skinnyb82

I just searched for it on SCOTUS's website. New docket, it's been assigned a case number also but no one seems to have the cert petition. http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-993.htm

Docket now shows (as stated above) appellee is Bill De Blasio and cert petition was filed on 2/17 Feb 17 2014 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 24, 2014)

Jensen has until the end of the day to file cert petition unless he already has and its not been docketed. Nominal fee to exercise a right ok so lets bring back poll taxes. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

I may not be under board review but if you wanna talk about common names, there's some piece of work in Wisconsin (where I was born, lived there until I was 18) with whom I share first, middle initial, and last, and he has an insanely long sheet for everything from reckless driving, DUI, deadbeat dad stuff, etc. WI court records are public and searchable online. I ran my name and it spit out 74 results, 3 pages, mostly his stuff too. Ugh. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

Arizona is on the list but not Utah. I find that to be quite odd. It's still a still a step in the right direction. Huge leap more like it. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

No. It can't be. Not that lawsuit at least since it originated in CA state court. It could be re-filed in the Central District of CA (I think that's LA County...). It has to make its way up through the CA state court system to the California Supreme Court, then it could go to SCOTUS (they like state cases more than federal anyway) since it's a constitutional question. I think the complaint alleges violation of the federal Constitution. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

As it was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, nope. You can bet your sweet...something, that Baca isn't gonna just let it go. His counsel will be filing an NOA soon. Baca hates the idea of granting permits to those who have not donated to his campaign or even looking at their apps before denying them. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

No. 13A567 Title: Shui W. Kwong, et al., Applicants v. Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of the City of New York, et al. Docketed: December 4, 2013 Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Case Nos.: (12-1578) ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dec 2 2013 Application (13A567) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 19, 2013 to February 2, 2014, submitted to Justice Ginsburg. Dec 4 2013 Application (13A567) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until February 3, 2014.

Karlin hates guns from the comments I've seen him make. He's also Nicholas Sheley's attorney (the wackjob who killed his way down the Mississippi River valley because he needed crack). He also happens to be my Alderman (worthless). Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Gura Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

The entire hearing has been discussed ad nauseum. Short answer, no idea and it's not about FOID carry. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

I'll post some sort of analysis later after I do some reading. Kinda busy right now. In short it looks like SCOTUS wants a case like Moore. NARROW, only addresses carry outside the home and that issue alone. Gonna be hard to find one unless CA7 comes down with a mandate that Lisa doesnt like or Palmer is adjudicated and cert petition is filed. That or the Court is Palmer kicks it up to CADC and they kick it up to SCOTUS. This could take a LONG time as in 2015 or 2016 before Palmer even reaches the appellate level as it's still sitting in the District Court. If people think the IL federal district and appellate courts are slow, take a look at the other districts across the country. Compared to ILND/ILCD/ILSD and even CA7, they operate at a snail's pace. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Thats Palmer. It hasn't moved since like 2009. Most recent briefs filed last month nowm Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

The one challenging the D.C. flat ban is Palmer v. D.C. and is dragging at a snail's pace. Baker v. Kealoha out in the Ninth challenges Hawaii's licensing scheme (deny deny deny), Richards v. Prieti and Peruta v. San Diego are in the Ninth as well. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

True. Kennedy is the wild card and arguing that NFA should be done away with, more or less, would've pushed him to the "other side." I'd like to see them grant Woollard, rule, then GVR Drake or grant and hear Drake (that'd be interesting to hear NJ try and argue that it's constitutional because of long standing tradition since Scalia would go off and ask if we should repeal the Reconstruction Amendments and half of the Cojstitut. Also grant Kwong if Jensen is gonna argue the case. That would be a HUGE win if SCOTUS rules that charging a "nominal fee" to exercise a Constitutional right *cough*poll tax*cough* is unconstitutional. That'd make the FOID go poof and levying fees for permits within the Seventh Circuit to be de facto unconstitutional. Combine that with a win in Woollard or Drake, holy crap heh. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

