Gamma Posted January 16, 2020 at 01:14 AM Posted January 16, 2020 at 01:14 AM 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.
press1280 Posted January 19, 2020 at 01:52 PM Posted January 19, 2020 at 01:52 PM 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
press1280 Posted January 19, 2020 at 04:23 PM Posted January 19, 2020 at 04:23 PM 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.
Molly B. Posted January 24, 2020 at 08:31 PM Author Posted January 24, 2020 at 08:31 PM I believe the case will be in conference at SCOTUS for consideration in mid-February.
Euler Posted January 24, 2020 at 09:11 PM Posted January 24, 2020 at 09:11 PM I believe the case will be in conference at SCOTUS for consideration in mid-February. It's not currently scheduled, but Culp did just respond today to Raoul's opposition brief, so it probably won't be too long now.
Molly B. Posted January 24, 2020 at 10:52 PM Author Posted January 24, 2020 at 10:52 PM Response filed today. Response to U.S. Supreme Court Culp.pdf
Molly B. Posted January 24, 2020 at 11:08 PM Author Posted January 24, 2020 at 11:08 PM I believe the case will be in conference at SCOTUS for consideration in mid-February.It's not currently scheduled, but Culp did just respond today to Raoul's opposition brief, so it probably won't be too long now. Do you have a link to the conference list?
gunuser17 Posted January 25, 2020 at 12:56 AM Posted January 25, 2020 at 12:56 AM Not on the Feb. 21 Conference List as far as I could tell: https://certpool.com/conferences/2020-02-21
Molly B. Posted January 25, 2020 at 04:20 AM Author Posted January 25, 2020 at 04:20 AM Can cases still be added to that list?
Euler Posted January 25, 2020 at 04:50 AM Posted January 25, 2020 at 04:50 AM Can cases still be added to that list? The SC has conferences approximately weekly through June 25 for this term. There's plenty of opportunity for a case to get added to conference.
gunuser17 Posted January 25, 2020 at 05:24 PM Posted January 25, 2020 at 05:24 PM 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.
Charles Nichols Posted January 27, 2020 at 09:02 AM Posted January 27, 2020 at 09:02 AM 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.
kwc Posted January 29, 2020 at 05:22 PM Posted January 29, 2020 at 05:22 PM According to the docket: Jan 29 2020 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.
press1280 Posted February 25, 2020 at 07:38 AM Posted February 25, 2020 at 07:38 AM As expected, nothing happened after the conference (not denied, granted, or relisted), so this case joins the growing number of cases which will likely be remanded if NYSRPA gets decided on the merits.
kwc Posted April 27, 2020 at 09:52 PM Posted April 27, 2020 at 09:52 PM As of April 27, the case has been distributed for conference of May 1, 2020.
Euler Posted June 15, 2020 at 08:28 PM Posted June 15, 2020 at 08:28 PM For completeness, cert petition denied.
Euler Posted June 15, 2020 at 08:54 PM Posted June 15, 2020 at 08:54 PM I guess it can get unstickied now ...
kwc Posted June 15, 2020 at 09:26 PM Posted June 15, 2020 at 09:26 PM 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.
vezpa Posted June 16, 2020 at 09:03 PM Posted June 16, 2020 at 09:03 PM What a hopeless waste. . The only way this will happen is if we get the Presidency, House and Senate.... then maybe. .
steveTA84 Posted June 16, 2020 at 11:05 PM Posted June 16, 2020 at 11:05 PM What a hopeless waste. . The only way this will happen is if we get the Presidency, House and Senate.... then maybe. .We had that. Nothing was done.....
mab22 Posted June 18, 2020 at 05:02 AM Posted June 18, 2020 at 05:02 AM What a hopeless waste. . The only way this will happen is if we get the Presidency, House and Senate.... then maybe. .We had that. Nothing was done..... Yep, little Eddie Munster and the Turtle did nothing.
Rangerdeepv Posted June 18, 2020 at 02:48 PM Posted June 18, 2020 at 02:48 PM What a hopeless waste. . The only way this will happen is if we get the Presidency, House and Senate.... then maybe. .We had that. Nothing was done..... Yep, little Eddie Munster and the Turtle did nothing. The Reciprocity bill passed the House and McConnell never put it up for a vote.
Euler Posted June 18, 2020 at 08:29 PM Posted June 18, 2020 at 08:29 PM The Reciprocity bill passed the House and McConnell never put it up for a vote. Also Trump said he would veto it if it landed on his desk.
chislinger Posted June 21, 2020 at 05:38 PM Posted June 21, 2020 at 05:38 PM The Reciprocity bill passed the House and McConnell never put it up for a vote.Also Trump said he would veto it if it landed on his desk. Cite?
Euler Posted June 21, 2020 at 10:06 PM Posted June 21, 2020 at 10:06 PM The Reciprocity bill passed the House and McConnell never put it up for a vote. Also Trump said he would veto it if it landed on his desk. Cite? Practically every national news media with Feinstein sitting next to him, gleeful when he said it.
Molly B. Posted June 22, 2020 at 04:41 PM Author Posted June 22, 2020 at 04:41 PM 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.
Euler Posted June 22, 2020 at 08:34 PM Posted June 22, 2020 at 08:34 PM It was the same meeting in which he said "take the guns first, due process later" and also supported an AWB. Like I said, it was a meeting with Feinstein sitting next to him. It wasn't a published document.
Blade13 Posted June 22, 2020 at 08:54 PM Posted June 22, 2020 at 08:54 PM It was the same meeting in which he said "take the guns first, due process later" and also supported an AWB. Like I said, it was a meeting with Feinstein sitting next to him. It wasn't a published document.This is the video you are referring to: https://www.brighteon.com/7bf272c8-70d7-4954-9fcf-4283d95df266
Molly B. Posted June 22, 2020 at 08:57 PM Author Posted June 22, 2020 at 08:57 PM I see nothing there saying he would veto national reciprocity - do you have that segment?
Blade13 Posted June 22, 2020 at 09:09 PM Posted June 22, 2020 at 09:09 PM I see nothing there saying he would veto national reciprocity - do you have that segment?this the segment where he responds to the idea of adding national reciprocity to the bill that was being talked about:
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.