bmyers

Thanks for the clarification.

I had to look up and see what was meant by SCOTUS conference, yet I'm a little confused because I must of missed the oral arguments. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1 When oral arguments are concluded, the Justices have to decide the case. They do so at what is known as the Justices' Conference. When Court is in session, there are two conferences scheduled per week – one on Wednesday afternoon and one on Friday afternoon. At their Wednesday conference, the Justices talk about the cases heard on Monday. At their Friday conference, they discuss cases heard on Tuesday and Wednesday. When Court is not in session, no Wednesday conference is held. Before going into the Conference, the Justices frequently discuss the relevant cases with their law clerks, seeking to get different perspectives on the case. At the end of these sessions, sometimes the Justices have a fairly good idea of how they will vote in the case; other times, they are still uncommitted. According to Supreme Court protocol, only the Justices are allowed in the Conference room at this time—no police, law clerks, secretaries, etc. The Chief Justice calls the session to order and, as a sign of the collegial nature of the institution, all the Justices shake hands. The first order of business, typically, is to discuss the week's petitions for certiorari, i.e., deciding which cases to accept or reject. After the petitions for certiorari are dealt with, the Justices begin to discuss the cases that were heard since their last Conference. According to Supreme Court protocol, all Justices have an opportunity to state their views on the case and raise any questions or concerns they may have. Each Justice speaks without interruptions from the others. The Chief Justice makes the first statement, then each Justice speaks in descending order of seniority, ending with the most junior justice—the one who has served on the court for the fewest years. When each Justice is finished speaking, the Chief Justice casts the first vote, and then each Justice in descending order of seniority does likewise until the most junior justice casts the last vote. After the votes have been tallied, the Chief Justice, or the most senior Justice in the majority if the Chief Justice is in the dissent, assigns a Justice in the majority to write the opinion of the Court. The most senior justice in the dissent can assign a dissenting Justice to write the dissenting opinion. If a Justice agrees with the outcome of the case, but not the majority's rationale for it, that Justice may write a concurring opinion. Any Justice may write a separate dissenting opinion. When there is a tie vote, the decision of the lower Court stands. This can happen if, for some reason, any of the nine Justices is not participating in a case (e.g., a seat is vacant or a Justice has had to recuse).

Not sure how you fail a survey, but I did. I guess being an old dude that like mail and doesn't want text makes me a failure.

I think by the simple fact that we haven't seen enforcement of the act, we have a stay of enforcement of it. The anti-gun has had a victory in that weapons they deem dangerous are no longer for sale. Yet, I think at this point both sides are at a stalemate waiting for the courts to make the next move. I don't expect anything exciting to happen until the next major court order has been released.

Looking forward to seeing the photos for us stuck at work.

Done

Done

Understood

So, we can appoint special counsels to deal with matters, why can't the court appoint a special court made up of judges that don't have conflicts to deal with an issue like this?

Done

Done

If I'm reading everything correctly, as the seller, I don't have to submit anything to the FFL. The buyer is required. I keep on file that I sold it for 10 years and did the ISP check I completed my part. Yet, if the buyer fails to file it, it is on him/her.

I did not ask.

Placing the term in quotes was do to using the State's term and definition, not mine. We may not like the fact and disagree with the use of the term/phrase, but legally, the State has defined (a very poor effort at it) the term ""assault weapon"" in accordance with the State law.