Drake v. Jerejian

[Mack]

Here is the official list - http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/050514zor_m6io.pdf

 

Drake denied - looks like the USSC has gone are far as they will on the 2nd and won't support bearing arms. Guessing Peruta will now be heard enbanc and overturned and will then be appealed to USSC and then be denied cert also.

 

This is extremely saddening as the coronation of Hillary will lead to a more liberal court where we will be lucky to hold on to the anemic 2nd amendment right recognized by the courts now.

Edited May 5, 2014 at 02:24 PM by Mack

[Tvandermyde]

Maybe they are waiting on Clement.

Edited May 5, 2014 at 02:39 PM by Tvandermyde

[ryan_j]

That's a distinct possibility. It could be that they want Paul Clement, and Peruta has Paul Clement.

[ghk012]

I was thinking the same thing. Rule on Peruta. Disappointing that it might not make it to USSC for a long time. Maybe we will get lucky and a republican will take the White House next term and some justices will finally retire. Get some new appointments that are not from the Truman era.

[skinnyb82]

Kennedy swore he would not retire until we have a Republican POTUS heh. Peruta now has to make its way back through the nether regions of the Ninth Circuit, I almost want them to rehear it en banc. Judge Kozinski's term as Chief Judge is up in October. He automatically gets a vote and sits on the en banc panel so if Peruta is overturned, expect a dissent which is kinda like Judge Hardimann's but with a Posner-esque tone to it, including personal stories about when Kozinski grew up in Communist Romania.

 

They may be waiting for Clement. They love Clement. He's already argued about a half dozen cases including Bond v. U.S. (U.N. Treaty applying to U.S. citizens). I got a chuckle out of the Brady Bunch's proposed petition for rehearing en banc. A non-psrty, allegedly non-partisan group (what a load of horse manure...that's like saying the Democratic Party is non-partisan) doesn't have standing to petition for a damn thing.

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[borgranta]

If SCOTUS accepted Peruta and ruled in favor of the plaintiff it would likely force all may issue locations with their jurisdiction to accept self defense as a valid reason to receive a license which would force New York City to begin issuing permits.

[skinnyb82]

Yup. Not the law itself but the application of the law. That is the core issue of Peruta and Richards. Baker is about the same but Hawaii law is so jacked up.

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[borgranta]

I just realized that the reason they denied cert is because there is no right to a carry permit. If the suit was designed to challenge the laws that prohibited the plaintiff from carrying legally for self defense it could have resulted in SCOTUS dealing with a pure right to bear arms case.

[GarandFan]

I just realized that the reason they denied cert is because there is no right to a carry permit. If the suit was designed to challenge the laws that prohibited the plaintiff from carrying legally for self defense it could have resulted in SCOTUS dealing with a pure right to bear arms case.

 

I beg your pardon ... I think that the only people who know why they denied cert are the justices themselves, along with some of their staffers.

 

There are myriad reasons why they may have denied cert ... and you should feel free to speculate, as everyone is free to do.

[colt-45]

Well so much for a ruling this year on the 2nd amendment.

[GarandFan]

Prof. Shapiro and others at Cato are somewhat incredulous ...

 

http://www.cato.org/blog/supreme-court-wasnt-serious-about-second-amendment

[777GSOTB]

Lets see...Alan Gura is 0-4 with every case that involved seeking a LICENSE in the exercise of a fundamental right....It seems our 5 guys on the court understand how ludicrous that proposition is....Happy as heck they denied certiorari. Consider this people, maybe the re-listing of Drake 2 times was so the liberal justices could try and get Kennedy on board with them so they could relegate the 2nd Amendment to a home defense only right...Though we'll never know for sure why they denied cert, I do see a lot of premature head hanging out there. When they deny cert for an outside the home unlicensed loaded open carry case, that will be the appropriate time for the head hanging....Nichols v Brown out of California looks like the one to get that chance.

[BShawn]

 

 

If the supremes find there is no right to carry concealed what happens to our law . It was based on there being that right.

The law remains until it's repealed, and there's not nearly enough votes for that to happen. Bear in mind that there was majority support in the House before Moore v. Madigan for concealed carry.

 

 

I think you're right about that.

 

If you look back to HB148 in the 97th General Assembly, there's really no doubt we had simple majorities on our side of the vote. Even though the legislative make up has changed since then, I don't think it's changed that much. It was the super majority 71 vote needed in the House that proved problematic. We had that until the Speaker actively worked against us and pulled 3 (if memory serves) votes away, still leaving us with a good majority on the right side of things.

