21 replies to this topic

[Charles Nichols]

This was a surprise. I had been checking the SCOTUS docket but not seeing an ask for an extension of time, I quit. I just checked my email and discovered an email from Gorski with a link to the SCOTUS docket.

 

Gorski filed 90 days after his en banc petition was denied. I sent him an email back asking at what time his petition was filed with the clerk. I assume it was on time because the clerk has noted a response due date with no mention of the petition being filed out of time.

 

In any event, we now have our first cert petition that I know of regarding public carry of a firearm, in this case concealed (of course).

 

Now that the US Supreme Court provides links to the filings in a case online, I will not be posting links to the filings at my website.  You can access them on the US Supreme Court website.

For the US Supreme Court docket in this case, click here.  https://www.supremec...lic/18-121.html

 

Please note that the SCOTUS webserver seemed to have a lot of difficulty last term consistently reporting the current docket, independent of what browser one uses or whether or not one cleared his cache and cookies.  The workaround I found was to check both the above link and the RSS feed icon next to the print icon at the top of the docket.

[press1280]

Yikes. I'd prefer an open carry or general public carry case.
This one is a straight CCW case.

[BigJim]

Someone want to sum it up (in laymen's terms) of 100 words or less what the case is about?

[Euler]

Someone want to sum it up (in laymen's terms) of 100 words or less what the case is about?

California is a may-issue state. Permits are issued by county sheriffs. Rothery applied for a concealed carry permit to Sacramento county sheriff Blanas. Blanas denied him.

Rothery contends that the system is corrupt, in that sheriffs issue permits to people who supported their elections and deny permits to people who didn't.

[lockman]

In summary, California bans open carry and concealed carry permit issuance is too restrictive and capricious. Therefore; a fundamental right denied.

[Charles Nichols]

Yikes. I'd prefer an open carry or general public carry case.
This one is a straight CCW case.

Yes. Yes it is.

 

And not a very good one at that for a variety of reasons which I could go into but won't waste my time.  You can read some of the reasons in the state's Brief In Opposition, if there is one.

[Hipshot Percussion]

Forgive my ignorance, but does this mean SCOTUS has accepted this case?  Or does this just mean an appeal has been filed and SCOTUS could just not take the case?

[Charles Nichols]

For some reason, I thought we could edit our prior posts.  Not seeing an edit link, I will post it here.

 

At my website, I have more than enough links to the relevant filings in this case.  If you want to know what this case is about then read the Opening Brief and the unpublished decision.  If you want to know more, well then read the other filings which are also available here -> http://blog.californ...g/?page_id=3434

 

If that doesn't answer your questions then contact the attorneys who filed the cert petition. Their contact information is on the cover page to the cert petition.

[Soutsidr]

Forgive my ignorance, but does this mean SCOTUS has accepted this case?  Or does this just mean an appeal has been filed and SCOTUS could just not take the case?

This is a petition for Cert which SCOTUS has not yet considered. It has not been accepted, and it may or may not get accepted. Most petitions do not get accepted.

[Hipshot Percussion]

 

Forgive my ignorance, but does this mean SCOTUS has accepted this case?  Or does this just mean an appeal has been filed and SCOTUS could just not take the case?

This is a petition for Cert which SCOTUS has not yet considered. It has not been accepted, and it may or may not get accepted. Most petitions do not get accepted.

 

Thanks, Soutsidr!

[press1280]

CA and the sheriff in this case have waived their response.

[bmyers]

Interesting, I wonder if they feel that the case has little chance of being accepted?

[press1280]

Probably. Although the whole idea of the response seems silly to me. If SCOTUS is interested, they'll ask for a response. If they don't, then the case is DOA anyway.

[JTHunter]

Hopefully, the SC will accept this because of its doubly restrictive nature, similar in the way Illinois denied both OC and CC.  Wouldn't the SC acceptance frost that sheriff's backside !

[press1280]

This is a bad case for the reasons laid out in this thread, not to mention that sheriff went virtual shall issue after being sued a few years ago.
A better case would be one where the plaintiffs are snow white and the licensing regime is virtual no issue.

[kwc]

For some reason, I thought we could edit our prior posts. 

Editing requires you to be a “Supporting Member” (paid contributor). This status often elapses without the member knowing.

[press1280]

https://www.supremec...lic/18-121.html

 

SCOTUS has requested a response, due Oct 1st. This shows *some* interest in the petition, although it's a pretty low bar.

 

This probably won't get to conference until late October (if no more extensions happen).

 

I'm hoping the Rogers case in NJ gets freed from the 3rd Circuit so they can file for cert and avoid a potential train wreck with this one.

[Charles Nichols]

https://www.supremec...lic/18-121.html

 

SCOTUS has requested a response, due Oct 1st. This shows *some* interest in the petition, although it's a pretty low bar.

 

This probably won't get to conference until late October (if no more extensions happen).

 

I'm hoping the Rogers case in NJ gets freed from the 3rd Circuit so they can file for cert and avoid a potential train wreck with this one.

It takes just one justice to request a response, perhaps a low bar compared to the four votes it takes to grant the cert petition and the five to win but still within that tiny fraction of cases in which a response is requested -> https://certpool.com...nces/2018-09-24

 

If I were a betting man, I would have bet that this particular cert petition was D.O.A.  It will be amusing to read the Brief In Opposition. The State of California's BIO in Peruta said the court should wait for another case, mentioning mine by name.  Here's hoping I get another "honorable mention."

[press1280]

The responses will be interesting. Let's see if the state tries to claim there's no split or will try to make it look like they're endorsing the open carry right position (which they'll do an about face when your case comes up).

[Charles Nichols]

The responses will be interesting. Let's see if the state tries to claim there's no split or will try to make it look like they're endorsing the open carry right position (which they'll do an about face when your case comes up).

The state has already done an about face in my case.  In the Peruta v. San Diego en banc oral argument the state's position was that the Second Amendment exists beyond the curtilage of one's home, just not to concealed carry, as per the Heller decision.  In my appeal, the state argues that there is no right outside the door of my home, period.  Why?  Because of the 14th century English Statute of Northampton of course.

[C0untZer0]

Weren't the arguments of early English Common Law concerning guns settled with Heller ?

 

After Heller and McDonald, wouldn't the job of the lower courts be to try to settle cases in light of the Supreme Court decisions, and wouldn't the judges be precluded from trying to decipher English common law ?

Edited by C0untZer0, 02 September 2018 - 10:00 AM.

[press1280]

States did pass laws based on the Statute of Northampton. The issue is that the liberals want it to be based on the mere carriage of weapons,not carriage in a threatening manner. This wasn't prosecuted in the US until more recently and IIRC wasn't prosecuted in England either.