TyGuy Posted April 17, 2013 at 01:55 AM Share Posted April 17, 2013 at 01:55 AM Skinyb82: why would Moore be better than Woollard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onytay Posted April 17, 2013 at 01:56 AM Share Posted April 17, 2013 at 01:56 AM Skinyb82: why would Moore be better than Woollard? Probably because it deals with an outright ban on carrying outside the home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted April 17, 2013 at 01:59 AM Author Share Posted April 17, 2013 at 01:59 AM Something about the tempo of the case and what I can only guess would be that it's basically going from no issuance at all to, well, God knows what'll happen but Posner's suggests shall issue. That's just a guess. Illinois is like a clean slate, whereas other states have had carry bills around for a while. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted April 17, 2013 at 02:04 AM Author Share Posted April 17, 2013 at 02:04 AM If Lisa is so confident that the carry ban is constitutional she should just petition. I'm willing to wait until the fall if we can put this issue to bed once and for all. Which is precisely why Lisa won't appeal. With the current composition of the court, it'd be the death knell for may issue or even shall issue without preemption. Chicago would be boned. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted April 17, 2013 at 02:05 AM Share Posted April 17, 2013 at 02:05 AM "Tempo"? Is that a legal idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted April 17, 2013 at 02:19 AM Author Share Posted April 17, 2013 at 02:19 AM I paraphrased..." The IL cases are more the speed of SCOTUS, but once they expire (no cert request)...Woollard." What that could possibly mean in context of the Court I have no idea but I believe I erred and misinterpreted the post. Rather it is Gura's preference, not the Court's. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted April 17, 2013 at 02:21 AM Share Posted April 17, 2013 at 02:21 AM SCOUTS can't request a case themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted April 17, 2013 at 02:35 AM Author Share Posted April 17, 2013 at 02:35 AM Nope they have to be petitioned just like any other appellate court. I would be concerned if appellate courts could request cases actually. They could just say "hey we don't like that ruling, we wanna hear orals then overturn it." By "hear" I mean sleep through them or play on their iPads. It's part of the adversarial legal system. If the loser doesn't care or is pulling some "strategery" then the court cannot take action sua sponte. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted April 17, 2013 at 02:41 AM Share Posted April 17, 2013 at 02:41 AM Strategery! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted April 17, 2013 at 03:18 AM Share Posted April 17, 2013 at 03:18 AM Woollard is a pretty good plaintiff. Plaintiff Raymond Woollard lives on a farm in a remote part of Baltimore County, Maryland. On Christmas Eve, 2002, Woollard was at home with his wife, children, and grandchildren when an intruder shattered a window and broke into the house. The intruder was Kris Lee Abbott, Woollard’s son-in-law. Abbott, who was high on drugs and intent on driving into Baltimore city to buy more, was looking for his wife’s car keys. Woollard grabbed a shotgun and trained it on Abbott, but Abbott wrested the shotgun away. Woollard’s son restored order by pointing a second gun at Abbott. Woollard’s wife called the police, who took two-and a- half hours to arrive. Abbott was convicted of first degree burglary and sentenced to three years’ probation. He was later incarcerated after he violated his probation by assaulting a police officer and by committing another burglary. In 2003, Woollard applied for, and was granted, a handgun carry permit. He was allowed to renew the permit in 2006, shortly after Abbott was released from prison. In 2009, however, when Woollard again sought to renew his permit, he was informed that his request was incomplete. He was directed to submit evidence “to support apprehended fear". Because Woollard was unable to produce evidence of a current threat, his application was denied. