24 replies to this topic

[Silhouette]

https://drive.google...zANjfxoEHJ/view

 

Worman v. Healy requests review of a Massachusetts law banning "assault weapons" and certain magazines.  A decision in this case by SCOTUS would likely impact decisions in Wilson and precedent from Friedman.  

Edited by Silhouette, 24 September 2019 - 11:03 AM.

[Euler]

Docket

[357]

No such thing as assault weapons. It was coined by Hitler for propaganda.

[Silhouette]

"Assault Weapon" is the term being challenged in the Massachusetts ban, and it is defined within the context of that law by the commonwealth of Massachusetts.  The Sturmgewehr (translated: assualt rifle) you mention was successfully challenged in a different context by brave men on the field of battle.  May Worman be as successful...

[357]

"Assault Weapon" is the term being challenged in the Massachusetts ban, and it is defined within the context of that law by the commonwealth of Massachusetts.  The Sturmgewehr (translated: assualt rifle) you mention was successfully challenged in a different context by brave men on the field of battle.  May Worman be as successful...

They copied the same term assault rifle and say weapon so it encompasses many weapons and it was coined by Hitler and is being used for propaganda to disarm Americans.

[DarkLord]

I have no confidence in SCOTUS at all, I expect them to screw us over and not uphold the 2A.. 

[JTHunter]

There are a couple of things in this text that I find intriguing and hopeful.  The PDF states clearly that multiple lower courts have not followed the SC prior jurisprudence.

 

This Court has analyzed and confirmed the scope of this fundamental, individual right on three separate occasions. Heller, 554 U.S. at 625, 627; Mc-Donald, 561 U.S. at 790–91; Caetano, 136 S. Ct. at 1027–28. Yet the lower courts do not follow Heller and its progeny in reviewing firearm bans. (emphasis added)

 

With so many "lower courts" not following the rulings of those three cases, there is hope that the SC will rule against these infringements.

[Flynn]

There are a couple of things in this text that I find intriguing and hopeful.  The PDF states clearly that multiple lower courts have not followed the SC prior jurisprudence.

 

This Court has analyzed and confirmed the scope of this fundamental, individual right on three separate occasions. Heller, 554 U.S. at 625, 627; Mc-Donald, 561 U.S. at 790–91; Caetano, 136 S. Ct. at 1027–28. Yet the lower courts do not follow Heller and its progeny in reviewing firearm bans. (emphasis added)

 

With so many "lower courts" not following the rulings of those three cases, there is hope that the SC will rule against these infringements.

 

I honestly believe this is where the Supreme Court is heading with the cases it's reviewing.   It has become clear that many (most) lower courts to be blunt refuse to accept Heller, McDonald (and the unsigned opinion in Caetano v. Massachusetts) as precedent and rule contrary, this simply can't be allowed, nor tollerated in our judicial system and I think the Supreme Court is about to white glove the lower courts or worse smack them upside the head with the gavel over this refusal to follow their precedent.

[Euler]

I honestly believe this is where the Supreme Court is heading with the cases it's reviewing....

Technically, the only firearms case it's currently reviewing is NYSRPA. Others have petitioned for certiorari, but not yet been granted. We might hear about some of them on October 7.

[Flynn]

 

I honestly believe this is where the Supreme Court is heading with the cases it's reviewing....

Technically, the only firearms case it's currently reviewing is NYSRPA. Others have petitioned for certiorari, but not yet been granted. We might hear about some of them on October 7.

 

 

Yep, I understand that is the case now, but I also consider the fact they are hearing pentions for certiorari to be reviews as well as I firmly believe they are looking for a simple case like NYSRPA or another that can be used as the carrier for the white glove slap or multiple slaps.

[Silhouette]

I expect that we will learn a lot about SCOTUS's approach after the results of the long conference.  Many 2A cases are being held, presumably pending the outcome in NYSRPA.  NYC has arguably mooted that case (and they do argue it).  Whether we like it or not, the state preempting the city should give court-watchers pause.

 

Given the court's respect for propriety in all matters and that improper readings of Heller et al are running rampant, I think it is quite possible that SCOTUS may choose a case other than NYSRPA as a vehicle to establish clear guidance on scrutiny (if applicable) for 2A cases.  It's not like there aren't a lot of options to choose from...

[Mr. Fife]

Mootness denied. It's going to trial.

[Mr. Fife]

Oops wrong thread

[Euler]

Massachusetts has asked from more time to file its opposition brief.

Meanwhile, there's an amici brief from Cato Institute, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Madison Society Foundation, and Independence Institute.

