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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court denies potential major guns rights case (no right to carry outside home)
Yahoo ^ | 5 May 2014 | Scott Bomboy

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 Court’s 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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: ccw; scotus; secondamendment
So, there you have it. You have no right to carry outside your home without begging for permission.
1 posted on 05/06/2014 3:50:52 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
this is as good a time as any to post this section of the Constitution that voters in Maine will be voting to accept with the secession vote of June 12, 2018, it deals with the militia but also with gun rights.

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.


2 posted on 05/06/2014 3:55:04 AM PDT by The_Republic_Of_Maine (Be kept informed on Maine's secession, sign up at freemaine@hushmail.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
The incessant erosion of our rights…of our liberties.

It will take blood to restore it.

3 posted on 05/06/2014 4:11:08 AM PDT by Jagdgewehr (It will take blood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

All that means is that it is a State issue.


4 posted on 05/06/2014 4:24:21 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jagdgewehr

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.


5 posted on 05/06/2014 4:25:27 AM PDT by Sicon ("All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." - G. Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

“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.


6 posted on 05/06/2014 4:27:33 AM PDT by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jagdgewehr

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.


7 posted on 05/06/2014 4:30:19 AM PDT by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2016; I pray we make it that long.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PubliusMM

You can’t order a slingshot in New Jersey. You need a permit to buy a BB gun. Nuff said.


8 posted on 05/06/2014 4:32:44 AM PDT by shelterguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PubliusMM

NJ is living with the government Newark, Camden, and Trenton elected.


9 posted on 05/06/2014 4:34:10 AM PDT by whatexit (What a shame that New England has become Old England)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
Sounds like it's safe to rob people at gunpoint in their front yard.
And if you fight back by grabbing your gun in the foyer, well,
that would be premeditated.

Or maybe the Criminals stopped carrying guns outside of their homes.

10 posted on 05/06/2014 4:35:15 AM PDT by MaxMax (Pay Attention and you'll be pissed off too! FIRE BOEHNER, NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shelterguy

You’ll shoot your eye out!


11 posted on 05/06/2014 4:45:58 AM PDT by matt04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides
Ahh....in Cristie’s wonderful blue state of New Jersey.

This began before Chris Christie was even born.

12 posted on 05/06/2014 4:46:42 AM PDT by Sooth2222 ("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

This is how SCOTUS obtains “long standing prohibition,” so previously unconstitutional infringements can be transmogrified into constitutional limitations.


13 posted on 05/06/2014 4:53:01 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shelterguy

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.


14 posted on 05/06/2014 5:05:52 AM PDT by Roman_War_Criminal (Bible Summary in a few verses: John 14:6, John 6:29, Romans 10:9-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: whatexit

And the AMISH have all the guns they want and don’t care bout no STINKIN” laws.


15 posted on 05/06/2014 5:30:40 AM PDT by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Roman_War_Criminal

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 ?


16 posted on 05/06/2014 5:32:24 AM PDT by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides

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.


17 posted on 05/06/2014 5:46:11 AM PDT by envisio (Its on like Donkey Kong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MaxMax

“””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.


18 posted on 05/06/2014 5:52:27 AM PDT by envisio (Its on like Donkey Kong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sooth2222

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.


19 posted on 05/06/2014 5:57:08 AM PDT by envisio (Its on like Donkey Kong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
So, there you have it. You have no right to carry outside your home without begging for permission.

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.

20 posted on 05/06/2014 5:59:39 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

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.`

Connecticut Constitution
`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: \
Thusly:
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.


21 posted on 05/06/2014 6:04:20 AM PDT by bunkerhill7 ("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
-- I would say the 10th Amendment gives them the right to make that decision. Looks like the Supreme Court agrees. --

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.

22 posted on 05/06/2014 6:15:03 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Renegade
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 ?

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).

23 posted on 05/06/2014 6:15:33 AM PDT by Sooth2222 ("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
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.

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.

24 posted on 05/06/2014 6:45:28 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

You have to show a need to carry a gun outside your home in New Jersey. IT’S NEW JERSEY, DAMM IT!


25 posted on 05/06/2014 7:00:32 AM PDT by VerySadAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
-- But Heller also admitted that some degree of control by the states on where firearms could be carried and by whom was constitutional. --

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.

26 posted on 05/06/2014 7:03:04 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides

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.


27 posted on 05/06/2014 7:05:55 AM PDT by LeonardFMason (LanceyHoward would AGREE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PubliusMM

And these CSers move to Pennsylvania and turn us a deeper shade of blue.


28 posted on 05/06/2014 7:19:22 AM PDT by stevio (God, guns, guts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
So, there you have it. You have no right to carry outside your home without begging for permission.

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!

29 posted on 05/06/2014 7:19:38 AM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal the 16th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

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.


30 posted on 05/06/2014 7:46:20 AM PDT by TheThirdRuffian (RINOS like Romney, McCain, Christie are sure losers. No more!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

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.


31 posted on 05/06/2014 7:49:02 AM PDT by caprock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

George Zimmerman proved that self defense is just racism. The race of law abiding people may not defend against the race of takers.


32 posted on 05/06/2014 8:01:20 AM PDT by showme_the_Glory (ILLEGAL: prohibited by law. ALIEN: Owing political allegiance to another country or government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Republic_Of_Maine

That’s pretty good.


33 posted on 05/06/2014 8:08:36 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

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.


34 posted on 05/06/2014 8:42:25 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

It is like “freedom of religion” as defined by liberals, sure you can have your religion, but only in the closet so to speak...


35 posted on 05/06/2014 8:42:30 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

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.


36 posted on 05/06/2014 10:29:14 AM PDT by cherokee1 (skip the names---just kick the buttz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
"That’s pretty good."

Thanks, wanna be free? Come on up and help us go over the top on June 12, 2018.

37 posted on 05/06/2014 10:54:53 AM PDT by The_Republic_Of_Maine (Be kept informed on Maine's secession, sign up at freemaine@hushmail.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: All

Well, America is my home.

where I live is just a crummy apartment.


38 posted on 05/06/2014 12:33:08 PM PDT by warsaw44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.


39 posted on 05/06/2014 2:52:50 PM PDT by AlmaKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
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.

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!

40 posted on 05/06/2014 5:43:06 PM PDT by rcrngroup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roman_War_Criminal

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.


41 posted on 05/06/2014 6:08:03 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Sicon; PubliusMM
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.

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.

42 posted on 05/06/2014 9:48:47 PM PDT by Jagdgewehr (It will take blood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bunkerhill7

Exactly


43 posted on 05/06/2014 9:51:34 PM PDT by Jagdgewehr (It will take blood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: The_Republic_Of_Maine

“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.


44 posted on 05/07/2014 3:36:31 AM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: highball

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.


45 posted on 05/07/2014 12:23:01 PM PDT by The_Republic_Of_Maine (Be kept informed on Maine's secession, sign up at freemaine@hushmail.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | 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