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted April 17, 2013 at 06:19 AM Author Share Posted April 17, 2013 at 06:19 AM Which is why I like this case much more than Kachalsky. Woollard actually has a story. He's also a Navy vet. And as far as I know, the perp is his son-in-law, or probably former son-in-law by now. Kachalsky just wanted a carry permit, allegations of cronyism, etc. and while that is compelling, it's not even close to as compelling of a reason to grant writ as it is in this case. Plus the fact that CA4 overturned the district court judge's ruling, so that adds more fuel to the fire. By the look of things, Gura is gonna wait and see if Madigan files a petition for writ, her deadline is May 23rd. If not, he's gonna file, Maryland will screw around which actually will help Woollard because when petition for writ is filed right before recess and the respondent doesn't waive response prior to recess, the odds of writ being granted go up exponentially when the Court comes back for the following term. Don't ask me why, I read some paper on it...more like glossed over it and picked up that interesting tidbit. If we see this go to SCOTUS, then I hope they put it on the calendar for spring 2014...could always hope for them to cram it into the fall calendar but beggars can't be choosers heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted April 21, 2013 at 11:07 AM Share Posted April 21, 2013 at 11:07 AM Gura should NOT go and immediately file for cert with Woollard. He should wait to see what Madigan does with Moore, and also give the remaining cases(Drake in NJ and Peruta/Baker/Richards in the CA9 to play out) a chance to be decided and cement a real circuit split. Whether he waits till the last possible day or not the issue would be decided at the end of next term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted April 21, 2013 at 01:17 PM Share Posted April 21, 2013 at 01:17 PM I was totally shocked that SCOTUS didn't take up Kachalski. I don't have any confidence now that they'd hear Woollard, and if they don't hear Woollard it basically means that according to SCOTUS - may issue and good cause restrictions are constitutional (at least for now). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted April 21, 2013 at 03:07 PM Share Posted April 21, 2013 at 03:07 PM Even if they did refuse to hear Woollard it's not supposed to be taken as them agreeing with the ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted April 21, 2013 at 07:55 PM Author Share Posted April 21, 2013 at 07:55 PM Gura should NOT go and immediately file for cert with Woollard. He should wait to see what Madigan does with Moore, and also give the remaining cases(Drake in NJ and Peruta/Baker/Richards in the CA9 to play out) a chance to be decided and cement a real circuit split. Whether he waits till the last possible day or not the issue would be decided at the end of next term. He's gonna wait and see what Lisa does. If May 23rd comes and goes with no action, he's gonna file petition for writ. As I said, or as Gura has told people, Woollard is his clean up batter. He's a compelling defendant, it's a much better case than Kachalsky as far as the merits are concerned. And it involves CA4 overturning a district court. This was not the case in Kachalsky. And this while anti-gun thing is rapidly cooling down although Obama is trying to stir it up again after these two scumbags in Boston. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted April 26, 2013 at 05:40 PM Share Posted April 26, 2013 at 05:40 PM If Lisa is so confident that the carry ban is constitutional she should just petition. I'm willing to wait until the fall if we can put this issue to bed once and for all. Which is precisely why Lisa won't appeal. With the current composition of the court, it'd be the death knell for may issue or even shall issue without preemption. Chicago would be boned. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2DC would be boned too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted April 26, 2013 at 06:13 PM Author Share Posted April 26, 2013 at 06:13 PM If Lisa is so confident that the carry ban is constitutional she should just petition. I'm willing to wait until the fall if we can put this issue to bed once and for all. Which is precisely why Lisa won't appeal. With the current composition of the court, it'd be the death knell for may issue or even shall issue without preemption. Chicago would be boned. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2DC would be boned too. Can't forget that liberal cesspool. Where they arrest veterans but not David Gregory. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANDY Posted July 13, 2013 at 10:58 PM Share Posted July 13, 2013 at 10:58 PM Just was over at MDshooters and they are talking about Gura's petition for cert in Wollard being filed on the 9th of this month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted July 14, 2013 at 03:03 AM Author Share Posted July 14, 2013 at 03:03 AM Yup its docketed. No. 13-42 Title: Raymond Woollard, et al., Petitionersv.Denis Gallagher, et al.Docketed: July 11, 2013Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Case Nos.: (12-1437) Decision Date: March 21, 2013 Rehearing Denied: April 16, 2013 ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Jul 9 2013 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 12, 2013)Jul 9 2013 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted July 14, 2013 at 04:36 PM Share Posted July 14, 2013 at 04:36 PM I think Moore was the case SCOTUS wanted to hear - it would have allowed them to make a broad pro-2A ruling. They passed