His reply brief is better but I dont know if this is the case and he could really **** us if he doesn't watch himself. He does have a healthy ego ("i'm the lawyer and you're a peon" attitude, the man is a man) and, during orals in this case, I have NO IDEA why he did not argue certain points the State made. In Heller, Scalia blew the door wide open for an argument against NFA regulated weapons, specifically full autos, and he didn't grab it (he wasn't goaded it was a real question). In this case he told CA4 that they don't want to go down a path of long gun open carry. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Woollard's reply brief flatly states that cert petition will be filed in Drake. So Gura is gonna keep tossing these cases at SCOTUS, I'd like to think they're gonna take one (or possibly take two and hold one) and hear it just to put the issue to bed once and for all. Possibly even take Kwong as well since it doesn't deal with the Second. Rather it deals with charging a fee to exercise a right aka a poll tax and if SCOTUS rules that unconstitutional and that carry outside the home does fall under the 2A well that would really put the ISP in a bind, possibly eliminating the FOID card altogether and who knows about insane fees for carry permits. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Case distributed for conference, here we go.... "Sep 25 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 11, 2013."

Umm they all address different issues except Drake. Kwong is fees to exercise a right. I can't recall the NRA one. The issue of intermediate scrutiny is the question really. Its a test applied by courts. In the case of firearms, does the statute or regulation balance the safety of the public with individual rights. Drake said it does because....well, the NJ permit system is "presumtively lawful" because it is a "long-standing tradition." That's not intermediate scrutiny. The Second Circuit in Kwong ruled that it is constitutional to charge a "nominal fee" (of $340 in NYC vs. $3-10 in other parts of NYS) to exercise a constitutional right. In other words, the equivalent of poll taxes are OK as long as they prohibit exercising RKBA. The court applied rational basis under the guise of intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis is the least rigorous of the three standards. Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous. Rational basis is basically "well the government can do it because they want to and can." Intermediate scrutiny asks whether the law being challenged furthers an IMPORTANT government interest in a substantially related manner...such as public safety or sentencing guidelines or whatever (how does charging $340 for a pistol permit further the government's interest in keeping the public safe? It doesn't thus it was a rational basis test). Strict scrutiny requires that a liberty interest be under review, that the government has a compelling (key word) interest to infringe such as national security, narrowly tailored law to accomplish the goal, and the law must accomplish its goal by "least restrictive means" (this is what bites the government). Hardly any laws that are challenged pass strict scrutiny. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Here we go, now the case can be distributed for conference next month. Gura takes a swipe at the MSP.... "On the day Respondents filed their Opposition, making light of Ray Woollard’s concerns about the threat posed by his son-in-law, Kris Abbott, Abbott proved Respondents wrong." And.... "This case, like the Second Amendment’s core, is not about hunting but about self-defense. And no one would carry a rifle in downtown Annapolis for personal protection against muggers and rapists. Normal Americans would carry a handgun, 'the quintessential self-defense weapon,' id. at 629, for that purpose. Opposing this petition by claiming that recreational shooting activities and long guns remain legal is akin to defending a book ban against First Amendment challenge by averring that flag burning and nude dancing are not impacted."

Yeah but when petition is filed it takes time for all of the responses and amici to come in plus SCOTUS usually grants the government an extension to file a response.. They play games with that to keep it from being distributed for conference until the last minute. I also love how there's no vote tally Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Took them long enough. They waited damn near 60 calendar days gee I wonder why. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

He was carrying a pistol with a defaced serial, in other words he was committing a federal offense but Anita, being the whiz prosecutor that she is, refused to turn over the case to the U.S. Attorney. Instead, Aguilar and his co-defendant were brought up on state charges. Had she turned it over to the feds like she should have, we wouldn't have this IL SC ruling. Thank you, Anita Alvarez...for your hubris, otherwise we wouldn't be the first state to have its highest court rule the right to keep and bear arms extends outside the home. To answer your question, the Court addressed the constitutionality of two statutes (AUUW and UPF). The section of the AUUW statute that flatly prohibited carry outside the home yet, when he was arrested, he was in his friend's (co-defendant's) backyard. Basically, the IL SC analyzed the AUUW statute, using Heller, McDonald, and Moore as guidance and came to the same conclusion as CA7 - that RKBA extends outside the home and rejected the state's interpretation. I'm really not sure where all of this stuff about carrying in unincorporated areas is coming from or carrying is now legal, because it is specifically addressed in a footnote that the Court is considering the "old" statute not the amended, nearly identical statute. The new one is ripe for challenge and SAs know that. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

