press1280 Posted August 12, 2017 at 01:43 PM Share Posted August 12, 2017 at 01:43 PM Oddly enough Scotus denied that case with no comment.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted August 12, 2017 at 03:17 PM Share Posted August 12, 2017 at 03:17 PM SCOTUS has requested a response, due September 11th. 1st test passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted November 3, 2017 at 09:24 PM Share Posted November 3, 2017 at 09:24 PM Distributed for the November 21st conference https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1517.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted November 7, 2017 at 02:30 PM Share Posted November 7, 2017 at 02:30 PM Problem I think the record was 20 or so which is roughly the equivalent of 5 months. I think Norman will happen this term or won't happen at all.It will happen this term or not at all. Only an extraordinary event could push it to October 2018, such as another Justice dying and leaving a 4-4 ideological split, which is why Texas v. United States was held for rehearing. 20 realists would mean they're crafting a per curiam order. That's an obscene amount of relists. That wouldn't happen in this case because of its importance, the Court would benefit from oral argument. Sent from my VS987 using TapatalkBut this once again begs the question...can we trust Kennedy? Or is he perhaps gonna quit during the Christmas recess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted November 7, 2017 at 02:32 PM Share Posted November 7, 2017 at 02:32 PM Also, what questions is Norman asking? I'm assuming the questions are "does the 2A protect a right to carry?" and "can the government dictate the manner in which you can carry?" I just wish somebody would bring up strict scrutiny. Half of our problems would be fixed overnight if that was the standard used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted November 7, 2017 at 03:18 PM Author Share Posted November 7, 2017 at 03:18 PM But this once again begs the question...can we trust Kennedy? Or is he perhaps gonna quit during the Christmas recess?Answer to your first question is a big, fat "No." and he's not going anywhere during the recess. He likely will announce his retirement at end of term in May. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted November 7, 2017 at 10:40 PM Share Posted November 7, 2017 at 10:40 PM Norman's question is quite broad: QUESTION PRESENTEDFlorida law provides for licenses to carryhandguns concealed, but prohibits carrying firearmsopenly. Petitioner, who had such license, wasconvicted of openly carrying a firearm on a publicstreet. The majority of the Florida Supreme Courtupheld the ban under intermediate scrutiny based onconjecture by counsel about why the legislature mayhave banned open carry.The issue is whether a prohibition on peaceablyand openly carrying a lawfully-owned handguninfringes on “the right of the people to . . . bear arms”protected by the Second Amendment to the UnitedStates Constitution. That issue also involves theextent to which a restriction on a constitutional rightmay be upheld, under a proper standard of review, onthe basis of a post hoc argument of counsel with nofoundation in the legislative or factual record. The state's "question" is much more straightforward: QUESTION PRESENTEDWhether a state that broadly allows responsible,law-abiding adults to carry handguns and otherweapons in public for self-defense may, consistentwith the Second Amendment, require that thoseweapons generally remain concealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted November 8, 2017 at 12:13 AM Author Share Posted November 8, 2017 at 12:13 AM This is a favorite of mine: "Applying intermediate scrutiny, the majority upheld the open carry ban on the basis that the alternative of concealed carry with a license was available and that the legislature could reasonably conclude that an armed attacker 'might be more likely to target an open carrier than a concealed carrier.' App. 43a. Since strict scrutiny does not apply, it added, such supposition need not be backed up by evidence and the court would defer to the legislative judgment. App. 43-44a." Ok then. "Intermediate scrutiny applies so we can just take wild guesses as to what the legislature was thinking in regard to how violent felons select their victims." That requires a lot of guesswork. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted November 27, 2017 at 02:52 PM Share Posted November 27, 2017 at 02:52 PM Cert was denied without comment. This case is done unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.