on hearing Kachalski - but that was when Moore was still in play. I think Woollard is a great plaintiff and he has a good case. I hope SCOTUS will hear it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm.stites Posted July 14, 2013 at 04:38 PM Share Posted July 14, 2013 at 04:38 PM I think Moore was the case SCOTUS wanted to hear - it would have allowed them to make a broad pro-2A ruling. They passed on hearing Kachalski - but that was when Moore was still in play. I think Woollard is a great plaintiff and he has a good case. I hope SCOTUS will hear it.the only question moore could of answered was does the right to self defense extend outside the home... they couldnt of answered may vs shall issue or anything else with moore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted July 14, 2013 at 04:46 PM Author Share Posted July 14, 2013 at 04:46 PM Woollard is a much better case IMO. It's not a strict RTKBA case per se. It's a "right to self protection" case, what constitutes a danger like I dunno, your son in law, living 3 miles away, who burglarized your home on Christmas Eve then violated probation by burglarizing another house and assaulting a cop and subsequently sent to prison. According to the State of Maryland, that man is not a threat to someone until he either commits a forcible felony against a previous victim, or makes threats either verbally or in writing. Because violent criminals send letters of intent to their victims, "Dear so and so, I'm gonna kill you." Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted July 14, 2013 at 07:06 PM Share Posted July 14, 2013 at 07:06 PM Well that's the only polite way to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob Posted July 15, 2013 at 11:59 AM Share Posted July 15, 2013 at 11:59 AM I think they might well have preferred an IL case, because they would only have to rule on whether the 2A extends outside the home. Woollard forces them into considering just how far that right extends, along with some equal protection things that could have significant effect in other areas. Gura seems to like the EP and it seems to me to be a very powerful one that the courts are terrified of because it has implications in so many areas where government arbitrarily gives one person preference over another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagt48 Posted July 15, 2013 at 03:14 PM Share Posted July 15, 2013 at 03:14 PM Woollard is a much better case IMO. It's not a strict RTKBA case per se. It's a "right to self protection" case, what constitutes a danger like I dunno, your son in law, living 3 miles away, who burglarized your home on Christmas Eve then violated probation by burglarizing another house and assaulting a cop and subsequently sent to prison. According to the State of Maryland, that man is not a threat to someone until he either commits a forcible felony against a previous victim, or makes threats either verbally or in writing. Because violent criminals send letters of intent to their victims, "Dear so and so, I'm gonna kill you." Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 The old "Sideshow Bob" approach to murder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted July 15, 2013 at 05:17 PM Author Share Posted July 15, 2013 at 05:17 PM Here is the Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by Gura in Woollard v. Gallagher "The question presented is: Whether state officials violate the Second Amendment by requiring that individuals wishing to exercise their right to carry a handgun for self defense first prove a 'good and substantial reason' for doing so." So basically they're gonna have to rule on carry outside the home too woollard_petition.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted July 15, 2013 at 05:19 PM Share Posted July 15, 2013 at 05:19 PM Woo hoo! Could they hear it this fall, or has that ship sailed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted July 15, 2013 at 05:33 PM Author Share Posted July 15, 2013 at 05:33 PM Spring at the earliest. The case will presumably be distributed to the Justices in September, then conferenced in October, cert granted, calendared for the Spring. Yeah that's a lot of conjecture haha. It's their last shot at addressing this isssue and IMO it is a MUCH better case because it addresses not only carry outside the home but discretionary may issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted July 15, 2013 at 05:49 PM Share Posted July 15, 2013 at 05:49 PM Only 4 is required to grant cert right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted July 15, 2013 at 05:58 PM Author Share Posted July 15, 2013 at 05:58 PM Correct. Rule of 4. My guess, they had enough to grant cert in Kachalsky but those in favor of granting cert had a swing vote that could've gone one way or another and didn't wanna chance it so they voted to deny cert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.