Supreme Court Remains Silent on Major Gun Rights Case

On April 18 and again on April 25, the U.S. Supreme Court met in private conference to consider the latest crop of cases seeking review. According to the Court's docket, both conferences included discussion of Drake v. Jerejian, a Second Amendment case centering on the constitutionality of New Jersey's Handgun Permit Law. On April 21, the Court announced the results of its April 18 conference. There was no word on Drake. Today the Court announced the results of its April 25 conference. Once again, silence on the Second Amendment. With no action taken, the case will now most likely be re-listed for another round of debate at the Court's next private conference, which is currently scheduled for May 2.

These are notable developments. The Supreme Court rejects the vast majority of petitions it receives each year (the acceptance rate is around 2 percent). That Drake keeps kicking around suggests somebody on the Court has taken a serious interest in hearing the case and is pushing for extra consideration among the nine members before a final vote is held on whether or not to accept it. If that is the reason, then no news today might very well mean good news in the future for gun rights advocates.

Here's why the Supreme Court should take the case.

Update: Drake v. Jerejian has been re-listed for the Court's conference on May 2.

Comments

[The Late P Brooks]

If a bunch of racist crackpots are hell-bent on owning a handgun, in defiance of common sense and the Social Contract, they can always move to Texas. No Constitutional issue. Reasonable common sense gun safety rules prevail.

[Alex L.]

Along those lines, if you're hell-bent on marrying your boyfriend you can just go ahead and move to Massachusetts. Case closed. And if you prefer to protect your family by hiding in a closet and crossing your trembling fingers, in defiance of common sense, by all means, don't buy a gun.

[Gray Peterson]

How was Otis McDonald a racist crackpot? How about Rhonda Ezell? What about Shelly Parker?

[LiveFreeOrDiet]

Maybe the citizens shouldn't carry guns in a place where they aren't deemed competent to pump their own gas.

[UnCivilServant]

The "professional" was slower than I was on the one occassion I had the misfortune of having to stop for gas in Jersey (I was trying to get past the opposite end of the state) This led to a traffic jam at the gas station because so many people had to wait for these slowpokes to process each customer.

[Rich]

The Supreme Court rejects the vast majority of petitions it receives each year (the acceptance rate is around 2 percent).

Why would anyone "take it all the way to the Supreme Court" given odds like that? Do the Supremes have to give reasons for their refusal to consider important and difficult cases as they apparently kick the can like congress does?

[John]

There are 14 (or around there)circuit courts. The supreme court could never review every case decided at that level. The loser in nearly all of those cases files for cert because it doesn't cost much and it makes their clients feel better knowing all avenues have been exhausted.

The rules for the court accepting a case are pretty simple. They will take cases; where there is a split between the circuits that needs to be resolved, a suit between the states that must be heard by the court, or if a circuit court does something really counter to existing law such that a majority of the court feels the need to slap them down.

This case should fit into the last category.

[gimmeasammich]

Drake v. Jerejian is just one case that was pushed to the top. Others have been there before, and only some of those have been heard (Woollard - not heard, McDonald - heard, etc.). Since CA9 ruled recently that there did exist a right to carry in some form outside of the home, this put them in agreement with CA7 out of Illinois. It also created a split with CA2, 3, and 4 (there may be more, I'm just pulling from memory) who basically said that this right didn't exist. Obviously the SC can't let a split stand in the face of their previous rulings, otherwise what's the point of having a SC if the lower courts are just going to ignore it?

[DWC]

This is something I have never understood. Governments at all levels have passed unconstitutional laws relentlessly for 200 years and if you want to get them overturned you have to go to court and prove that they are unconstitutional. It seems to me that is exactly backwards. It seems obvious to me that any law under consideration should be vetted for constitionality first before it ever has a chance to be voted on and becoming law. It is absurd that it is the other way around.

[gimmeasammich]

Not only that, but those in charge of passing such laws are shielded from 1983-type lawsuits because of qualified immunity.

[Vampire]

"qualified immunity is designed to shield government officials from actions "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

What in the hell constitutes a reasonable person? Government officials swear an oath to the constitution, so why in the hell is there a need to shield these officials from "I didn't know this violated the fourth amendment" so.... Sorry they're dead but I didn't know and now I get away with it scot-free????

Such bull sheisser boggles the mind, and yet folks still think there is a purpose for government. Oh, and add some "if we get the right ones" up in there, only then will they protect and defend liberty.