skinnyb82 Posted March 15, 2013 at 05:27 AM Share Posted March 15, 2013 at 05:27 AM It's a de facto statement that all of the statements of law and fact in the petition are correct, so if cert is granted, Westchester County (I dunno about the other parties) CANNOT argue that one of the statements of fact/law contained in the petition is incorrect. The waiver of response is usually used when they think cert will be denied, but it's used quickly, not dragged out for two months. The County just basically said "we don't argue with the statements made in the petition, it's up to you guys." I'm no attorney but I don't believe that was the best idea, given that Scalia is chomping at the bit to hear another gun-related case, as is Sotomayor, and the County of Westchester just played with fire by wasting the Court's time. It could've been evaluating the petition instead of waiting to hear what the County has to say. Empirical studies have found that when a state or the federal government waives response, cert is more likely to be denied. Who wants to bet Loonberg has his hand in this cookie jar too? This denial rate doesn't really have much to do with the lack of a response so much as it does with the state/feds seeing the petition just as the Justices see it...to be frivolous. It appears that Westchester County believes this to be a frivolous petition. No one else does but that's NY for you. Plus, Sotomayor used to sit on CA2. The fact that Westchester waited almost two and a half months to waive response, after being granted a 30 day extension to file a response when it could've filed a waiver on January 8th, certainly will anger all nine of the Justices. It's disrespectful and it reeks of arrogance. Even if Westchester wasn't the movant in requesting the extension or it was granted sua sponte, the County still should've waived its right to respond back in January, amici or not. It's almost a delay tactic because if the respondent had believed the petition to be frivolous, then it would've said "OK, let's not even bother to oppose it, that way the Justices can get cracking on this and deny cert before the end of the term." I really think this was an epic mistake on their part but I'm not not an attorney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANDY Posted March 15, 2013 at 10:37 PM Share Posted March 15, 2013 at 10:37 PM The New York respondents brief was posted today, It is not downloadable from scotusblog yet, Somebody else may be able to link it here from someplace else. It is currently linked at Mdshooters.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted March 16, 2013 at 01:25 AM Share Posted March 16, 2013 at 01:25 AM Link: http://http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/kachalsky/NY-cert-opposition-2013-03-14.pdf I've not read it yet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshipley92 Posted March 16, 2013 at 02:00 AM Share Posted March 16, 2013 at 02:00 AM I just started in reading it and noticed that they are trying to make the case that when it is in the interest of public safety the state should be allowed to regulate gun possession in public. They are obviously ignoring the fact that those states with concealed carry all enjoy lower crime rates than those areas with restrictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted March 16, 2013 at 11:05 PM Share Posted March 16, 2013 at 11:05 PM There are some interesting theories in their response. To my mind, the only potentially valid reason NOT to grant cert right now is that there are several similar cases pending in the circuit courts with very similar questions that should come to conclusion first - before anyone can claim there is a circuit conflict that needs resolving. They exclude the 7th Moore/Sheppard opinion - because that applied to an outright ban on all firearms (stating the New York law provide no ban on open carrying of most rifles and shotguns) - and by such exclusion there is 'no current conflict worthy of this courts consideration'. It will be interesting to see Gura's response. Now we need to keep an eye on http://http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-845.htm for the case being assigned a conference. I wonder if many in New York open carry their shotgun... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted March 16, 2013 at 11:46 PM Share Posted March 16, 2013 at 11:46 PM Westchester has basically handed this over to the state to defend, hence the waiver. The state's reply is that there's no split and that this is simply a "regulation" which is constitutional. Lots of NY state cases used to try to back them up. Unfortunately for them, these cases don't involve any RKBA element, because NY has never recognized such a right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LYU370 Posted March 17, 2013 at 01:33 AM Share Posted March 17, 2013 at 01:33 AM I wonder if many in New York open carry their shotgun... Well since Binden is all for using shotguns to defend yourself, I'd love to see a bunch of New Yorkers start walking around with shotguns strapped to their backs. Get approached by the police... "Hey, Crazy Uncle Joe said I should defend myself with a shotgun". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted March 17, 2013 at 05:54 PM Share Posted March 17, 2013 at 05:54 PM Did anyone else notice how the respondents cite English law several times? And so-called "long standing tradition." Since when did English law have anything to do with the U.S. Constitution. In the conclusion, respondents state thay petitioners simply "do not like" the law. Uh ok. This is a really strange response that doesn't really make a valid argument that the may issue system is Constitutional since there's no citation (other than NY courts and federal district/appellate court(s) in NY regarding RTC). Moore/Shepard is moot, no carry overturned, that doesn't have a thing to do with NY's proper cause argument. IMO it looks like it's been cobbled together on a last minute basis. "We've been doing this for centuries, so it's Constitutional." Right, CA7 ruled that an established practice of complete denial of RTC is unconstitutional yet somehow there's a double standard for NY. Bleh. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Beret Posted March 17, 2013 at 06:07 PM Share Posted March 17, 2013 at 06:07 PM Actually, our system is based on old English law and is often used in legal discussions. It is also sometimes misused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrpapageorgio Posted March 18, 2013 at 03:02 AM Share Posted March 18, 2013 at 03:02 AM Actually, our system is based on old English law and is often used in legal discussions. It is also sometimes misused. At the same time I take those arguments with a grain of salt because if we liked every old English law, we wouldn't have declared our independence from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted March 18, 2013 at 01:47 PM Share Posted March 18, 2013 at 01:47 PM The majority opinion in Moore said that it's not incumbent on courts to do historical analysis of past gun laws since the court in Heller and McDonald has done that historical analysis. So basically - if an issue is covered in Heller, it is inappropriate for lower courts to be looking at English law or early colonial laws for guidance. They just need to reference Heller/McDonald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted March 29, 2013 at 01:43 PM Share Posted March 29, 2013 at 01:43 PM Next date to watch from http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-845.htm "Mar 27 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 12, 2013." