2013 Supreme Court Term

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,168
Likes
3,581
Location
My forest stronghold
Well folks, the Supreme Court is back in session and this is the term we all hope to see some significant 2A progress. The court has already granted certiorari to one case. They reviewed another on Monday but didn't grant or deny and two more will be considered in the October 11th conference.

The Comm2A SCOTUS Watch page has been updated to keep you informed.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,168
Likes
3,581
Location
My forest stronghold
Can you provide a brief summary of what you'd like the court to address this session?
Right-to-Carry (RTC)

In 2008 and 2010 SCOTUS addressed the right to 'keep' arms. The big missing piece is the right to 'bear' arms. Thus far they've been very slow to take up the issue and it's difficult to speculate what kind of case they're looking for. Personally, I'd like them to take Woollard.

Lane and Schrader are also important cases. Lane deals with the requirement that handguns be purchased in one's state of resident. This could be huge for Massachusetts residents. Schrader deals with a federal prohibition for conviction for a common law misdemeanor crime with with no maximum term of imprisonment.
 

Quiet

Banned
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
9,698
Likes
1,807
Location
2122 N. Clark St.
Regarding prison term differences, just curious: how does it square with 14A that a person convicted of OUI in MA becomes a federally PP and someone convicted in another state does not? Where is the equal protection under the law?

Is it because they aren't exactly the same laws even though it's the same prohibited behavior?
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
2,521
Likes
285
Woollard, Woollard, Woollard, Woollard!

If we don't get Woollard, I'm going to cry. Woollard, if granted Cert and decided the right way, will be as important as Heller. Maybe even more so.

Plus, I can reliably spell the petitioner's name, unlike Kachalasky or Marscandio.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,168
Likes
3,581
Location
My forest stronghold
Regarding prison term differences, just curious: how does it square with 14A that a person convicted of OUI in MA becomes a federally PP and someone convicted in another state does not? Where is the equal protection under the law?

Is it because they aren't exactly the same laws even though it's the same prohibited behavior?
Funny. That is exactly the same question an attorney asked me the other day.

This approach would fail in a number of respects and is fraught with issues. Federal PP definition is tied to potential term of incarceration, not the underlying offense. So, to make your argument work 922 would have to overhauled to enumerate the kinds of specific convictions that would be disqualifies and them somehow map that to the penal codes in all fifty states, which can vary dramatically.

Otherwise you're stuck arguing that states need to have uniform punishment standards, opens up a whole can of states rights worms. If it's a EP violation for MA and NH to have different punishment standards for OUI, how would that play out with respect to TX and MA having different penalties (the death penalty) for first degree murder? You'd have the AGs from all 50 states lining up against you. How would that work for malum prohibitum 'gun crimes' like magazine size and storage? It it an EP problem that I can get jacked for an 11 round mag in MA, but not in NH?

The best and shortest path to this problem is to require the federal government to honor a state level restoration of a right when it was the state that removed that right in the first place. If the state was able to say 'x' results in the loss of your right, the state should be able restore that right. This is the most effective, shortest path approach to this issue and doesn't create more problems than it solves.

Woollard, Woollard, Woollard, Woollard!

If we don't get Woollard, I'm going to cry. Woollard, if granted Cert and decided the right way, will be as important as Heller. Maybe even more so.

Plus, I can reliably spell the petitioner's name, unlike Kachalasky or Marscandio.
Drake v. Filko (NJ, 3rd Circuit) is also in the pipeline. I'm pretty sure you can spell that.
 

Quiet

Banned
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
9,698
Likes
1,807
Location
2122 N. Clark St.
Otherwise you're stuck arguing that states need to have uniform punishment standards, opens up a whole can of states rights worms.
Fascinating point. So as it stands now, states' rights trumps 14A (which is (I assume) applied to the states) in sentencing.

This will change at some point, I'm sure. National sentencing guidelines, from some president like Peter King... "King Uniform National Time" or some such. ;-)

In the meantime, seems to me as a layman that basing a FEDERAL prohibition on a non-uniform aspect of state law (or anything else) would be unconstitutional on some front, such as EP, and the complexity of writing the prohibition properly in enumerating disqualifying crimes (as they have enumerated other disqualifiers) shouldn't be a consideration.

