Thursday, February 28, 2019

Supreme Court Takes Closer Look at Rogers v. Grewal, NJ Second Amendment Case

Rodgers v. Grewal is a New Jersey Second Amendment case that has pushed through the court system of appeals. The petitioners are asking the Supreme Court to hear the case. The legal term is to ask the Court to  grant a writ of Certiorari.

The case is the next in a stream of Second Amendment cases over the last eight years. This case, like others, deals with the  Second Amendment right to carry a weapon, specifically a handgun, outside of the home.

The Supreme Court has refused to hear a case on the issue for eight years. That changed on January 22, 2019, when the Court agreed to hear a case from New York Rifle & Pistol Association. In that case, the City of New York forbids pistol owners from taking a pistol outside of their home except to one of nine ranges available in New York City.  That case was granted a writ of certiorari or "cert" as it is called in legal jargon.

The New Jersey case is broader, and deals with issues already raised in several appeals courts. The primary issue is whether there is *any* right to bear arms outside of the home. The Third Circuit Court of appeals had decided, in a previous case, the right to bear arms did not apply outside of the home. The only avenue left was an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The First, Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits have all held, in slightly varying degrees, that there is no Second Amendment right to bear arms outside of the home.  These Circuits contain states on the East coast that remain "may issue", which is to say, allow a governmental authority to deny the right to carry outside the home on the basis of need, which does not include a general need for self defense.

The D.C. circuit and, currently, the Ninth Circuit, have held there is a right to bear arms outside the home, and the government cannot deny a permit to carry on the basis of need.

This makes for a split in the circuit courts. The petitioners in Rogers v. Grewal argue it is a split that needs to be fixed by the Supreme Court. From the petition:
This Court’s review is necessary in this case for three independent reasons: to resolve the direct conflict in the circuits over the constitutionality of laws like New Jersey’s, to correct the decision of the court below essentially ignoring the clear holdings of Heller and McDonald, and to end the lower courts’ open and massive resistance to those decisions.
The Supreme Court had scheduled a hearing on the case for 19 February, 2019.

Congress granted the Supreme Court the power to decide what cases it would hear when it set up the appeals court system in 1891. About 8,000 cases ask for a writ of certiorari in a given year. The Supreme Court accepts about 80, or one percent of those cases.

In some cases, the court desires more information about the case before it makes the decision about accepting it or deciding not to hear it. The Court asked for more information about Rogers v. Grewal. From the
Feb 19 2019  Response Requested. (Due March 21, 2019)
It will be at least a month before we know if the Supreme Court decides to hear Rogers v. Grewal.  The Supreme Court is interested enough to ask for more information.  That does not mean they will hear the case; it means they did not refuse to hear the case with the knowledge available to them at present.

The case has several aspects that make it a good candidate. But Second Amendment supporters have been disappointed several times in the last eight years.

©2019 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

In the past the Supreme court has ruled "IF IT IS NOT WRITTEN IT DOES NOT EXIST" the second amendment does not say to keep and to bear only in the home. The original intent of the second amendment was to defend ones self any where any time, To be ready to be called to service if the country needed armed men immediately to repel invasion and to defend the defenseless. any one anywhere that is defenseless. Not many have the advantage of picking the place where they will be attacked. A sovereign citizens is king in his own castle and most kings have been known to leave their castle from time to time and they always take their protection with them. No constitutionally guaranteed right is required to have a license or a permit to exercise that right. How many hand made bows and arrows are required to be licensed tell the plains Indians that bows and arrows are not deadly or the many dead cavalry that were buried with arrow heads in them. very few arrows will penetrate the walls of your home so If you need protection from arrows it would be needed out side of the home. No one has the right to tell another you don't have your license or permit so you cant defend yourself against an attack any where you happen to be. Victims of crime never demand their defenders be prosecuted for stepping in to help. what if people that are against guns were required to wear some kind of identification like attack me I'm unarmed? that would be like the pioneers setting their own wagons on fire to be the Indians to it. do you think we might run out of anti gun assholes? Is there anything written in the constitution that says we are only permitted to be safe in our own homes. If that is the case then we have to get rid of the secret service. Until the secret service is expanded to protect every citizen in their own home is the president entitled to have protection in the white how or any where he travels? The supreme court has ruled your rights travel with you even across state lines. some people can take their homes with them but most do not. there is no states right to issue permits to exercise a right and the constitution forbids taxing a person from another state for a license to exercise a right enjoyed by citizens of that state. Out of state Licenses and permits are unconstitutional.