Jump to content


Photo

NRA concealed carry cert petition January 5, 2017 - McKay v. Hutchens


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 05 January 2017 - 10:57 PM

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 5, 2017 – The US Supreme Court still requires paper cert petitions and briefs to be filed and for them to be filed by 2:00 pm Eastern Time at the Court. Theoretically, the cert petition could have filed by US Mail or commercial carrier provided it was mailed today for delivery within three days. Given the complex, anal retentive, hyper-technical requirements the court imposes on cert petitions and briefs, many firms hire a professional legal printing service to print and file their briefs. In any event, the deadline for filing the cert petition in this case has now passed. I will post a link to the cert petition if and when I get my hands on a copy.
 
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners: 
Paul D. Clement Kirkland & Ellis LLP (202) 879-5000
Counsel of Record 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20005 
Party name: Dorothy McKay, et al.
 


#2 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,767 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 08 January 2017 - 06:54 PM

If you manage to get cert, my big concern is Justice Kennedy. Sure, we'll hopefully get Scalia 2.0 to replace Scalia 1.0, but Kennedy's still a loose cannon on 2A issues. If it wasn't for him, Friedman would've been granted cert and would've been an open and shut case and assault weapons bans would be gone for good.

Your case, if the SCOTUS accepts it and rules correctly, could potentially remove a lot of carry prohibitions and I applaud you for filing it, but until Trump appoints his second SCOTUS justice, 2A cases will remain a disaster waiting to happen.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#3 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 08 January 2017 - 07:25 PM

If you manage to get cert, my big concern is Justice Kennedy. Sure, we'll hopefully get Scalia 2.0 to replace Scalia 1.0, but Kennedy's still a loose cannon on 2A issues. If it wasn't for him, Friedman would've been granted cert and would've been an open and shut case and assault weapons bans would be gone for good.

Your case, if the SCOTUS accepts it and rules correctly, could potentially remove a lot of carry prohibitions and I applaud you for filing it, but until Trump appoints his second SCOTUS justice, 2A cases will remain a disaster waiting to happen.

 

The problem the other cases have had is a lack of a SCOTUS Rule 10 split.  That is not always fatal as Justices Thomas and Scalia pointed out in their dissent to Jackson v. San Francisco.  The concealed carry cases suffer from the additional problem of not conflicting with any US Supreme Court decision.  No conflict with SCOTUS and no Rule 10 split equals cert denied nearly every time.

 

I'm not sure why Kennedy is often the one singled out.  Justice Kennedy doesn't seem to have a problem with short-barreled shotguns and if anyone is willing to "expand" the Second Amendment to include concealed carry beyond travelers while on a journey it is Justice Kennedy.  It is Justice Alito who filed a lone dissent in Johnson v. United States saying:

 

"Instead (short barreled shotguns), they are uniquely attractive to violent criminals. Much easier to conceal than long-barreled shotguns used for hunting and other lawful purposes, short-barreled shotguns can be hidden under a coat, tucked into a bag, or stowed under a car seat. And like a handgun, they can be fired with one hand—except to more lethal effect. These weapons thus combine the deadly characteristics of conventional shotguns with the more convenient handling of handguns. Unlike those common firearms, however, they are not typically possessed for lawful purposes. And when a person illegally possesses a sawed-off shotgun during the commission of a crime, the risk of violence is seriously increased. The ordinary case of unlawful possession of a sawed-off shotgun therefore “presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.”"  Consequently, Justice Alito may likewise feel the same about "assault rifles."
 
And Justice Thomas certainly isn't going to read a concealed carry right into the Second Amendment.
 
My crystal ball, which is no worse than any other, tells me that it is Chief Justice Roberts who is the lack of a fourth vote.
 
In any event, .my appeal still has not been briefed. The state's attorney missed his filing deadline and my petition for my appeal to be heard initially en banc is still pending. There is still a chance that my appeal will be heard en banc in March and if not in March then sometime this year followed by a wait for a decision.
 
Of course if my en banc petition is initially denied and my case is heard before a three judge panel and I lose, my chances of being heard en banc statistically improve greatly if President Trump fills the four vacant 9th circuit court of appeals seats with pro-2A judges. 


#4 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 10 January 2017 - 04:39 PM

It looks like the NRA did not file its cert petition.  According to the SCOTUS docket search, lots of cert petitions were filed on January 5th but not in this case.  The Peruta v. San Diego cert petition is due this Thursday (January 12).



#5 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,188 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 13 January 2017 - 08:26 PM

http://www.breitbart...a-and-binderup/

On Jan. 12, former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement—one of the finest Supreme Court litigators of this generation—filed a petition for certiorari in Peruta v. California, backed by the full support of the National Rifle Association of America.


Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#6 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 13 January 2017 - 08:56 PM

http://www.breitbart...a-and-binderup/
 

On Jan. 12, former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement—one of the finest Supreme Court litigators of this generation—filed a petition for certiorari in Peruta v. California, backed by the full support of the National Rifle Association of America.

 

There is a separate thread for Peruta.  If there isn't a separate thread for Binderup then perhaps you should create one?

 

In any event, the NRA did not file its cert petition in McKay.  There is really anything more which can be added to this thread and so it should probably be closed.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users