Jump to content

Any key gun rights cases working their way to the SCOTUS?


vito

Recommended Posts

I'm pretty sure, but not positive, that whoever gets confirmed after the start of the term gets to sit out until the next term. The seat will still be locked up by the President's appointed one, but the court is short handed for a little while.

 

Nope, he’ll get sworn in and seated as soon as possible - does not have to sit out.

The only thing is he will not be able to vote on cases he didn’t hear orals on, but since the term is just beginning there really isn’t any backlog of cases so that’s not a concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This ^^^^^

With an even number of conservative / lib judges, things could be locked up in stalemate.

In which case, Molly should be called in for the deciding vote.

If she's too busy, I'll do it.

 

[sarcasm off]

You are spot on my man - it's way past time the SCOTUS got off it's butt and got involved in defending a RIGHT in the Bill of Rights and not inventing rights where there is clearly no power given in the Constitution to do so,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There better be, and SCOTUS better take the d@mn cases finally

 

I agree the fact that for the most part the SCOTUS has twinkle-toed around their own Heller decision for a decade allowing a patchwork of restrictions and lower court miss-mash to stand, while states and municipalities continue to restrict the right for some and not others is disturbing... As a Constitutionally protected right, it should be universally honored and protected across the country, regardless of what your address is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Highland Park v Friedman is denied, does that mean someone needs to file a different suit? I thought it just wasn't heard. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/friedman-v-city-of-highland-park/

The highland park suit is over. Someone would need to start all over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If Highland Park v Friedman is denied, does that mean someone needs to file a different suit? I thought it just wasn't heard. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/friedman-v-city-of-highland-park/

The highland park suit is over. Someone would need to start all over again.

 

I'm not up to date, but there has to be a similar one somewhere already in progress that would be able to make it to the SCOTUS sooner...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There better be, and SCOTUS better take the d@mn cases finally

 

 

 

I agree the fact that for the most part the SCOTUS has twinkle-toed around their own Heller decision for a decade allowing a patchwork of restrictions and lower court miss-mash to stand, while states and municipalities continue to restrict the right for some and not others is disturbing... As a Constitutionally protected right, it should be universally honored and protected across the country, regardless of what your address is...

Justice Thomas has been quite vocal in his dissent on turning down several of these cases.

 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There better be, and SCOTUS better take the d@mn cases finally

 

 

 

I agree the fact that for the most part the SCOTUS has twinkle-toed around their own Heller decision for a decade allowing a patchwork of restrictions and lower court miss-mash to stand, while states and municipalities continue to restrict the right for some and not others is disturbing... As a Constitutionally protected right, it should be universally honored and protected across the country, regardless of what your address is...

Justice Thomas has been quite vocal in his dissent on turning down several of these cases.

But not because he's against limiting the scope of the the 2nd ammendment, quite the opposite. He even brought up Hellar saying the limiting scope wasn't what Scalia meant at all.

 

Dissent on HP v Friedman

Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home...

The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the laws potential policy benefits...

 

(on Friedman v HP) This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

 

This is actually worth reading, because I used to say Heller VS DC was flawed in its limit to handguns, but this basically says they did not intend to limit DC VS Heller to handguns, just the lower courts are unconstitutional and misinterpreted what they stated.

 

They're looking for a broader case that permanently enshrines semi auto long guns in the constructs of the 2nd ammendment like DC v Heller did for handguns. They saw gun grabbing lower courts twisting the words of DC VS Heller and are being careful not to make the same mistakes again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thomas & Gorsuch last summer said that the SCOTUS was treating the 2nd Amendment as a second class right, especially compared to how frequently 1st Amendment cases are reviewed by the SCOTUS. Now that Kavenaugh is on the bench, I think we'll see 2nd Amendment cases granted certiorari. We just need that 4th justice to sign on. I would think that Roberts or Alito could be persuaded to join them for the right case.

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...