What's happening w/NJ Carry Case "Pantano"?

[Paladin4CA]

There was a carry case in NJ state courts called Pantano. Since NJ, like a few other states, does not have a RKBA provision in their state constitution, it was being fought using the federal Constitution's 2nd A RKBA. Because of that, after losing in NJ state courts (presumably), they were planning on appealing from the NJ Supreme Court to SCOTUS.

After losing on appeal, the plaintiffs appealed to the NJ SC and the court said they'd hear the appeal. Then, a few months ago, the NJ SC said they had granted review improvidently and said they would not hear the appeal after all.

I haven't heard anything since. Does anyone know if the Pantano plaintiffs can and, if so, plan on appealing to the SCOTUS?

[Clarence]

Best thing would be to check with our embattled brethren  over at the New Jersey Second Amendment Society http://www.nj2as.com

They are doing yeoman work to stop anti gun legislation in that  state

Most of us here in little old Delaware avoid going over that bridge. And when we do we make sure we have no guns or ammo and hold our noses.  

[mrjam2jab]

Found this:

A-72-12 IMO the Application for a New Jersey Permit to Carry a Handgun by Richard Pantano (072329)
Does the statutory requirement that an applicant for a permit to carry a handgun demonstrate “a justifiable need to carry a handgun,” N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(d), violate the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
Certification granted 7/19/13
Posted: 7/19/13
Argued:
Decided May 22, 2014 – Order dismissed as improvidently granted

Now, if someone could interpret that last part there....

[Paladin4CA]

Best thing would be to check with our embattled brethren  over at the New Jersey Second Amendment Society http://www.nj2as.com

They are doing yeoman work to stop anti gun legislation in that  state

Most of us here in little old Delaware avoid going over that bridge. And when we do we make sure we have no guns or ammo and hold our noses. 

I asked them and ANJRPC weeks ago and neither have replied, so I decided to ask here since I figured you guys would be watching such an important case, esp one from a neighboring state. Guess not....

[Paladin4CA]

Found this:

A-72-12 IMO the Application for a New Jersey Permit to Carry a Handgun by Richard Pantano (072329)
Does the statutory requirement that an applicant for a permit to carry a handgun demonstrate “a justifiable need to carry a handgun,” N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(d), violate the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
Certification granted 7/19/13
Posted: 7/19/13
Argued:
Decided May 22, 2014 – Order dismissed as improvidently granted

Now, if someone could interpret that last part there....

Yeah, I mentioned that in the OP.

NJSC granted Pantano's appeal when there was a chance SCOTUS would take up the Carry issue (the "B" in RKBA) with, IIRC, the Drake case (a SAF case in NJ too). When SCOTUS declined cert. in Drake, the NJ SC then changed their mind and decided not to take Pantano.

[Clarence]

Paladin:

What is going on with Peruta?   Has is this going to be heard enbanc.

Seems like it is just hanging out there.

[Paladin4CA]

Paladin:

What is going on with Peruta?   Has is this going to be heard enbanc.

Seems like it is just hanging out there.

Getting OT, but since no one seems to know what, if anything, is happening w/Pantano....

Peruta was decided by a 3-judge panel of CA9 last Valentine's Day. Our side won in a very solidly written opinion, w/2 judges agreeing and 1 disagreeing. San Diego (defendant), said they would not appeal.

After it was decided, CA AG Kamala Harris -- who had been invited to join the litigation much earlier, but declined -- suddenly changed her mind and decided she does want to get in the middle of this fight and motioned CA9 to allow her to "intervene" in order to then ask the 3-judge panel to rehear the case or for CA9 to rehear it en banc.

That's where we stand and have stood since the end of Feb....

But, the Peruta decision has already had some positive effects. Orange, Ventura, and San Joaquin counties have all switched to accepting mere "self-defense"/"personal protection" as sufficient "Good Cause" for getting a CCW. They've got populations of 3M, 800k, and 700k respectively. (For comparison, the population of the entire state of DE is 900k.) Several other counties (representing 17.3M), are accepting apps w/SD = GC, but are holding them pending "finalization", as it is called, of the Peruta decision.

Peruta was also a major influence on the trial court's opinion in Palmer -- the Carry case out of Wash D.C. that's been at the trial court level for some 5 years. Our side won and D.C. just passed a highly restrictive "May Issue" law and must decide later this month if they want to appeal the decision.

For those who care, you can keep up w/the Palmer filings at:
https://ia902305.us.archive.org/14/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.docket.html