranteed in this Constitution, every natural born male in the Republic of Maine, upon reaching the age of 18 years from conception through age 67 years from conception, has, as a member of the Militia, the obligation to keep and bear arms for the common defense, for his and his families protection, to defend against this government or any government in the future from becoming oppressive, tyrannical, or in any other way obnoxious to freedom, and to secure the rights written in this Constitution. This obligation shall never be questioned. No law shall be passed that restricts this obligation, except for time in a local jail, county jail or Maine Republic prison. No law shall be passed, test given, or fee assessed to any citizen of the Republic of Maine, age 18 from the age of conception, both male and female, that would restrict in any way that citizens right to be armed either concealed or open. Males who are found to be or confess to being homosexuals are refused entry and from serving in either the Militia or the standing army. Males over the age of 67 may be voluntary members of the Militia with the full rights of Militia members. Natural born males between the age of 16 years from conception to 18 years from conception may volunteer for Militia service with the written permission of parents or guardians. The standing army of 1,000 shall be drawn from the Militia by the commander of the Militia and is under the command of the commander of the Militia who is appointed by and reports directly to the President.
It will take blood to restore it.
All that means is that it is a State issue.
The erosion of this right took place in New Jersey a long time ago. This isn’t a change, this is the SCOTUS deciding not to overturn what NJ has been doing for a very long time.
“So, there you have it. You have no right to carry outside your home without begging for permission.”
Ahh....in Cristie’s wonderful blue state of New Jersey.
You may be correct, Jagdgewehr. It may well take blood.
However, we are talking about NJ, in this case. And, NJ is living with the government they elected.
You can’t order a slingshot in New Jersey. You need a permit to buy a BB gun. Nuff said.
NJ is living with the government Newark, Camden, and Trenton elected.
Or maybe the Criminals stopped carrying guns outside of their homes.
You’ll shoot your eye out!
This began before Chris Christie was even born.
This is how SCOTUS obtains “long standing prohibition,” so previously unconstitutional infringements can be transmogrified into constitutional limitations.
I can’t imagine living in a worse hell-hole than NJ within Amerika’s borders. Maybe Compton, CA....or Presidio, TX (at least they have gun rights though).
People get the gov’t they deserve.
And the AMISH have all the guns they want and don’t care bout no STINKIN” laws.
Coming Soon!!!!!! To The People’s Republic of New Jersey! Magazine maximums of 10 rounds down from 15! Will the “fat man “ sign it or veto it when it is passed by the Senate ?
Fine. All the law abiding, hard working Americans will soon move to other states where rights are recognized and freedom prevails.
Where an armed society is a polite society.
Then these cities will go the way of Chicago and Detroit. While the guilty white liberals live in fear and insecurity, the gangbabgers and thugs will have open season on them.
And Jersey will end up just like EVERY OTHER LIBERALLY CONTROLLED CITY = a crime-ridden welfare cesspool.
“””maybe the Criminals stopped carrying guns outside of their homes.””””
Of course. Everyone knows that gangbangers, drug dealers, thieves, rapists, and murderers obey guns laws.
TO ALL NEW JERSEY FREEPERS:::::
I am sorry you live in that state.
Where I am from, I can walk into a strip mall (because here gun stores are in strip malls) show my CCW, by ten guns, go across the street, buy ten more... walk home on the street carrying them all and the friendly people here wave at me like I am just a normal neighbor.
At least not in New Jersey. And I would say the 10th Amendment gives them the right to make that decision. Looks like the Supreme Court agrees.
These judges are dead wrong.
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”
Maine Constitution 1820
`Keep and bear arms Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a
right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.`
Massachusetts Constitution 1780
`Art. XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.`
`Sec. 17. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state`
HISTORICAL and CONTEMPORARY WITH THOSE TIMES DEFINITIONS OF TO KEEP AND BEAR
“TO BEAR ARMS” IS A MILITARY TERM-
TO KEEP ARMS IS IMPLICIT IN “TO BEAR ARMS” In any debate, one should define the terms used in the debate: \
Definition of to “KEEP” to preserve and maintain.. TO GUARD; DEFEND
to “KEEP” `means NOT TO LET GO ONE`S POSSESSION OR CONTROL” “KEEPER”,n., “one who watches, GUARDS, maintains” Webster`s Dictionary, p.460
to “BEAR: 1. to support and move; CARRY. 2. to be equipped furnished ..as to BEAR A SWORD. 3. to be directed; to be pointed, as TO PLANT GUNS TO BEAR UPON AS TRENCH”
-webster`s dictionary 1887
Thus to bear arms means a military action outside the “keeping ‘ of arms, i.e., an action against oppression or tyranny or military or paramilitary attack from the outside of the home.
That is why both terms “keep” and “bear” are in the Second Amendment- the former denotes the control of weapons by individuals; the latter means to use those arms against any military or paramilitary attack from tyranny or attack by enemies of the country or invasion .
Our forefathers weren`t stupoiud so they included both terms.
These judges are dead wrong.
The Supreme Court said this, some time ago, although the federal courts conveniently overlooked this for decades, in order make it appear that disarming the public was legal and constitutional.