People v. Aguilar was cited in a Notice of Supplemental Authority filed in Palmer v. D.C. last Thursday when the ruling was published. Palmer, you know, the case that's been dragging ... out in DCD for the last, oh I dunno, half decade. https://ia600408.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.45.0.pdf

The matter of fact is that his now deceased son in law may not have made overt threats of violence after being released from prison but that the absence of any verbalized threat is not indicative of a threat (speaking in absolutes). He may have been a moron for violating his probation by burglarizing another home and assaulting a LEO, but that doesn't mean he's stupid enough to actually send Raymond Woollard a letter stating his intent to harm Mr. Woollard or a phone call. He was clearly dangerous, in prison or free, as indicated by his actions prior to his suicide. Attacking his ex-wife, attacking his parents, and then committing suicide. The suicide puts to rest the issue of mental stability as in he was not mentally stable, at all, and clearly VERY dangerous. Gallagher's brief in opposition slays me, it truly does. As codified in § 5-306(a) of the Public Safety Article of the Maryland Code, permit will be granted to those who demonstrate a “good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, such as a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.” Further, the State vaguely defines "apprehended danger" but rules out a "vague threat" or the possibility of becoming a crime victim when applicants supply "personal protection" as their "good and substantial reason." The state factors in, well, a bunch of subjective garbage and "'takes the applicant’s entire situation into account' when determining whether a good and substantial reason exists." CA4 is chock full of liberal appointees and the three-judge panel that heard and decided Woollard is no exception. Judge King a Clinton appointee and Judges Diaz and Davis are Obama appointees. At one point during orals, Judge Davis actually said that the Court should, and I'm gonna cut right through the semantics, kick it up to SCOTUS because it's above the Court's pay grade. The panel then applied rational basis under the guise of intermediate scrutiny using a two-pronged test which is missing one of the two prongs. The second prong, "does it satisfy the applicable level of scrutiny" was only considered and that "the good-and-substantial-reason requirement burdens conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection." "With the scope of the requirement in mind, the court examined evidence presented by the State ... that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement protects citizens and inhibits crime in numerous ways, including by decreasing the availability of handguns to criminals via theft, lessening the risk that basic confrontations will turn deadly, and reducing escalations of routine police encounters with citizens into high-risk situations." In other words, law-abiding citizens with permits and concealed firearms are a danger to society. Therefore the "good and substantial reason" cuts down on guns on the street because criminals steal guns from permit holders (right outta the holster), permit holders might shoot criminals so we can't have that, and permit holders might shoot cops and we can't have that even though it RARELY happens. I was not aware that the Second Amendment has a clause in it requiring an American citizen (who is a veteran) be violently victimized by a criminal, attempting to kill said citizen in the commission of a forcible felony, then said scumbag going to prison for jacking a cop, threaten one's life upon his release from prison, all before being permitted to exercise the individual right to keep and bear arms. In this beautifully crafted piece of garbage brief, Gallagher argues that SCOTUS should deny cert petition because "the law at issue does not ban the carry of handguns outside the home, deny individuals the use of handguns for self-defense, or limit individuals’ carrying of non-handgun firearms anywhere." Oh really? So, discretionary may issue, that's fine as long as you've survived a violent crime and someone is still leaving voicemails threatening to kill you. Alternatively, you can carry a taser or pepper spray, I mean that's not the crux of the argument here but hey whatever let's throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks, right? Oh, and "[T]he court of appeals’ decision upholding Maryland’s law is consistent with the decisions of each of the handful of other courts to have reviewed similar laws, with the sole exception of the district court decision it reversed, and with the decisions of other courts that have struck down substantially more restrictive laws." Striking down the un-cited but we all know what you're talking about State of Illinois flat-ban on carry, now that's OK, but don't you dare strike down a discretionary may issue system that requires applicants to survive a violent crime or be in an occupation requiring a concealed firearm and then we might grant a permit until the guy who tried to kill you stops writing you letters saying "I'm gonna kill you when I get outta the joint."