Jump to content

Woollard v. Gallagher


skinnyb82
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

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

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 by C0untZer0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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 by mauserme
Language
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • 2 weeks later...

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 7 months later...

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...