 

Furthermore the longer we have the FCCA, and people have their licenses, and the citizenry are "out and about" carrying; I think there's even less chance of it ever being successfully repealed. Every day that passes I think the chance decreases a bit more. I think, not only do we already have enough people "on our side", but as time progresses (and uncertain citizens and/or legistalors see that the streets aren't and will not flow with blood), we'll have even more on our side, therefore making it even more difficult to repeal... If anything, due to this, I also suspect that over time we'll be able to actually stregnthen the FCCA (loosen the restrictions) for those who carry.

[777GSOTB]

If the supremes find there is no right to carry concealed what happens to our law . It was based on there being that right.

 

They already said there is no right to carrying concealed weapons in the Heller case. That is most likely why they haven't taken a case from Gura. They were all licensed concealed carry cases. I think it's time to rethink his frivolous strategy.

 

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, (2008)

 

Robertson v Baldwin 165 U.S. 275 (1897) " .....the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;.."

[transplant]

 

If the supremes find there is no right to carry concealed what happens to our law . It was based on there being that right.

 

They already said there is no right to carrying concealed weapons in the Heller case. That is most likely why they haven't taken a case from Gura. They were all licensed concealed carry cases. I think it's time to rethink his frivolous strategy.

 

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, (2008)

 

Robertson v Baldwin 165 U.S. 275 (1897) " .....the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;.."

 

 

Didn't Puerta basically agree with that, but say that you have to allow one or the other - open or concealed?

[lockman]

Any IL resident denied a permit but has a FOID card willing to be a test case to get open carry in Il?

That is what we need now for a forward moving case.

Edited May 7, 2014 at 12:01 PM by lockman

[s0beit]

 

 

If the supremes find there is no right to carry concealed what happens to our law . It was based on there being that right.

 

They already said there is no right to carrying concealed weapons in the Heller case. That is most likely why they haven't taken a case from Gura. They were all licensed concealed carry cases. I think it's time to rethink his frivolous strategy.

 

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, (2008)

 

Robertson v Baldwin 165 U.S. 275 (1897) " .....the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;.."

 

 

Didn't Puerta basically agree with that, but say that you have to allow one or the other - open or concealed?

 

 

Exactly, the key to that decision was the fact that open carry people exercised their right in a rather flagrant fashion, and the CA legislature saw fit to ban the practice.

 

After that, with no open carry and concealed carry being restricted arbitrarily, the 'need' was struck down by the 9th.

[borgranta]

Any IL resident denied a permit but has a FOID card willing to be a test case to get open carry in Il? That is what we need now for a forward moving case.

I have not been denied a permit but have instead chose not to get one yet and I would be willing to be a plaintiff for an open carry case involving long guns and/or hand guns.

Edited May 7, 2014 at 01:31 PM by borgranta

[Tvandermyde]

Don't do it you will be on your own

[borgranta]

Don't do it you will be on your own

I will not break the law but would be willing to be a plaintiff in a lawsuit demanding the open carry of long guns but I will not break the law to do so.

[skinnyb82]

The Ninth Circuit stated (in Peruta) that, because UOC had been criminalized and the good cause standard was being subjectively applied based on how the Sheriff feels about guns, that the individual RKBA outside the home had been destroyed. If Brown hadn't criminalized UOC then Peruta would have turned out much differently...as in he would have lost.

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[lilguy]

If the SCUS held that there is no RTC ouside the home, what would that do to our carry law. As it stands our CCL is protected by a Federal court order at this point, correct? Edited May 7, 2014 at 08:01 PM by lilguy

[BShawn]

It's already law, it would have to be repealed. Plus my comments from earlier:

 

Furthermore the longer we have the FCCA, and people have their licenses, and the citizenry are "out and about" carrying; I think there's even less chance of it ever being successfully repealed. Every day that passes I think the chance decreases a bit more. I think, not only do we already have enough people "on our side", but as time progresses (and uncertain citizens and/or legistalors see that the streets aren't and will not flow with blood), we'll have even more on our side, therefore making it even more difficult to repeal... If anything, due to this, I also suspect that over time we'll be able to actually stregnthen the FCCA (loosen the restrictions) for those who carry.

