C0untZer0 Posted September 27, 2013 at 04:33 PM Share Posted September 27, 2013 at 04:33 PM It would be interesting to see what happens. Moore would have been a great case for them to take up, and I think the anti-gunners (besides morons like Lee Goodman), were really dreading the prospect of SCOTUS taking up Moore. IMO there would have been a 5-4 decision upholding Posner's wording, which would have been the first time SCOTUS would have said or confirmed that the right to be armed for self defense exists outside the home. SCOTUS never said it existed only in the home, SCOTUS said the right was at its nexus inside the home. Activist anti-gun judges then began to build this erroneous argument that the right existed only within the home, which we've heard over and over - including in Woollard, If SCOTUS declines to take up these cases, I would expect things to get worse in places like New York, New Jersey California and similar anti-gun states. That may eventually spawn a case where the rights violations are even more egregious than they were in Illinois with it's total ban on carrying. But I sort of think as Woollard as the last hurrah for a while as far as landmark 2A cases go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted September 27, 2013 at 04:49 PM Author Share Posted September 27, 2013 at 04:49 PM 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted September 27, 2013 at 06:10 PM Share Posted September 27, 2013 at 06:10 PM (edited) Alan Gottlieb has advocated a spaghetti against the wall approach, I think the NRA has tried to pick the cases it gets behind. Mary Shepard makes a great plaintiff, great case, an under-age teen found to be in possession of a firearm in a national park - not so much. I don't think EQ was part of the case until one of the CA2 judges in orals brought it up Edited September 27, 2013 at 08:37 PM by C0untZer0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoktorPaimon Posted September 27, 2013 at 07:15 PM Share Posted September 27, 2013 at 07:15 PM Alan Gottlieb has advocated a spaghetti against the wall approach, I think the NRA has tried to pick the cases it gets behind. Mary Shepard makes a great plaintiff, great case, an under-age teen found to be in possession of a firearm in a national park - not so much. You don't always need a good plaintiff, just look at Lawrence v. Texas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted October 4, 2013 at 02:39 AM Share Posted October 4, 2013 at 02:39 AM Made it to SCOTUSBlog tonight as the petition of the day. http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/10/petition-of-the-day-485/ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/woollard-v-gallagher-2/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharz96 Posted October 5, 2013 at 04:30 AM Share Posted October 5, 2013 at 04:30 AM Good read. Gura is just fantastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted October 5, 2013 at 06:32 AM Author Share Posted October 5, 2013 at 06:32 AM (edited) 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 Edited October 5, 2013 at 03:29 PM by mauserme Language Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted October 5, 2013 at 03:31 PM Share Posted October 5, 2013 at 03:31 PM He avoided the NFA argument in order to keep Justice Kennedy on our side of the vote, IMO. More broadly, he asks the courts to render difficult decisions, often in conflict with personally held beliefs. By keeping the questions narrow he better allows them to rule as he hopes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted October 5, 2013 at 05:22 PM Author Share Posted October 5, 2013 at 05:22 PM 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatty Posted October 15, 2013 at 01:36 PM Share Posted October 15, 2013 at 01:36 PM The petition for a writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted October 15, 2013 at 01:47 PM Share Posted October 15, 2013 at 01:47 PM So.....no more 2A cases for SCOTUS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan_j Posted October 15, 2013 at 01:53 PM Share Posted October 15, 2013 at 01:53 PM So.....no more 2A cases for SCOTUS? There are a few more. In NJ we still have Drake. Also there's a challenge in the NJ supreme court (Pantano) which could be appealed to SCOTUS if we lose. There is one in Hawaii and I think one in California. There's also one in DC I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted October 15, 2013 at 02:00 PM Share Posted October 15, 2013 at 02:00 PM Was bummed out when I read the conference results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted October 15, 2013 at 04:07 PM Author Share Posted October 15, 2013 at 04:07 PM 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonOglesby - Now in Texas Posted October 15, 2013 at 04:16 PM Share Posted October 15, 2013 at 04:16 PM 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 While I think NJ and even maryland's regimes are unconstitutional, I actually think we are better with a Hawaii or DC type case going to scotus. the supremes generally frown on flat bans. Its really a yes or no question