{"id":1726,"date":"2014-04-18T14:04:00","date_gmt":"2014-04-18T14:04:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/2014\/04\/18\/supreme-court-considers-whether-to\/"},"modified":"2019-08-16T18:23:57","modified_gmt":"2019-08-16T18:23:57","slug":"supreme-court-considers-whether-to","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/?p=1726","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Considers Whether To Accept The NJ Carry Case"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class='__iawmlf-post-loop-links' style='display:none;' data-iawmlf-post-links='[{&quot;id&quot;:11967,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/www.scotusblog.com\\\/case-files\\\/cases\\\/drake-v-jerejian&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/www.scotusblog.com\\\/case-files\\\/cases\\\/drake-v-jerejian&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:11968,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com\\\/2010\\\/11\\\/saf-and-njarpc-sue-new-jersey-over.html&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:11969,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/www.nj.com\\\/sussex-county\\\/index.ssf\\\/2014\\\/04\\\/nj_mans_handgun_case_before_us_supreme_court_on_friday.html&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/web-wp.archive.org\\\/web\\\/20170124152459\\\/http:\\\/\\\/www.nj.com\\\/sussex-county\\\/index.ssf\\\/2014\\\/04\\\/nj_mans_handgun_case_before_us_supreme_court_on_friday.html&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[{&quot;date&quot;:&quot;2026-04-19 08:01:00&quot;,&quot;http_code&quot;:403}],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:{&quot;date&quot;:&quot;2026-04-19 08:01:00&quot;,&quot;http_code&quot;:403},&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:5486,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/www.politesocietypodcast.com&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/www.politesocietypodcast.com\\\/&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;}]'><\/div>\n<p>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/case-files\/cases\/drake-v-jerejian\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Today is the day<\/a> for the US Supreme Court to consider whether they will grant certiorari in the case of <i>Drake v. Jerejian<\/i>. This case, <a href=\"http:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com\/2010\/11\/saf-and-njarpc-sue-new-jersey-over.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">originally named Muller v. Maenza<\/a>, challenges the state of New Jersey&#8217;s requirement for the showing of &#8220;justifiable need&#8221; in order to obtain a carry permit.<\/p>\n<p>From the petition for a writ of certiorari as filed with the Supreme Court:<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"tr_bq\"><p>\n<i>QUESTIONS PRESENTED<\/p>\n<p>The Second Amendment \u201cguarantee[s] the individual<br \/>\nright to possess and carry weapons in case<br \/>\nof confrontation.\u201d District of Columbia v. Heller, 554<br \/>\nU.S. 570, 592 (2008). But in accordance with \u201cthe<br \/>\noverriding philosophy of [New Jersey\u2019s] Legislature<br \/>\n. . . to limit the use of guns as much as possible,\u201d<br \/>\nState v. Valentine, 124 N.J. Super. 425, 427, 307 A.2d<br \/>\n617, 619 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1973), New Jersey<br \/>\nlaw bars all but a small handful of individuals showing<br \/>\n\u201cjustifiable need\u201d from carrying a handgun for<br \/>\nself-defense, N.J. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 2C:58-4(c).<\/p>\n<p>The federal appellate courts, and state courts of<br \/>\nlast resort, are split on the question of whether the<br \/>\nSecond Amendment secures a right to carry handguns<br \/>\noutside the home for self-defense. The Second,<br \/>\nFourth, Fifth and Seventh Circuits, and the supreme<br \/>\ncourts of Illinois, Idaho, Oregon and Georgia have<br \/>\nheld or assumed that the Second Amendment encompasses<br \/>\nthe right to carry handguns outside the home<br \/>\nfor self-defense. But along with the highest courts of<br \/>\nMassachusetts, Maryland, and the District of Columbia,<br \/>\nwhich have refused to recognize this right, a<br \/>\ndivided Third Circuit panel below held that carrying<br \/>\nhandguns outside the home for self-defense falls<br \/>\noutside the scope of the Second Amendment\u2019s protection.<br \/>\nIt thus upheld New Jersey\u2019s \u201cjustifiable need\u201d<br \/>\nprerequisite for carrying defensive handguns.<\/p>\n<p>The federal appellate courts are also split 8-1 on<br \/>\nthe question of whether the government must provide<br \/>\nevidence to meet its burden in Second Amendment<br \/>\ncases. The First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh,<br \/>\nNinth, Tenth and District of Columbia Circuits require<br \/>\nthe government to produce legislative findings<br \/>\nor other evidence to sustain a law burdening the<br \/>\nright to bear arms. But the majority below held that<br \/>\nthe legislature\u2019s policy decisions need not be supported<br \/>\nby any findings or evidence to survive a Second<br \/>\nAmendment challenge, if the law strikes the<br \/>\ncourt as reasonable. Accordingly, the majority upheld<br \/>\nNew Jersey\u2019s \u201cjustifiable need\u201d law despite the state\u2019s<br \/>\nconcession that it lacked legislative findings or evidence<br \/>\nof the law\u2019s public safety benefits, let alone the<br \/>\ndegree of fit between the regulation and the interests<br \/>\nit allegedly secures.<\/p>\n<p>The questions presented are:<\/p>\n<p>1. Whether the Second Amendment secures a<br \/>\nright to carry handguns outside the home for selfdefense.<\/p>\n<p>2. Whether state officials violate the Second<br \/>\nAmendment by requiring that individuals wishing to<br \/>\nexercise their right to carry a handgun for selfdefense<br \/>\nfirst prove a \u201cjustifiable need\u201d for doing so.<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The attorneys for the plaintiffs appealing this case are David Jensen and Alan Gura. Amicus briefs in favor of the plaintiffs have been filed by the NRA, Gun Owners of America, 24 Members of Congress, the Cato Institute, 19 states, the Judicial Education Project, and the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence at Chapman University School of Law. <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.nj.com\/sussex-county\/index.ssf\/2014\/04\/nj_mans_handgun_case_before_us_supreme_court_on_friday.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Attorney David Jensen said he is &#8220;cautiously optimistic&#8221;<\/a> that the Supreme Court will accept the case.<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"tr_bq\"><p>\n<i>&#8220;The issue has percolated in the appeals courts for the last year and a half,&#8221; Jensen said. &#8220;It would be well-timed.&#8221;<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>This echoes the sentiments of Frank Fiamingo of the NJ Second Amendment Society expressed in an interview Wednesday on the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.politesocietypodcast.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Polite Society Podcast<\/a>. He noted the split between the Federal Circuits on this issue. The recent rulings by the 9th Circuit in <i>Peruta<\/i> and the associated cases adds weight to this argument.<\/p>\n<p>It will take four Justices voting to accept the case for it to be granted certiorari. We didn&#8217;t get that in the petitions for the <i>Kachalsky <\/i>and <i>Woollard <\/i>cases. We should know by the end of the day whether the Supreme Court will consider the third major Second Amendment case in the last decade.<\/p>\n<div style=\"margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;\" class=\"sharethis-inline-share-buttons\" ><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Today is the day for the US Supreme Court to consider whether they will grant certiorari in the case&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":3,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[1416,2630,9],"class_list":["post-1726","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-carry-permits","tag-drake-v-jerejian","tag-supreme-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1726","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1726"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1726\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9826,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1726\/revisions\/9826"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1726"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1726"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1726"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}