Then again, not sure I want this administration tackling that issue.
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
31   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,825
Likes
2,284
A little primer on EP. The law or a single state actor operating under color of law must treat two similarly situated people differently. Here is the rub. People from two different towns have two different state actors. And the "similarly situated" person standard is a large enough loophole to drive a semi through. Two different ages, not similarly situated. Two different backgrounds, not similarly situated. Two different stated needs, not similarly situated. The promise of EP is far greater than the actual protection of it from our courts.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Nov 19, 2011
Messages
114
Likes
22
Location
NH (mass escapee)
I kinda see Chardin as an interesting one. It's ugly from one viewpoint as it has several different angles (8th amendment, ex-post-facto, 2nd amendment, removal of rights as punishment), but I like it for those same reasons as it draws from more settled areas of law. Am I right that they could rule on one of Chardin, Castelman and Shrader then GVR the others to be reconsidered with the new guidance?

This would be a slightly different strategy than KD was hoping for though, going after the edges of "keep" instead of starting to address "bear".
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
31   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,825
Likes
2,284
Castleman won't be a 2A case at all. It's pure, law wonk statutory interpretation case. Schrader will likely not be taken. I don't know about Chardin. I have yet to get a copy of the petition but my gut is it won't go up.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
747
Likes
107
Last edited:

soloman02

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
12,172
Likes
3,040
Location
NH
Woollard's case denied certi today. Sucks.


http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101513zor_4g25.pdf It's on the top of the 4th page.


But they are looking at one case related to guns, but not a right to carry case. They granted cert the Abramski case.

Here's a good summary of the case, can explain it much better than I can.

Fourth Circuit: United States v. Abramski
Interesting. Depending on how SCOTUS rules in Abramski, they could change the definition of question 11a on the 4473 to be only when the other party is a PP instead of how it is now.

I'd rather they granted cert on Woollard though. They know they will have to eventually. We will not stop bringing them cases until they grant cert to one.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,168
Likes
3,581
Location
My forest stronghold
I'd rather they granted cert on Woollard though. They know they will have to eventually.
Yes, they will. Its difficult to say if they're waiting for a particular kind of case, if they want to see more decisions from the lower courts, or if they just don't want to see Alan Gura again. The ninth circuit is still holding on to at least three cases. Maybe the justices would prefer to see one of those.
We will not stop bringing them cases until they grant cert to one.
tru dat!

Are there still some that have been accepted previously but haven't gone to the SC yet?
Abramski and Castelman are the only unheard 2A-related cases that have been granted cert. There are five more petitions waiting for cert decisions.
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
31   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,825
Likes
2,284
no, it means that they held it over to the next conference. It means they need to discuss it more and look into more background most likely. It's a good time.
 
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
3,993
Likes
587
Location
Central PRM
This one should be good. I'd like to see them reign in some of these agencies.

Supreme Court agrees to hear gun case backed by Stockman - Your Houston News: Opinion

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The U.S. Supreme Court announced Tuesday it will hear an important case supported by Congressman Steve Stockman (R-TX 36) involving the right of Americans to keep and bear arms — Abramski v. United States. The case challenges the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) “straw purchase” policy as consistent with federal law.
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
31   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,825
Likes
2,284
This one should be good. I'd like to see them reign in some of these agencies.

Supreme Court agrees to hear gun case backed by Stockman - Your Houston News: Opinion
Be careful what you wish for. This may not work out as well as you hope. At best it may come out in Abramski's favor on the technicality that the statute doesn't authorize the question or on the technicality that he went through another FFL for the transfer to his uncle so therefore obviating the applicability of the question. But I don't see this one being decided on 2A grounds and I don't think that the court would prohibit the definition of straw purchases proffered by the US on constitutional grounds, at least not generally in an environment where background checks are not mandated (see technicalities above).
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
3,009
Likes
667
Location
Near Worcester
Be careful what you wish for. This may not work out as well as you hope. At best it may come out in Abramski's favor on the technicality that the statute doesn't authorize the question or on the technicality that he went through another FFL for the transfer to his uncle so therefore obviating the applicability of the question. But I don't see this one being decided on 2A grounds and I don't think that the court would prohibit the definition of straw purchases proffered by the US on constitutional grounds, at least not generally in an environment where background checks are not mandated (see technicalities above).

I fail to see how a "straw purchase" could be argued in this case where the person that purchased a firearm for himself changed his mind or had some type of financial setback that caused them to sell their gun to whomever. To the best of my knowledge there are no time limits concerned in the transfer of newly purchased firearms to another person. It just seems like this a thought crime in the most Orwellian of ways. My property is to do with as I see fit, is it not?

