Jump to content

NYSRPA v Corlett (CCW may issue challenge)


press1280
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-843.html

 

I didn't see a thread for this case. It's at SCOTUS right now with defendant's response due Monday the 22nd (and they've already had 1 extension).

So it looks like we may get the new SCOTUS' answer on whether to take up a may-issue case in the next month or two.

This is an NRA funded challenge with Paul Clement at the helm.

Edited by mauserme
Edited the title to comport with the case being linked to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do love the last Amicus brief filed that states that the 2nd isn't about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" as it literally says, but instead it's a right to server in 'the militia' :rolleyes:

I'll be honest, I always thought "Goldfarb" was a fake name made up to make fun of people named Goldman or Goldberg or similar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do love the last Amicus brief filed that states that the 2nd isn't about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" as it literally says, but instead it's a right to server in 'the militia' :rolleyes:

 

Even if they were right about that it would still be damning to their case.

 

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14, § 311; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656; renumbered § 246, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I do love the last Amicus brief filed that states that the 2nd isn't about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" as it literally says, but instead it's a right to server in 'the militia' :rolleyes:

 

Even if they were right about that it would still be damning to their case.

 

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14, § 311; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656; renumbered § 246, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)

 

 

Oh I agree, and when you remove handicap, sexual and age discrimination the militia is essentially everyone and we are right back to it being an individual right by default.

 

This Goldfarb guy, from what I gather, has been trying to get his day in front of the Supreme Court using this same arguement so he can tell them they are wrong for awhile.

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Is it may issue only or does it include licensing overall as well?

 

May issue only. Can't get the licensing scheme knocked down if SCOTUS wont even strike down may issue.

 

 

It would really depend on how they rule, generally they will rule narrowly, but this is a civil rights issue that lower courts and governments have obviously been ignoring since Heller, so it would not surprise me to see the Supreme Court get out the white glove and slap the lower courts into compliance. I would like to see them put on the boxing gloves and knock it out of the park, but any forward progress is progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Is it may issue only or does it include licensing overall as well?

 

May issue only. Can't get the licensing scheme knocked down if SCOTUS wont even strike down may issue.

 

 

It would really depend on how they rule, generally they will rule narrowly, but this is a civil rights issue that lower courts and governments have obviously been ignoring since Heller, so it would not surprise me to see the Supreme Court get out the white glove and slap the lower courts into compliance. I would like to see them put on the boxing gloves and knock it out of the park, but any forward progress is progress.

 

The lower courts have said on one hand the right doesn't end when you leave your home yet it can somehow be rationed only to people who show a particular "need" for it. It's inconsistent with any other fundamental right as rights are not supposed to be held in a hierarchy where some are worth more than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

When a case is relisted, the justices do not grant or deny review, but instead will reconsider the case at their next conference. This will be reflected on the case’s electronic docket once the docket has been updated: You will see the words “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of [fill in date],” and then the next entry in the docket will usually say “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of [next conference after the previous entry, whenever that is].” It is almost impossible to know exactly what is happening when a particular case is relisted, but a few different things could be going on. One justice could be trying to pick up a fourth vote to grant review, one or more justices may want to look more closely at the case, a justice could be writing an opinion about the court’s decision to deny review, or the court could be writing an opinion to summarily reverse (that is, without briefing or oral argument on the merits) the decision below. In 2014, the court appears to have adopted a general practice of granting review only after it has relisted a case at least once; although we don’t know for sure, presumably the court uses the extra time resulting from a relist to make sure that the case is a suitable one for its review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They must not have locked down that 5th vote. If there was 5 votes to overturn it, it would have been accepted by now. There’s nothing worse than accepting the case and there are five votes to affirm the appellate court.

Too early to say. I'll point out that the NYSRPA case that was granted cert last year got it after the 2nd re-list and we aren't there yet. The other scenario is a per curiam where they get 6 votes (at least) and decide the case without even going to oral arguments, see Caetano.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Cert granted!

They've limited the scope of the case, though.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

The original question was:

Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Case # 20-843, per the the link in the first paragraph of the PJ Media article linked to below.

 

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/04/26/breaking-supreme-court-takes-up-first-gun-case-in-10-years-n1442742

 

Here's the official link: Docket for 20-843 (supremecourt.gov)

?? It's in the opening post, too.

 

Still true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...