[bob]

If the SCUS held that there is no RTC ouside the home, what would that do to our carry law. As it stands our CCL is protected by a Federal court order at this point, correct?

 

I would not say it is protected at all. It was put in place in response to court pressure, but the actual terms of the law are not part of what the court required.

 

It is possible (but unlikely IMO) that the GA might make it more restrictive. There is nothing in the court order that would prevent that.

 

I think as a practical matter it would be very hard for Mike Madigan to allow his law to be changed in any significant way in the near future as that would show weakness on his part that cannot be shown. That might be our best protection at present against any significant changes for the worse.

 

It would appear that the Senate is a lost cause at present. Pretty much anything anti-gun could probably get passed there without all that much trouble. It would be harder to get it past the house, although it would only need a bare majority, and Madigan could probably do it if he really wanted to. I doubt he would want to spend the political capital it would take. It just is not important enough to him.

[lockman]

Don't do it you will be on your own

 

Do I take that as the NRA will not support an open carry case? Since concealed carry can be regulated or prohibited etirely in public, doesn't that leave open carry as the only other means in states where concealed carry restrictions prohibit otherwise lawful gun owners from public carry?

[transplant]

 

Don't do it you will be on your own

 

Do I take that as the NRA will not support an open carry case? Since concealed carry can be regulated or prohibited etirely in public, doesn't that leave open carry as the only other means in states where concealed carry restrictions prohibit otherwise lawful gun owners from public carry?

 

 

I think the NRA doesn't like open defiance, and would prefer people to try to follow the process their representatives put in place, watch it fail, and then support a case.

 

Basically, the would prefer to take a cautious and circumspect route rather than supporting someone who wants to throw down a double dog dare.

 

I don't see it as an open vs. concealed issue.

[777GSOTB]

 

 

Don't do it you will be on your own

 

Do I take that as the NRA will not support an open carry case? Since concealed carry can be regulated or prohibited etirely in public, doesn't that leave open carry as the only other means in states where concealed carry restrictions prohibit otherwise lawful gun owners from public carry?

 

 

I think the NRA doesn't like open defiance, and would prefer people to try to follow the process their representatives put in place, watch it fail, and then support a case.

 

Basically, the would prefer to take a cautious and circumspect route rather than supporting someone who wants to throw down a double dog dare.

 

I don't see it as an open vs. concealed issue.

 

 

The Heller case said there is no right to carry concealed and you are saying the NRA doesn't like "open defiance"??? You mean like Rosa Park's open defiance of sitting in the front of a bus?...She won her case by the way....Yes, she " double dog dared " them. It's called bringing up a proper case in which there is standing for review. And time is of the essence, as if we lose one of our 5 justices, we are in trouble. This urgency in time was one of the NRA's points for needing a Republican president in the last election. So how does one conclude that a right can be licensed? Show me a USSC case that says a right can be licensed. But surely, a right can not be licensed. The LEGAL, Bouvier's Law Dictionary, definition of license is a contradiction to that of a right. See Murdock v Penn 319 U.S. 105 (1943) " A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution." Stare decisis dictates that doctrine to be followed....So the NRA and SAF/Alan Gura are just really, really stupid or they have monetary motivations leading their way. They are 0-4 on licensed concealed carry cases...I see their " cautious and circumspect route" is working just nicely.

[lockman]

The Heller case I believe stated that regulation or prohibitions on concealed firearms is presumptively lawful. They never directly addressed it specifically, only in the context of both being prohibited at the same time.

[RockerXX]

only in the context of both being prohibited at the same time.

 

And I believe that is where the court push really needs to be right now, either the State allows people to carry concealed or open as default... If you are not a Federally prohibited person they have to permit one or the other by default, none of the games IL and other states are playing where they decide who is worth and who isn't to exercise their 2nd based on a licensing scheme that lacks due process...

[bob]

The NRA as an organization has a lot invested in promoting concealed carry, and almost nothing on open carry. I am not surprised they might suggest they would chose not to support an open carry case.

 

As a practical matter it might be difficult for them to avoid becoming involved if such a case were to come forth. For instance, it it looked like it had a good chance of winning (like Heller) they would have to step in to protect a piece of their turf.

 

They might also need to do so to try and keep their focus on concealed carry relevant. The huge investment they have in concealed carry runs the risk of being substantially devalued if an open carry case wins.

Edited May 9, 2014 at 10:13 PM by bob