Jump to content


Photo

NYSRPA v Corlett (CCW may issue challenge)


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 305 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 20 February 2021 - 06:30 AM

https://www.supremec...lic/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, 30 March 2021 - 02:27 PM.
Edited the title to comport with the case being linked to.


#2 mab22

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,660 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 18

Posted 21 February 2021 - 09:16 PM

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


Void the FOID!

#3 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,914 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 22 February 2021 - 12:00 PM

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:


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#4 defaultdotxbe

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,813 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 11

Posted 22 February 2021 - 12:54 PM

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


"The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly,
flat, and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to
intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."
-Chicago Times review of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.


#5 davel501

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 18

Posted 22 February 2021 - 02:21 PM

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.)


#6 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,914 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 22 February 2021 - 03:27 PM

 

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, 22 February 2021 - 03:28 PM.

Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#7 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 305 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 27 February 2021 - 08:33 AM

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.



#8 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,914 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 27 February 2021 - 02:50 PM

 

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.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#9 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 305 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 28 February 2021 - 06:50 AM

 

 

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.



#10 Plinkermostly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 877 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 13

Posted 28 February 2021 - 10:21 AM

One, simple: 'shall not infringe' -- would do it.



#11 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,914 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 28 February 2021 - 05:34 PM

One, simple: 'shall not infringe' -- would do it.

 

Sadly that isn't working, but a rulling that laid down that because it's a civil right strict scrutiny applies, would be a good start as 9/10 anti-gun laws would fail that test.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#12 tcstoner

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • Joined: 26-December 20

Posted 25 March 2021 - 02:57 AM

It goes to SCOTUS conference today.  We should know on Monday if SCOTUS takes the case.  Docket for 20-843 (supremecourt.gov)



#13 richp

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,591 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 04

Posted 25 March 2021 - 03:28 AM

And the Ninth Circuit just ruled against open carry in a Hawaii case, giving yet another circuit split for the Supreme Court to deal with. Hope this link works...

https://mol.im/a/9399823

Rich Phillips

Edited by richp, 25 March 2021 - 03:29 AM.


#14 richp

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,591 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 04

Posted 25 March 2021 - 04:01 AM

And here is a related take on the whole SC matter from a legal blog I follow.

https://reason.com/v...amendment-case/

Rich Phillips

#15 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,579 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 25 March 2021 - 10:56 PM

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:

The lefties really can't let that one go, they will never stop trying to relitigate Heller.


Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#16 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,581 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 27 March 2021 - 11:00 PM

BTW, this case is not "Corlett v NYC." NYC is not involved.

It's "NYSRPA v Corlett."

Maybe a mod could update the title.

It was set for conference March 26. Whether the court grants cert should be announced Monday (March 29) or so.

Edited by Euler, 27 March 2021 - 11:06 PM.

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#17 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,581 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 29 March 2021 - 11:12 AM

...
It was set for conference March 26. Whether the court grants cert should be announced Monday (March 29) or so.


It's been rescheduled for conference April 1.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#18 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 23,419 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 30 March 2021 - 02:28 PM

BTW, this case is not "Corlett v NYC." NYC is not involved.

It's "NYSRPA v Corlett."

Maybe a mod could update the title.

It was set for conference March 26. Whether the court grants cert should be announced Monday (March 29) or so.


That does seem to identify the case a bit better.

#19 tcstoner

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • Joined: 26-December 20

Posted 01 April 2021 - 02:14 AM

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



#20 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,581 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 01 April 2021 - 12:16 PM

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


?? It's in the opening post, too.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#21 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 305 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 02 April 2021 - 06:25 PM

 

...
It was set for conference March 26. Whether the court grants cert should be announced Monday (March 29) or so.


It's been rescheduled for conference April 1.

 

Actually re-listed. There's a difference. Re-listed cases means there's some level of interest.



#22 tcstoner

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • Joined: 26-December 20

Posted 02 April 2021 - 10:08 PM

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.



#23 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 305 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 05 April 2021 - 10:54 AM

Not on today's orders. Will likely be re-listed again.



#24 tcstoner

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • Joined: 26-December 20

Posted 06 April 2021 - 03:21 AM

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.

#25 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 305 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 07 April 2021 - 12:47 PM

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.



#26 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 305 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 26 April 2021 - 09:12 AM

Cert granted!

#27 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,370 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 26 April 2021 - 09:44 AM

Very interesting..........

#28 springfield shooter

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 778 posts
  • Joined: 18-February 16

Posted 26 April 2021 - 09:50 AM

Cert granted!

 

 

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

 

 

https://pjmedia.com/...-years-n1442742


"People will do what they do."

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives

July 7, 2020


#29 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,581 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 26 April 2021 - 09:51 AM

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.


The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#30 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,581 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 26 April 2021 - 09:53 AM

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

https://pjmedia.com/...-years-n1442742

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


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


Still true.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users