FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
I’ve got their ‘justifiable need’ right here.
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 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.
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.
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.
Wow. A well-regulated militia stays indoors?
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!
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.
"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.
“Residents of NJ need to vote with their feet, as soon as possible.”
They need to vote with their ballots.
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.
just about anything that upholds the constitution is a 5-4 decision these days. not good.
“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.
“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.
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.
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.
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"?
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.