FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 05/05/2014 8:04:18 AM PDT by neverdem
The U.S. Supreme Court has not heard a single Second Amendment case since issuing its landmark gun rights rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).
Unfortunately for gun rights advocates, that silence went unbroken today. In a major announcement this morning, the Supreme Court refused to hear Drake v. Jerejian, a case challenging the constitutionality of New Jersey's arbitrary rules governing the right to carry handguns in public for purposes of self-defense.
The lawyer behind the case is Alan Gura, the civil rights litigator who previously argued and won both Heller and McDonald before the high court. In an interview with me last month, Gura explained his reasons for bringing the Drake case. "We've seen courts rubberstamp just about any kind of law that violates the Second Amendment," he said, describing the legal climate in the wake of Heller and McDonald. "Unless the Supreme Court decides to enforce its pronouncements, the Second Amendment will apply only to the extent that some lower courts are willing to honor Supreme Court precedent."
It now appears the Supreme Court is content to let the lower courts keep rubberstamping away.
Drake v. Jerejian deserved the high court's attention. At issue was New Jersey's Handgun Permit Law, which requires applicants to prove they have a "justifiable need" before local officials will issue a handgun carry permit. Unlike those states that maintain a "shall issue" permit regime, where applicants are required to satisfy a clear list of objective criteria, such as completing a firearms safety course and passing a criminal background check (if you meet the qualifications, the government "shall issue" you a permit), New Jersey grants local officials wide leeway in determining what qualifies as a "justifiable need" in their respective jurisdictions.
The practical effect of that wide leeway has been the overwhelming denial of permit applications by local officials. In the words of state Sen. Jeff Van Drew (D-Cape May), "It's virtually never done."
"Americans are not required to justify their need to exercise a fundamental right," Gura stressed in his interview with me. "If the government can force you to provide a reason to exercise your right, then it's no longer a right."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, by contrast, which ruled against Gura in 2013, saw no constitutional problem with the state's licensing scheme because it "does not burden conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment."
By refusing to hear the Drake appeal today, the Supreme Court left that ruling by the 3rd Circuit undisturbed. Yet in 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Moore v. Madigan (another case brought by Alan Gura), reached the opposite conclusion, voting to strike down Illinois' blanket ban on carrying guns in public. "The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside," the 7th Circuit held.
The Supreme Court should have tackled that circuit split head on. Because it failed to do so, the Second Amendment now means one thing for responsible gun owners living in New Jersey and another thing for those living in Illinois.
For additional background on Drake v. Jerejian, see here.
Cowards. The lot of them.
Pretty good indication this won’t be settled peacefully.
Just throwing it back over the fence so we can keep the money train flowing to pro and anti gun politicians. If the 2nd issue is ever really ruled one way or the other it will mean a drying up of a major chunk of leftist cash or the other way and civil war. They know it.
Glad I live in an open carry state. Perhaps all the non gunners should live in certain states with the “amish” and leave the rest of us a lone.
In a few years when the court is made up with a majority of liberals that make rulings based on ideology and foreign laws (instead of the constitution) they will accept all 2nd amendment cases.
There are doubts about Kennedy and Roberts. I don't want them taking a case without 5 pro votes for bearing arms beyond the home.
Pretty good indication this won’t be settled peacefully.
Who gets to decide what "justifiable need" is? Seems to me that a God given right needs no justification from men.
Obamatrons must have major blackmail items on multiple justices, and probably threatened Roberts he better not take any more 2nd Adm. cases, or else. Thug government.
To Hell w NJ.
I’ll carry what I want, when “I” believe its necessary.
Since I believe “concealed” means “concealed”, I don’t expect to have to address the subject unless I’ve already demonstrated my need.
Too busy dealing with homo weddings and recreational dope smoking cases to get into actual constitutional matters.
Maybe not. They could find someone that elicits more sympathy than Drake, e.g. a physician who makes house calls in a state that hates the 2nd Amendment.
I don’t think a positive ruling in favor of full 2nd amendment rights would dry up anti-gun money.
Leftists never give up on their agenda and always keep pushing and digging to undermine America.
Leftist elites consciously know, and the sheeperal viscerally know, that they can’t achieve what they want to do while the citizenry is still armed.
This is why you need to act at the state level for such things. This is an issue that should be the focus of state elections and throwing out those that pass such laws and replace them with people that are pro-liberty.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Bump.
“I’ll carry what I want, when “I” believe its necessary.”
I think that’s the decision of a lot of people today. Being judged by 12 is preferable to being carried by 6. The possession of a CCW permit at the time you have need to defend yourself will be the least of your follow on worries. And when you do have a permit, you become a target for every LEO with whom you come into contact. My guess is that most people who favor the 2A would rather remain truly anonymous. The most popular pistols today are subcompacts, they are not for the “range.”
You’re right. The SCOTUS has always been a political body in some way and is even more so now after FDR put the fear into them.
Some are willing to pack for performance:
Sig P220 Carry SAO
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.