Supreme Court Reschedules Concealed Carry Case For a Third Time
Posted by Alexander Roubian 316sc on May 01, 2017 ·



The Supreme Court put off the Peruta case, which could restore concealed carry in NJ if taken up, again this morning. Second Amendment advocates are eagerly watching the courts to see what the court will do with this case, because if the court were to strike down California concealed carry laws, New Jersey's would be on the chopping block as well.

There are a few reasons why this could be happening:

1) New Justice Neil Gorsuch is still playing catch-up reading the over 200 cases the court was reviewing when he was confirmed to the court and has not yet read Peruta. This seems less likely since the case actually made it to conference last Friday and was not rescheduled beforehand.


2) There are 3 justices that want to take the case, out of the four necessary, and there is haggling over the votes.


3) There are 4 justices who want to take the case, but are doing their due diligence to see if they can get to the magic number 5 to overturn it.


4) The case is being denied and the Justices who wanted to take it are writing a lengthy dissent.

At the time of this writing, the Supreme Court's website has not yet updated the Peruta file, which you can view here. We imagine that it will be scheduled for the next available conference on May 11th. We will keep you updated as we get new information.

NJ2AS has its own lawsuits planned as well. If this ruling goes in our favor, we'll have even more ammunition to use against the anti-gunners in court. We're going to restore our Second Amendment rights in New Jersey no matter what it takes. If you want to be a part of the fight, make sure to join today, or make a donation.

http://www.nj2as.org/supreme_c...ail&utm_source=nj2as

Reason No. 1 isn't it, as I read it. A new Justice doesn't participate in cases where oral argument has been heard and votes taken at conference.

I doubt there are 200 cases under review, except those pending a decision on whether to accept them.

Here's an analysis of the situation.

Link

I'd like to see Ginsburg and Kennedy replaced before they take a 2A case.

Peruta hasn't been heard by the SCOTUS yet. They haven't agreed to hear it yet.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Reason No. 1 isn't it, as I read it. A new Justice doesn't participate in cases where oral argument has been heard and votes taken at conference.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Peruta hasn't been heard by the SCOTUS yet. They haven't agreed to hear it yet.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Reason No. 1 isn't it, as I read it. A new Justice doesn't participate in cases where oral argument has been heard and votes taken at conference.

That's the case we are waiting for, as a positive ruling destroys "May Issue" across the country!

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:

3) There are 4 justices who want to take the case, but are doing their due diligence to see if they can get to the magic number 5 to overturn it.

I don't care which side of the political spectrum does this, this is the problem with the justice system.

That 5 unelected appointees get unprecedented power, and legislate, rather than act as judges, and enact law - I agree 100%.

However, I'm not sure that's been done since Roe v. Wade.

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:...
That's the case we are waiting for, as a positive ruling destroys "May Issue" across the country!

The Heller, you say!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017...o-supreme-court.html

.

The US Supreme Court website for Peruta vs. California (formerly San Diego) is located at:
www.SupremeCourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-894.htm

Peruta's lawyers have posted many of these documents on their website for your reading pleasure:
http://MichelLawyers.com/guncasetracker/PerutaVSanDiego/

Activity since January 2017 on the case has been...

Jan 12 2017 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 16, 2017)
Jan 26 2017 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel petitioners.
Jan 27 2017 Letter received from counsel for respondent.
Feb 2 2017 Waiver of right of respondents County of San Diego and Sheriff William D. Gore to respond filed.
Feb 6 2017 Consent the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondents Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., et al..
Feb 15 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed.
Feb 16 2017 Brief amicus curiae of National Rifle Association of America, Inc. filed.
Feb 16 2017 Brief amici curiae of Western States Sheriffs' Association, et al. filed.
Feb 16 2017 Brief of respondent California in opposition filed.
Feb 16 2017 Brief of respondents County of Yolo and Sheriff Ed Prieto in opposition filed.
Feb 16 2017 Brief amici curiae of Alabama and 25 other States filed.
Feb 16 2017 Brief amici curiae of The Governors of Texas, et al. filed.
Feb 16 2017 Brief amici curiae of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. filed.
Feb 16 2017 Brief amici curiae of Gun Owners of America, Inc., et al. filed.
Mar 7 2017 Reply of petitioners Edward Peruta, et al. filed.
Mar 8 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 24, 2017.
Mar 23 2017 Rescheduled.
Mar 27 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 31, 2017.
Mar 30 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 10 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017.
Apr 12 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 17 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 21, 2017.
Apr 20 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 24 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 28, 2017.
May 8 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 11, 2017.
May 15 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 18, 2017.

.