...
Under this Court's precedents, if arms are "in common use," they are constitutionally protected and cannot be banned.

But this Court has not defined "common use," and lower courts have struggled to define it themselves....

[Flynn]

Massachusetts has asked from more time to file its opposition brief.

Meanwhile, there's an amici brief from Cato Institute, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Madison Society Foundation, and Independence Institute.
 

...
Under this Court's precedents, if arms are "in common use," they are constitutionally protected and cannot be banned.

But this Court has not defined "common use," and lower courts have struggled to define it themselves....

 

 

The problem with 'common use' is that it's confined and controlled by existing laws.  I have not doubt that 'sawed off shotguns' would be in common use by many today for home protection if they were not prohibted, same with full auto and suppressors, it's the existing prohibition(s) and restrictions that prevents them from reaching the 'common use' standard set in Wilson...

[Euler]

More amicus briefs have been filed.
National Association of Police Chiefs supporting
National African American Gun Association supporting
94 Members of the US House of Representatives supporting
NSSF supporting

The House members are:

Robert Aderholt (AL-04)
Rick Allen (GA-12)
Kelly Armstrong (ND-AL)
Brian Babin (TX-36)
Troy Balderson (OH-12)
Jim Banks (IN-03)
Jack Bergman (MI-01)
Andy Biggs (AZ-05)
Dan Bishop (NC-09)
Rob Bishop (UT-01)
Kevin Brady (TX-08)
Mo Brooks (AL-05)
Ted Budd (NC-13)
Tim Burchett (TN-02)
Michael C. Burgess, M.D. (TX-26)
Bradley Byrne (AL-01)
Ken Calvert (CA-42)
Buddy Carter (GA-01)
John R. Carter (TX-31)
Steve Chabot (OH-01)
Liz Cheney (WY-AL)
Ben Cline (VA-06)
Doug Collins (GA-09)
James Comer (KY-01)
K. Michael Conaway (TX-11)
Warren Davidson (OH-08)
Scott DesJarlais, M.D. (TN-04)
Jeff Duncan (SC-03)
Neal Dunn (FL-02)
Tom Emmer (MN-06)
Chuck Fleischmann (TN-03)
Bill Flores (TX-17)
Matt Gaetz (FL-01)
Greg Gianforte (MT-AL)
Bob Gibbs (OH-07)
Louie Gohmert (TX-01)
Lance Gooden (TX-05)
Paul A. Gosar, D.D.S. (AZ-04)
Tom Graves (GA-14)
H. Morgan Griffith (VA-09)
Michael Guest (MS-03)
Jim Hagedorn (MN-01)
Andy Harris, M.D. (MD-01)
Kevin Hern (OK-01)
Jody Hice (GA-10)
Clay Higgins (LA-03)
George Holding (NC-02)
Richard Hudson (NC-08)
Bill Johnson (OH-06)
Mike Johnson (LA-04)
Jim Jordan (OH-04)
John Joyce, M.D. (PA-13)
Fred Keller (PA-12)
Mike Kelly (PA-16)
Steve King (IA-04)
Doug LaMalfa (CA-01)
Doug Lamborn (CO-05)
Robert E. Latta (OH-05)
Debbie Lesko (AZ-08)
Billy Long (MO-07)
Barry Loudermilk (GA-11)
Roger Marshall, M.D. (KS-01)
Tom McClintock (CA-04)
Mark Meadows (NC-11)
Carol D. Miller (WV-03)
Dan Newhouse (WA-04)
Ralph Norman (SC-05)
Steven M. Palazzo (MS-04)
John Ratcliffe (TX-04)
Guy Reschenthaler (PA-14)
Martha Roby (AL-02)
David P. Roe, M.D. (TN-01)
Mike Rogers (AL-03)
David Rouzer (NC-07)
Steve Scalise (LA-01)
Austin Scott (GA-08)
John Shimkus (IL-15)
Adrian Smith (NE-03)
Jason Smith (MO-08)
Pete Stauber (MN-08)
Elise Stefanik (NY-21)
W. Gregory Steube (FL-17)
GT Thompson (PA-15)
William Timmons (SC-04)
Tim Walberg (MI-07)
Mark Walker (NC-06)
Michael Waltz (FL-06)
Steve Watkins (KS-02)
Randy Weber (TX-14)
Roger Williams (TX-25)
Robert J. Wittman (VA-01)
Ron Wright (TX-06)
Ted S. Yoho, D.V.M. (FL-03)
Don Young (AK-AL)

[Euler]

Massachusetts (Healey) filed its brief opposing the cert petition last Friday.

