7 replies to this topic

[press1280]

Oral arguments at the 1st Circuit were held yesterday. Two Obama judges were on the panel so it's kind of expected how this will end up.

 

http://media.ca1.usc...dio/17-2202.mp3

 

But Plaintiff's attorney was on fire in his rebuttal, knocking down all the silly arguments by the state and sheriff's attorneys, as well as the judges.

[Euler]

Deja vu. I posted elsewhere on the issue in this case earlier today.

Basically, this case is how most people who apply for a license to carry (LTC) get it (even though MA is a may-issue state), but people who live in Boston (and Brookline) routinely get denied, especially if they're not doctors or lawyers. The LTC is good state-wide, so people who live in MA but don't live in Boston can carry in Boston. However, people who live in Boston can't carry anywhere. Boston's practice is effectively a carry ban, and the licensing law is unequally applied.

As for the oral arguments, I think the plaintiff's lawyer did a poor job responding to the judge's questions about what confrontations would not require a firearm for defense, as the Heller decision pointed out that not all confrontations require a firearm to resolve. The lawyer seemed focused on Heller meaning that people can't justifiably carry and use firearms to commit crimes. (A better argument is people can't justifiably use lethal force if their lives aren't in danger, because then it's a crime. So I don't think he made his point.) He did better during rebuttal of the defendants' oral arguments that banning guns in Boston makes everyone safer.

[chislinger]

The court needs a new sound guy.

[Charles Nichols]

Gould lost on Friday, November 2nd, because the court of appeals held that the “core right” in Heller is limited to the home saying, “To sum up, we hold that the core right protected by the Second Amendment is — as Heller described it — “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” 554 U.S. at 635. Public carriage of firearms for self-defense falls outside the perimeter of this core right.”

 

There is only one other SCOTUS Rule 10 court which has limited the Second Amendment “core right” to the home, the State of Maryland high court which held in 2011 “If the Supreme Court, in this dicta, meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.” Williams v. State, 10 A. 3d 1167 – Md: Court of Appeals (2011) at 1177. (The Court of Appeals of Maryland is the supreme court of the U.S. state of Maryland.)

 

 Gould v. Morgan 17-2202-2018-11-02.pdf   76.8KB   68 downloads

[TomKoz]

OH I must have missed that in the 2A ....

.... the right to keep and bear arms IN THE HOME shall not be infringed !!

The Framers must have used invisible ink !!

Let’s pray Trump gets at least 1, maybe 2 or 3 more Supreme Court appointments!!

[Soutsidr]

"...Public carriage of firearms for self-defense falls outside the perimeter of this core right.

I believe that things just outside the core, along the perimeter, are located at the fringe.
Where might a word with fringe as a root be found?

Edited by Soutsidr, 05 November 2018 - 04:22 PM.

[Hap]

Well, we do have all those "emanations and penumbras" from that other Supreme Court decision...

[Charles Nichols]

After applying for an extension of time and the extension having been granted, the due date for the cert petition in Gould became April 1st.  It took a few days for the SCOTUS docket to appear.  The attorney for the petitioners, David Thompson, is the same attorney for the petitioners in Rogers et al v. Grewal et al, (cert petition filed on Dec 20, 2018) which challenges a similar handgun carry law out of New Jersey.  

 

The cert petition in Gould is very different than the one filed in Rogers.  The Roger's cert petition railed against Open Carry despite New Jersey handgun carry permits not restricting either manner of carry.  The Gould cert petition doesn't mention Open or concealed carry other than in a footnote saying that "Class B" handgun Open Carry permits are no longer available.  "Class A" handgun carry permits do not restrict either manner of carry.

 

The Brief amici curiae of Attorney's General of Arizona filed in support of Roger's cert petition did not even mention "Open Carry."  After reading the brief, one might think the only possible way of carrying a handgun is concealed and long guns simply do not exist.  Amusingly, the other five Amicus briefs in support of granting cert in Roger's took a different approach.  The NRA Amicus brief cited case after case in which bans on concealed carry were upheld, and not upheld because Open Carry was legal but because concealed carry is not a 2A right or a right under the State Constitutions.

 

Which pretty much torpedos Roger's argument that states can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry.  Either the petitioners from New Jersey really, really hate Open Carry or the so-called gun-rights lawyers don't communicate with each other.

 

Gould, like Rogers, is limited to handguns the latter being limited to handguns which are easily and ordinarily carried concealed.  The State's response in Rogers is due on April 19th, which is plenty of time for SCOTUS to make a decision on whether or not to grant cert before the end of the current term in June.  The response by the State of Massachusetts in Gould is due on May 6th.  The state can ask for a 30-day extension which, if granted, still leaves time (barely) for SCOTUS to make a decision on whether or not to grant the cert petition.

 

In any event, here are the links to the two SCOTUS dockets.

 

Rogers et al v. Grewal et al -> https://www.supremec...lic\18-824.html

Gould et al v. Morgan et al -> https://www.supremec...ic\18-1272.html