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted March 29, 2013 at 02:18 PM Share Posted March 29, 2013 at 02:18 PM Gura's response:Kachalsky-Cert-Petition-reply-2013-03-26.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted March 29, 2013 at 02:24 PM Share Posted March 29, 2013 at 02:24 PM In Moore the court said that it was not appropriate for them to re-engage in a historical analysis, since that historical analysis had already been done in Heller and McDonald. The circuit court did exactly that in Kachalski, they took it upon themselves to do analysis that the supreme court had already done, and Gura calls them out for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted March 29, 2013 at 02:40 PM Share Posted March 29, 2013 at 02:40 PM *starts slow clap* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted March 29, 2013 at 03:40 PM Share Posted March 29, 2013 at 03:40 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yas Posted March 29, 2013 at 05:46 PM Share Posted March 29, 2013 at 05:46 PM Man I just love reading Alan's responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrpapageorgio Posted March 29, 2013 at 05:47 PM Share Posted March 29, 2013 at 05:47 PM My guess is they're gonna take it, I'm just wondering if anyone wants to take bets as to when it'll be heard and if they'll yank Wollard and the other "may issue" cases away so the question can be answered without the other circuits dragging their feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted March 29, 2013 at 06:21 PM Share Posted March 29, 2013 at 06:21 PM Can someone appoint Gura to SCOTUS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted March 29, 2013 at 08:02 PM Share Posted March 29, 2013 at 08:02 PM Wow I just noticed this from Gura's Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari .VI. This Court’s Intervention Is Urgently Needed. Were this petition granted, this case would beheard and decided in the October, 2013 Term,as would a forthcoming petition arising from Woollard v.Gallagher,No. 12-1437, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5617(4th Cir. Mar. 21, 2013) So he's saying right here that he is going to skip en banc review in Woollard and appeal to the Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted March 29, 2013 at 08:12 PM Share Posted March 29, 2013 at 08:12 PM AFAIK yes. There's no point in filing for en banc in CA4 anyway. They're all dunderheads, not just Davis, King, and Diaz. The best chance Woollard has is with SCOTUS, Gura knows that. As far as Kachalsky goes, we'll see whether writ is granted or not in (possibly) as little as three weeks. Ooohh I can't wait! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted March 29, 2013 at 08:44 PM Share Posted March 29, 2013 at 08:44 PM It's a sad state of affairs that judges throughout the system don't do their jobs (following clear precedent) but instead write opinions that set the stage for them being nominated to the Supreme Court at some later date. The Woollard opinion s ridiculous. They used ration basis, then to put a veneer of respectability on it - they called it intermediate scrutiny. That is lipstick on a pig. We have some pretty stupid judges in the judiciary now, and Davis seems clueless, but I doubt that King is ignorant of what intermediate scutiny is. He's showing future democratic presidents that he can be clever in the twisting of words and rendering of opinions and would make a good Supreme Court Justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted April 10, 2013 at 02:31 AM Share Posted April 10, 2013 at 02:31 AM This case has made SCOTUSBlogs 'Petitions to watch' as the first highlighted case... featuring "petitions raising issues that Tom has determined to have a reasonable chance of being granted" "At its April 12, 2013 Conference, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as Second Amendment limits on licensing restrictions for carrying handguns outside the home" http://http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/04/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-april-12-2013/ tick...tock... time is running out for the antis I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobPistol Posted April 10, 2013 at 03:05 AM Share Posted April 10, 2013 at 03:05 AM Can someone appoint Gura to SCOTUS? Only if we get a non-leftist as a president in 2016. Or Obama and Biden both resign. Pray HARD for a good president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted April 10, 2013 at 03:05 AM Share Posted April 10, 2013 at 03:05 AM In the meantime Gura has filed for en banc review in Woollard. The IL AG's deadline to file for certiorari in Moore is midnight May 23rd The CA7 stay ends on June 10th SCOTUS conference dates April 12, 19 and 28May 9, 16, 23 and 30 It's interesting how the stars are lining up... I know Lee Goodman and Quinn are asking Lisa Madigan to appeal Moore, but it would be a really stupid thing to do. Boss Madigan would basically be giving control of Illinois gun laws to the Supreme Court. Bad for people who want to carry now, but IMO REALLY REALLY bad for the anti-gunners who are hoping to create a "NY style" law. What could come back from SCOTUS eventually, is a precedent that strikes down "may issue" and "good cause" and prohibits exorbitant fees or taxes based on those schemes violating the 14th Amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted April 10, 2013 at 03:56 AM Share Posted April 10, 2013 at 03:56 AM Pray HARD for a good president. I did....and we got Obama again anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobPistol Posted April 10, 2013 at 04:00 AM Share Posted April 10, 2013 at 04:00 AM I did....and we got Obama again anyway. Then we need more people praying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoktorPaimon Posted April 11, 2013 at 01:12 PM Share Posted April 11, 2013 at 01:12 PM Then we need more people praying. That or better options... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted April 15, 2013 at 01:29 PM Share Posted April 15, 2013 at 01:29 PM Cert DENIED. so the 2nd ruling stands... for now. http://http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/041513zor_p86b.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted April 15, 2013 at 01:39 PM Share Posted April 15, 2013 at 01:39 PM How much you wanna bet that all of this the political BS going on and their lack of wanting to really with criticism had a huge part in denial. Probably the only reason. Woollard is up next if CA4 shoots down Gura. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.