How could they possibly prove this was his original intent? Does intent even matter?
 

jasons

Moderator
Moderator
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
43   0   0
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
15,799
Likes
3,401
Last edited:

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
75   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
18,317
Likes
2,797
Location
Stoughton
Looking at the case, I have to wonder why the Court took it? It doesn't seem like it's something that they would be interested in.

Be careful what you wish for. This may not work out as well as you hope. At best it may come out in Abramski's favor on the technicality that the statute doesn't authorize the question or on the technicality that he went through another FFL for the transfer to his uncle so therefore obviating the applicability of the question. But I don't see this one being decided on 2A grounds and I don't think that the court would prohibit the definition of straw purchases proffered by the US on constitutional grounds, at least not generally in an environment where background checks are not mandated (see technicalities above).
 

jar

Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
6,372
Likes
698
Location
Needham, MA
Looking at the case, I have to wonder why the Court took it? It doesn't seem like it's something that they would be interested in.
Because there's a clear circuit split. What he did is considered criminal in the 4th, 6th, and 11th circuits and not in the 5th and 9th circuits. This isn't really a 2A case; it's a simple statutory interpretation case that touches on executive branch agency rulemaking (whether the 4473 question at issue legitimately implements the statute).
 

jasons

Moderator
Moderator
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
43   0   0
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
15,799
Likes
3,401
Because there's a clear circuit split. What he did is considered criminal in the 4th, 6th, and 11th circuits and not in the 5th and 9th circuits. This isn't really a 2A case; it's a simple statutory interpretation case that touches on executive branch agency rulemaking (whether the 4473 question at issue legitimately implements the statute).
Is the 5th and / or 9th just ignoring the ATF's "ruling" or a there some precedent?
 
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
3,993
Likes
587
Location
Central PRM
Looking at the case, I have to wonder why the Court took it? It doesn't seem like it's something that they would be interested in.
Rep Steve Stockman from Texas helped pushed for this, his opinion is that the ATF is trying to circumvent congress in making their own laws.

If the court rules in favor of Abramski this could have a huge impact on agencies such as the EPA that routinely make new rules outside of Congress.

“I am grateful that the Supreme Court will review this important case. I felt this case was so important, that I joined with Gun Owners of America and other pro-Second Amendment groups to file an amicus curiae brief urging the Court to grant review,” said Stockman.

“ATF’s policy on so-called ‘straw purchases’ is illegal. No one should be convicted and made into a felon for buying and transferring a gun legally. Congress never passed a law prohibiting such purchases, and the ATF has no authority to create new crimes to plug what it perceives to be holes in the law. This case gives the Court the opportunity to rein in a lawless ATF which has repeatedly exhibited hostility to law-abiding gunowners.”
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
17,818
Likes
3,275
Location
Live Free or Die
Rep Steve Stockman from Texas helped pushed for this, his opinion is that the ATF is trying to circumvent congress in making their own laws.
“I am grateful that the Supreme Court will review this important case. I felt this case was so important, that I joined with Gun Owners of America and other pro-Second Amendment groups to file an amicus curiae brief urging the Court to grant review,” said Stockman.

“ATF’s policy on so-called ‘straw purchases’ is illegal. No one should be convicted and made into a felon for buying and transferring a gun legally. Congress never passed a law prohibiting such purchases, and the ATF has no authority to create new crimes to plug what it perceives to be holes in the law. This case gives the Court the opportunity to rein in a lawless ATF which has repeatedly exhibited hostility to law-abiding gunowners.”
If the court rules in favor of Abramski this could have a huge impact on agencies such as the EPA that routinely make new rules outside of Congress.

Somehow I think this one is going to come back and hurt us in the end
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
3,009
Likes
667
Location
Near Worcester
Well for one because he admitted it. His buddy also wrote him a check with "Glock 19 handgun" written on the memo line, which he deposited right before he made the purchase.

4th Circuit decision:
http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public...ramski_706_F3d_307_4th_Cir_2013_Court_Opinion
OK alright, what's not mentioned is HOW he came to be charged with this straw purchase. It was obviously during the course of an investigation for a bank robbery, of which Abramski was suspected, even though his charges were later dismissed.

In executing the search warrant for the Iron Ridge Road property, agents found and seized a green Franklin Community Bank zippered bag containing the written receipt confirming the transfer of the Glock 19 handgun from Abramski to Alvarez on November 21, 2009.
you-went-full-retard-never-go-full-retard.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom