Drake v. Jerejian?

[rosefox911]

Has anyone been following this? Here is the SCOTUS brief:


http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/drake-v-jerejian/


The case deals with:


"(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."


Assuming the court rules in favor of carrying outside the home, what does this mean for may-issue states such as MA?

 

[soloman02]

Yes, it is being discussed here: http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/224177-2013-Supreme-Court-Term

We supposedly we will know if they take it tomorrow or Monday.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

There was a rather long article that come out somewhere these week looking at the large number of cases that have been re-listed this term. A very large percentage of them have been granted cert. (fingers crossed here) One reason a case may be re-listed is to give the justices an opportunity to actually read it rather than relying on their clerks. Apparently cert has been rescinded in some recent cases (certiorari improvidently granted, they call it), something the justices don't like to do. So, they're taking a closer look (so the theory goes) rather than relying as heavily upon their clerks.

 

[rosefox911]

Yes, it is being discussed here: http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/224177-2013-Supreme-Court-Term

We supposedly we will know if they take it tomorrow or Monday.

Thanks! I must have missed it!

There was a rather long article that come out somewhere these week looking at the large number of cases that have been re-listed this term. A very large percentage of them have been granted cert. (fingers crossed here) One reason a case may be re-listed is to give the justices an opportunity to actually read it rather than relying on their clerks. Apparently cert has been rescinded in some recent cases (certiorari improvidently granted, they call it), something the justices don't like to do. So, they're taking a closer look (so the theory goes) rather than relying as heavily upon their clerks.

I just saw this case and got excited and was daydreaming of a world where my LTC would be unrestricted. I doubt that'll happen though.

 

[browncoat]

Thanks! I must have missed it!



I just saw this case and got excited and was daydreaming of a world where my LTC would be unrestricted. I doubt that'll happen though.

It would be nice

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk

 

[BigDaddyAl]

Yes, it is being discussed here: http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/224177-2013-Supreme-Court-Term

We supposedly we will know if they take it tomorrow or Monday.

No sooner than Monday. The Justices have a conference on Fridays where they discuss the cases and vote on whether to hear the case. They discussed Drake last Friday and then held it over to this week's conference. They announce which cases they've granted and which they've denied on Mondays.

 

[BigDaddyAl]

No action today on Drake (again), so it will be relisted (again). Next possible date we could hear something is next Monday, May 5.

There was a rather long article that come out somewhere these week looking at the large number of cases that have been re-listed this term. A very large percentage of them have been granted cert. (fingers crossed here) One reason a case may be re-listed is to give the justices an opportunity to actually read it rather than relying on their clerks. Apparently cert has been rescinded in some recent cases (certiorari improvidently granted, they call it), something the justices don't like to do. So, they're taking a closer look (so the theory goes) rather than relying as heavily upon their clerks.

I think this is the article you're referring to: http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/relist-watch-what-does-the-courts-relist-streak-mean/

See also this from the Scotusblog.com FAQs

Question: What does it mean for the Court to relist a case?

Answer: When a case is “relisted,” that means that it is set for reconsideration at the Justices’ next Conference. Unlike a hold, this will show up on the case’s electronic docket. A relist can mean several things, including the fairly straightforward prospect that one or more Justices wants to take a closer look at the case; that one or more Justices is trying to pick up enough votes to grant review (four are needed); that the Justices are writing a summary reversal (that is, a decision that the lower court opinion was so wrong that the Court can decide the case on the merits without briefing or oral argument); or that one or more Justices are writing a dissent from the decision to deny review.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

That Drake wasn't denied is good. However, at this point it's anyone's guess as to when they'll act on the Drake petition. I will not be surprised if they hold on to this for awhile and give 9CA time to deal with Peruta et. al.

 

[NewGuyRay]

That Drake wasn't denied is good. However, at this point it's anyone's guess as to when they'll act on the Drake petition. I will not be surprised if they hold on to this for awhile and give 9CA time to deal with Peruta et. al.

Can we take the optimistic view and offer the supposition that maybe the Heller Majority is taking the time to be certain that Drake represents the appropriate vehicle to settle the carry outside the home issue?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Can we take the optimistic view and offer the supposition that maybe the Heller Majority is taking the time to be certain that Drake represents the appropriate vehicle to settle the carry outside the home issue?

Yes. The Supreme Court isn't under any time constraints here and can take their time. Think of them as the ultimate consensus builders or mediators. They find a conflict and take in as much information as they can possible get before stepping in. Here we have a clear circuit split and almost all the information is in. The only possible missing piece is the 9th circuit. SCOTUS can afford to wait that out a bit so the picture the get is as complete as possible.

I'm going to (try to) stop watching the clock on this. They'll get to it when they get to it.

 

[marinesniper81]

They have denied cert. in Drake v. Jerejian.

 

[Palladin]

now what happens?

this isn't good

 

[BigDaddyAl]

now what happens?

this isn't good

It is disappointing, but as Knuckle Dragger suggests above, my guess is that SCOTUS wants to wait until the 9th Circuit decides whether to give Peruta a full hearing and let that case play out. I think the main issue in both Drake and Peruta are essentially the same, whether the good cause requirement for licensing is constitutional (this was also the issue in the 4th Circuit Wollard Case).

If the 9th Circuit agrees to a rehearing with the full panel, and they uphold the 3-judge panel decision that the good cause requirement is unconstitutional, then we might have another situation like in Moore v. Madigan in the 7th Circuit where the city/state would have to decide whether to appeal. And there would be a lot of pressure, like in Moore, not to appeal out of fear of a definative pro-2A ruling.

Knuckle Dragger & Terraformer - what are the other cases making their way up to the circuit level addressing similar issues?

 

[jar]

Knuckle Dragger & Terraformer - what are the other cases making their way up to the circuit level addressing similar issues?

I'm not kd or terra, but Davis v Grimes in MA federal district court, in re Pantano in the NJ state courts, and Palmer v DC in the DC federal district court (pending decision since 2009, so don't hold your breath).

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I'm not kd or terra, but Davis v Grimes in MA federal district court, in re Pantano in the NJ state courts, and Palmer v DC in the DC federal district court (pending decision since 2009, so don't hold your breath).

That's about it for now, at least what I'm aware of. Peruta could swim around the 9th circuit for a few years if they decide to grant en banc review. That's really troubling. If Peruta is upheld, than it's possible (but still a long shot) that Davis (or even another 1CA case) might end up with a SCOTUS petition. That was never the plan, but we'll adapt if we need to.

 

[BigDaddyAl]

it's possible (but still a long shot) that Davis (or even another 1CA case) might end up with a SCOTUS petition. That was never the plan, but we'll adapt if we need to.

I think it would be great if Davis became the next Heller by affirming the right to carry outside the home. I'd bump up my monthly donation.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I think it would be great if Davis became the next Heller by affirming the right to carry outside the home. I'd bump up my monthly donation.

I'd prefer not to wait that long.

 

[yanici]

You know what really sucks? The GOP doesn't have a strong candidate for the upcoming 2016 Presidential election. It looks like the Court will change during the next term. Right now, IMO, Hillary can beat anyone the GOP is talking about nominating to run.

 

[NewGuyRay]

That's about it for now, at least what I'm aware of. Peruta could swim around the 9th circuit for a few years if they decide to grant en banc review. That's really troubling. If Peruta is upheld, than it's possible (but still a long shot) that Davis (or even another 1CA case) might end up with a SCOTUS petition. That was never the plan, but we'll adapt if we need to.

Hypothetically, if Davis reached SCOTUS -- given the nature of some of the claims; i.e. disparate treatment based on municipality of residence -- couldn't the case potentially be decided on equal protection or due process grounds and skirt the 2A issue of carry outside the home?