MA argues that:

• the banned "assault weapons" are only a narrow subset of all semi-automatic weapons, being 19 specific firearms and their clones in any caliber as previously banned by the 1994 federal AWB, although MA later states that MA's definition of "assault weapon" is not limited to those firearms banned in 1994;
• likewise the MA mag ban mirrors the federal mag ban; MA enacted its state bans in 1998, but without the sunset of the federal ban;
• since the 1994 federal bans were ruled constitutional in several legal challenges, the MA bans are constitutional;
• MA's AWB does not conflict with the later Heller, McDonald, and Caetano decisions, since there are many other firearms that people could use for self-defense in their homes, especially most kinds of handguns, which MA calls "the quintessential self-defense weapon," therefore self-defense is not heavily burdened by the ban; and
• there is no circuit split as to the constitutionality of local AWBs and mag bans, because several circuits have upheld local AWBs and mag bans in their jurisdictions.

[lockman]

The quintessential self-defense tool that is used in 90% of all their homicides is OK. But a very popular semi automatic rifle used in less than 3% of all homicides is too dangerous to own. This doesnât seem narrowly tailored to fit the appropriate scrutiny afforded a fundamental right. ^ this ***

Edited by lockman, 12 December 2019 - 06:58 AM.

[ChicagoRonin70]

Massachusetts (Healey) filed its brief opposing the cert petition last Friday.

MA argues that:

• the banned "assault weapons" are only a narrow subset of all semi-automatic weapons, being 19 specific firearms and their clones in any caliber as previously banned by the 1994 federal AWB, although MA later states that MA's definition of "assault weapon" is not limited to those firearms banned in 1994;
• likewise the MA mag ban mirrors the federal mag ban; MA enacted its state bans in 1998, but without the sunset of the federal ban;
• since the 1994 federal bans were ruled constitutional in several legal challenges, the MA bans are constitutional;
• MA's AWB does not conflict with the later Heller, McDonald, and Caetano decisions, since there are many other firearms that people could use for self-defense in their homes, especially most kinds of handguns, which MA calls "the quintessential self-defense weapon," therefore self-defense is not heavily burdened by the ban; and
• there is no circuit split as to the constitutionality of local AWBs and mag bans, because several circuits have upheld local AWBs and mag bans in their jurisdictions.

 

 

Although, in its essence, the AWB IS unconstitutional by definition. 

[Euler]

For completeness, cert petition denied.

[JTHunter]

For completeness, cert petition denied.

Euler - considering you have posted the same thing in multiple threads, what does "cert petition denied" mean exactly?  I realize that it means the SC won't hear any arguments on the case but does it mean anything beyond that?

Edited by JTHunter, 28 June 2020 - 08:47 PM.

[Euler]

Getting a cert petition accepted doesn't necessarily mean the SC will hear arguments. It's possible it can be granted, then immediately remanded with instructions.

Getting a petition denied means the SC definitely will not hear arguments, the lower court decision stands as it is, and there are no other appeals available.

[Silhouette]

Put differently (but saying the same thing as Euler), the cert petition formally requests that the Supreme Court use its authority to review the lower court decision.  If a cert petition is denied, that is the end of the discussion on the matter (which typically means the end of the case) as there is no higher court to which one can appeal.  No precedent is set by denying cert.  The supreme court does not endorse the lower court's decision, but just declines to review it and allows it to stand. 

 

The vast majority of cases requesting review are denied.

Edited by Silhouette, 29 June 2020 - 08:57 AM.

[JTHunter]

Getting a cert petition accepted doesn't necessarily mean the SC will hear arguments. It's possible it can be granted, then immediately remanded with instructions.

Getting a petition denied means the SC definitely will not hear arguments, the lower court decision stands as it is, and there are no other appeals available.

 

That is what I was afraid you would say.

 

Put differently (but saying the same thing as Euler), the cert petition formally requests that the Supreme Court use its authority to review the lower court decision.  If a cert petition is denied, that is the end of the discussion on the matter (which typically means the end of the case) as there is no higher court to which one can appeal.  No precedent is set by denying cert.  The supreme court does not endorse the lower court's decision, but just declines to review it and allows it to stand. 

 

The vast majority of cases requesting review are denied.

Considering how few decisions actually come out of the SC, your last sentence makes sense.

Thank you both for the clarification.  My distaste for "legal" proceedings leaves my understanding of same somewhat lacking.

[Silhouette]

For perspective, it's something like 2-4% of cases requesting review are actually acted upon.  

 

reference: https://supremecourt...of_success.html