Why is there almost no information on this 2nd Amendment case: Drake v. Derejian?

[usmarine0352_2005]

.



I've never heard of this case and there is barely any info on it on the internet when you do a search.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...me-court-guns-california-home-public/5467059/

.
Supreme Court may rule on guns outside the home
Richard Wolf, USA TODAY 9:23 p.m. EST February 17, 2014


WASHINGTON — Guns will be on the table Friday when the Supreme Court meets in private conference to consider potential cases for next fall's docket.

Soon, however, the court will consider a petition that presents the issue squarely. Opponents of New Jersey's restrictions on carrying guns in public have asked the justices to overrule a 3rd Circuit appeals court ruling in Drake v. Jerejian that upheld the state law. Now that the 9th Circuit has ruled the other way, either case could provide a Supreme Court showdown.

"Drake presents very strong splits on carrying outside the home and the need for evidence in Second Amendment cases," says Alan Gura, the lawyer for those challenging New Jersey's law. After Friday's ruling by the 9th Circuit against San Diego County's restrictions, he says, "That just became much stronger."
.

.

 

[Librarian]

Used to be Drake vs Filko.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

Because names change. Remember Heller was Parker v. DC?

Look up Drake v. Filko.

 

[barnbwt]

Well now, that's just confusing . You'd think they'd hyphenate the names or something, at least?

Here's to SCOTUS man-ing up and settling this issue in a clear manner (yeah, I know they won't, but I can dream )

TCB

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

With a split of the Seventh and Ninth Circuits vs. the Second, Third, and Fourth because of Peruta in CA a few days ago, perhaps SCOTUS will hear a carry outside the home case now.
.

 

[MagnumDweeb]

Peruta is a really good case as it addresses the issue of CCW by essentially saying there is no may issue when one states self-defense as a reason for applying for the permit. It changes one little tiny bit but a bit so big that it essentially means shall issue. And I think we will win the day by taking on the small bits, not the big bits. I'd rather have Peruta in front of the SCOTUS, but that's just me.

 

[siglite]

http://www.wvago.gov/pdf/Wyoming Amicus 02-12-14.pdf

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

Reading articles today and they are saying that the third case is Lane v. Holder and not Drake v. Folko as said in the above article.




What's correct?
.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.


What's this mean, that they could still hear it this session?




http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/02/supreme-court-wont-hear-three-second-amendment-gun-cases/

.
The United States Supreme Court decided on Monday morning to not hear three Second Amendment cases that sought to clarify the rights of people to carry handguns for self-defense purposes outside their homes.

Without comment, the Justices denied petitions for certiorari for NRA v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms , NRA v. McCraw and Lane v. Holder. All three cases were considered in private conference on Friday.

However, there is a fourth case also heading toward a private conference, at some point, that addresses many of the same issues in the three cases denied by the Court on Monday. The case of Drake v. Jerejian is about gun control laws in New Jersey and a petition has been filed with the Court.
.

 

[carpboy]

However, there is a fourth case also heading toward a private conference, at some point, that addresses many of the same issues in the three cases denied by the Court on Monday. The case of Drake v. Jerejian is about gun control laws in New Jersey and a petition has been filed with the Court.If this is true,it could be the USSC wants to discuss the possibility of a split between the circuits,given the recent 9th circuit ruling in Peruta.Especially now the Sheriff Gore has announced the he will not appeal.Even tho the clock has not run out for appeal,the USSC can see Peruta as a fait accompli,and want to address any challenges once Peruta becomes established law.
.