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [2nd amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration [State of Illinois parade permit laws] do not have this effect.Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
That said, I doubt that any court would view a may issue legal regime as a prohibition, even if it was a prohibition for all practical purposes.
When it comes to the RKBA, the courts are intellectually corrupt. I view the decisions as illogical and self contradictory. The decisions do not merit respect, they merit contempt. That said, the decisions are what they are, and goons with guns will put you in jail for acting out any disagreement with the tyrants in robes.
He'll veto it, unless he wants to make sure he'll spend the rest of his life as President of a second tier small New Jersey liberal arts college. The Democrats know this, too. They're trolling for Bloomberg $$$ (and trying to diminish his chances for 2016 -- but I think they have that part exactly backwards).
And nothing in the New Jersey law prevents a person from keeping a firearm in his or her home. The Heller decision upheld that. But Heller also admitted that some degree of control by the states on where firearms could be carried and by whom was constitutional.
You have to show a need to carry a gun outside your home in New Jersey. IT’S NEW JERSEY, DAMM IT!
I wouldn't say "admitted," as much as created a doctrine that allows bootstrapping of infringement as long as the courts drag their feet on issuing rulings.
The case I cited, Presser, says the same thing you just did. It upheld a law against conducting or participating in an armed parade without a parade permit. That is some degree of control on where firearms could be carried and by whom.
My contention is that a may issue legal regime (on paper) that is a no-issue regime as a matter of practice would probably be upheld by the courts, all the way through SCOTUS.
Heck, Washington DC's $500+ permitting process to possess a handgun in the home is seen as hunky dory by the robed tyrants.
New Jersey, like Pennsylvania and many other states, have “cancer”. The “cancer” is the large cities. Newark, Trenton, and Camden are malignant tumors killing the state of NJ. In Pennsylvania, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are the tumors. Even in Washington State, a city like Seattle is all it takes to kill the entire state. Obama is the first ‘Big City Mayor” President of the United States. It doesn’t work. Big cities are RUINING the country.
And these CSers move to Pennsylvania and turn us a deeper shade of blue.
I'll NEVER get permission. NEVER get a permit, and NEVER obey any of these unconstitutional laws.
I will carry at will.
COME AND TAKE IT!
That’s not what the court said. It means it will let the lower courts figure it out.
There was a great “right to bear” case out of the 9th circuit of all places.
Precisely. The closer individual rights decisions are made to the individual the better. If the USSC would “butt-out” more, our liberties may survive. The Founders established a unity of STATES each of which would have preeminent authority and be more readily accountable to individual citizens.
George Zimmerman proved that self defense is just racism. The race of law abiding people may not defend against the race of takers.
That’s pretty good.
no, the USSC just decided this was not the case to take on the issue. It is limited to just that district/state/local law.
It is like “freedom of religion” as defined by liberals, sure you can have your religion, but only in the closet so to speak...
The story above is incomplete and half-assed as one might expect. The question was about open carry of handguns. Concealed carry is CONCEALED and wasn’t part of the question. And Jersey is a shotgun hunting state. If you need heat just pack a twelve gage.
Thanks, wanna be free? Come on up and help us go over the top on June 12, 2018.
Well, America is my home.
where I live is just a crummy apartment.
I don’t agree with those who are saying this is just pushed back to the States to decide. You can get trapped in a good or bad State. I prefer to see a uniform Constitutional interpretation = keep and bear.
You can get trapped in NJ for instance if all your family lives there or your long term job is there.
You can get trapped in AZ also, which has made some good 2A decisions, by not being able to travel to neighboring CA or CO while maintaining the same rights. And if you make a mistake by driving across that state line, tough luck.
The easiest job in the world has got to be US Supreme Court justice. You decide if or when you want to hear a case, fall asleep on the bench (Ruth Bader-Ginsburg) during oral arguments, take months to come to a decision, your rulings are written by law clerks, and if you don't want to make any justification for your ruling, you can simply just vote for or against with no further esplanation.
What a bunch of lazy, overpaid for life, bastards, including all federal judges & most state & local judges.
I know what I would like to see happen to them..... spend the rest of their immoral, corrupt lives in prison, doing hard labor!
Is 5:20-21 fits our judges today to a tee. They are morally incapable of rendering any correct judicial ruling! Immoral, corrupt, vain, arrogant, prideful RAT BASTARDS. They will roast for eternity in Hell & the Lake of Fire!
problem is that those from those northern states who vote the liberals in then move south and bring their ignorant dumb voting ways with them.
However, we are talking about NJ, in this case. And, NJ is living with the government they elected.
All this I know. But, how sickening is it that we continue to place our hopes in the capriciousness of an increasingly deluded electorate or the arbitrary whims of robed megalomaniacs.
As we loose ground in one place, the precedent is established and the dominoes begin to fall.
“upon reaching the age of 18 years from conception through age 67 years from conception”
From conception? Not birth?
I’ll have to read more about this vote.
We are reenforcing the Constitutional right of rights from conception by counting age as from conception not birth.
There will be no abortions in the Republic of Maine, nor will there be a lot of things that are flat out wrong that the US embraces and even protects.
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.