vs something with fees or specific criteria. A flat ban (Chicago and DC) are what have brought us this far. I really believe SCOTUS would have rather had OUR case. Others are squishy. The D.C. case is sickening. Everything seems to drag there for years. Wasnt there a gun case some judge had with no movement for like 2 years that the chief judge/justice had to literally take from him and re-assign? Justice delayed huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted October 15, 2013 at 04:22 PM Author Share Posted October 15, 2013 at 04:22 PM Thats Palmer. It hasn't moved since like 2009. Most recent briefs filed last month nowm Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted October 15, 2013 at 04:31 PM Share Posted October 15, 2013 at 04:31 PM So skinny....what's your feeling? Are we hosed or are they just looking for a "better" case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted October 15, 2013 at 04:40 PM Share Posted October 15, 2013 at 04:40 PM Woollard looked like such a good case - if what the state did wasn't arbitrary and capricious I don't know what was. This is a pretty strong signal I think that politicians can use "shall issue" and "good cause" to keep almost everyone from carrying a firearm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted October 15, 2013 at 05:10 PM Author Share Posted October 15, 2013 at 05:10 PM 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawkson Posted October 17, 2013 at 02:08 AM Share Posted October 17, 2013 at 02:08 AM when is the ruling on illinois foid carry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted October 17, 2013 at 02:47 AM Author Share Posted October 17, 2013 at 02:47 AM 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted October 17, 2013 at 03:39 AM Share Posted October 17, 2013 at 03:39 AM Maybe it is the Court signaling that they have had their fill of Mr. Gura. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatty Posted October 17, 2013 at 04:33 PM Share Posted October 17, 2013 at 04:33 PM Maybe it is the Court signaling that they have had their fill of Mr. Gura.The Court relisted another case of his on the same day (Lane v. Holder). A relist means that the Court is taking a very close look at the particular case, and generally means that the case has a decent shot of being granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted October 17, 2013 at 04:52 PM Share Posted October 17, 2013 at 04:52 PM Maybe it is the Court signaling that they have had their fill of Mr. Gura.The Court relisted another case of his on the same day (Lane v. Holder). A relist means that the Court is taking a very close look at the particular case, and generally means that the case has a decent shot of being granted. Lane v Holder is also 2A related, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatty Posted October 17, 2013 at 05:07 PM Share Posted October 17, 2013 at 05:07 PM Maybe it is the Court signaling that they have had their fill of Mr. Gura.The Court relisted another case of his on the same day (Lane v. Holder). A relist means that the Court is taking a very close look at the particular case, and generally means that the case has a decent shot of being granted. Lane v Holder is also 2A related, isn't it?Indirectly, yes. The complaint challenged the federal ban on a person purchasing a firearm from a state in which they do not reside and the Virginia statute that prohibits the sale of a handgun to any nonresident. The district court held that the plaintiffs did not have standing and the 4th Circuit agreed. So, it technically is a "standing" case, but the Second Amendment is definitely a big consideration in the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted October 17, 2013 at 05:40 PM Share Posted October 17, 2013 at 05:40 PM who is the council of record? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted October 17, 2013 at 06:04 PM Author Share Posted October 17, 2013 at 06:04 PM Gura Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatty Posted October 17, 2013 at 06:05 PM Share Posted October 17, 2013 at 06:05 PM who is the council of record?Gura Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rail Posted October 18, 2013 at 10:18 PM Share Posted October 18, 2013 at 10:18 PM If I were a betting man, the case SCOTUS grants cert to will come out of California, either Richards or Peruta. If the 9th Circuit actually rules in favor of shall-issue, then SCOTUS will take Drake. I told a friend late last year before the 7th Circuit ruled on Moore that of the three largest cities in America, I'll first be able to legally carry in Chicago, then Los Angeles, then finally New York. I'm still sticking to that prediction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted June 5, 2014 at 02:43 PM Share Posted June 5, 2014 at 02:43 PM It Appears that the Attorney General lied to the judges about being able to carry a long guns based on this video: Did the court allow the licensing scheme due to believing that open carry of rifles and shotguns was legal without a permit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now