Jump to content

Culp vs Madigan - Lawsuit Filed On Behalf of Non-Residents


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

 

 

If the decision of CA7 in this case is different from that of similar (non-resident concealed carry) cases in any other circuit, that would be a reason for the SC to grant certiorari, so that laws across the country could be more homogenized. If there is no split, even if it's because there are no similar cases, then the SC would not grant cert.

So regardless of how illegal a law is, if there is no split then SCOTUS will not grant a cert? So, if a single state passes a law saying you can keep slaves under the age of 30, but no other state does and no other circuit rules on it, then SCOTUS won't hear the case?

 

Its not quite that cut and dry. A lack of a split makes it so SCOTUS will usually not grant cert, although sometimes they will if the case of high profile (or the violation egregious enough, as your slave law would be if the circuit court upheld it) or sometimes to set a precedent to preemptively prevent a split from occurring

 

When there is a split they almost have to grant cert, to settle the split and create a single precedent nationwide

 

AFAIK there was no circuit split or any other conflict between courts in the Caetano decision - it wasn't even a case in the Federal courts, it was an appeal from a state SC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are few other places where a somewhat similar lawsuit could be made, like CA/N.Y. (permits not generally available to non residents), and SC (No unlicensed carry, non resident permits not available, limited reciprocity).

 

But let's not forget NYSRPA isn't a split either. In any case I'm counting on this to be added to the other cases pending NYSRPA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It seems like he puts a lot of emphasis on the fact there is no circuit split. Yet, since this is an Illinois law and Illinois is covered by one circuit (if my understanding is correct), then how would you have a circuit split? It isn't like you are going to take the case to another circuit since it is an Illinois law. AM i missing something?

 

If the decision of CA7 in this case is different from that of similar (non-resident concealed carry) cases in any other circuit, that would be a reason for the SC to grant certiorari, so that laws across the country could be more homogenized. If there is no split, even if it's because there are no similar cases, then the SC would not grant cert.

So regardless of how illegal a law is, if there is no split then SCOTUS will not grant a cert? So, if a single state passes a law saying you can keep slaves under the age of 30, but no other state does and no other circuit rules on it, then SCOTUS won't hear the case?

The odds heavily favor Scotus granting cert when there's a split. But it isn't guaranteed by any means. They've left deep splits in place for years and taken no split cases like NYSRPA. Just depends on getting the necessary 4 votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usually the date a case is set for conference is based on when it was originally distributed to the Judges and their staffs. There is no reason to think that a case would be added to an already published conference list.

Cert petitions are not distributed to the justices until the Brief In Opposition is filed. That took place on Jan 13 2020. With very few exceptions (this is not one of them) the justices have two weeks to review the petition before it is scheduled for a conference. The Brief In Opposition was filed too late to be scheduled for last Friday's conference. CertPool is not an official government website. CertPool compiles its lists from the SCOTUS dockets, and it does add cases to its already published conference lists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...
  • 1 month later...

Very sad that none of the other 2A cases fared any better. That further delays any opportunity to get the high court to clarify some important aspects of our rights to keep and bear arms.

 

Many thanks to IC, SAF, and ISRA for participating in and taking a leadership role in this case and numerous others. Their efforts mean so much and will continue to help advance our freedoms one small step at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Practically every national news media with Feinstein sitting next to him, gleeful when he said it.

 

I think you are going to need to provide a link that Pres. Trump does not support national reciprocity. I'm not finding it after searching for several hours.

 

I find this:

 

 

"The right of self-defense doesn't stop at the end of your driveway," reads Trump's position on Second Amendment rights. "That's why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states."

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Second_Amendment_Rights.pdf

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/saphr8hr1112hr_20190225.pdf

 

https://tennesseestar.com/2019/02/28/trump-threatens-to-veto-gun-bills-pushed-by-democrats/

 

Maybe you're getting confused about HR. 38, which was a good start toward reciprocity but, the House voted to include language from HR 4477 (Feinstein’s NICS FIX Gun Control) as a poison pill. If the president were to veto the bill, it would be for that reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...