2013 Supreme Court Term

[Knuckle Dragger]

Schrader and Chardin have been distributed for the 11/1 conference.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Schrader and Chardin have been distributed for the 11/1 conference.

And both were denied.

 

[WatchCityCPA]

And both were denied.

That's why one needs LOTS of patience when counting on the Supreme Court to make things right.

 

[terraformer]

And both were denied.

I still want to know what question was presented in Chardin.

 

[Mike S]

Any chance that SCOTUS is waiting for a new justice to be nominated before they take on another 2A case of significance?

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the new liberal crew is trying to wait out the aging pro 2A justices on the bench.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Any chance that SCOTUS is waiting for a new justice to be nominated before they take on another 2A case of significance?

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the new liberal crew is trying to wait out the aging pro 2A justices on the bench.

They're waiting for something, but I doubt it's a change in the court. Remember, they only need four justices to agree to take a case.

I'm starting to think that they might be waiting for the government to appeal a case that we won. That would have been Moore v. Madigan except the the IL legislature decided to change the law rather than risk SCOTUS making a decision for them.

 

[Mike S]

They're waiting for something, but I doubt it's a change in the court. Remember, they only need four justices to agree to take a case.

I'm starting to think that they might be waiting for the government to appeal a case that we won. That would have been Moore v. Madigan except the the IL legislature decided to change the law rather than risk SCOTUS making a decision for them.

Maybe they got a "stand down" order from above on taking 2A cases. Their decisions have been going against the agenda of dear leader and I'm sure he's pissed about that.

 

[soloman02]

Maybe they got a "stand down" order from above on taking 2A cases. Their decisions have been going against the agenda of dear leader and I'm sure he's pissed about that.

Or maybe the NSA has dirt on them and someone who has access to said dirt blackmailed them:

[video=youtube_share;S66eotFeA7I]http://youtu.be/S66eotFeA7I[/video]

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Drake v. Filko (NJ) Cert Petition

Petition for Certiorari was filed yesterday with the Supreme Court.

Keep you fingers crossed!

 

[atilla]

 

[GM-GUY]

One 'decision' that I do know it that since 0bama-Care is a Tax (per the SCotUS) that is should have started in the House, it started in the Senate - therfore it is invalid, the Court (John Roberts in particular) refused to hear the case.

Yes the NSA has stuff on EVERYONE, once you raise the ire of the govt - they will know exactly what was said on every call you ever made and every e-mail you ever sent.

Watch for a document dump if Christie get the nomination - within a week after the convention. It be an e-mail from him (private addy) to his buddy (private again) or a phone transcript of Christie telling him to close the bridge.

 

[Garys]

I haven't read the entire petition yet, but I'm encouraged that it starts out by citing the split not only between the Circuits, but between state courts. I just hope that the issue is framed in a narrow enough scope and the client is "pure" enough that the Court will grant cert.

Petition for Certiorari was filed yesterday with the Supreme Court.

Keep you fingers crossed!

 

[terraformer]

It's narrowly scoped for sure. It's also better than the last two. Less blaming of the courts and more focused on a solution.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Fingers and toes crossed that this gets taken up.

 

[Garys]

Hardimans dissent in the Circuit Court decision is interesting,

“Most importantly, the McDonald
Court described the holding in
Heller as encompassing a general right
to self-defense.” App. 44a (citing McDonald v. City of Chicago , 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010)). “In making [ ]
comments regarding the home, the Court was merely
applying the Second Amendment to the facts at issue
in the case before it. Heller challenged the District of
Columbia’s prohibition on guns in the home, not its
prohibitions on public carry.” App. 45a.

He implies, or maybe I'm inferring, that SCOTUS was deciding the case at hand (Heller) and giving a hint at how it would decide a carry outside the home case. Which would be consistent with the Court making narrow as possible rulings. A grant of cert and a favorable decision would be huge. Maybe this case is ripe enough for the Court to take it and decide the issue.

 

[Hoover]

Things are not great in MA but the "need" requirement and other BS they deal with in NJ and NYC is absurd. There are splits but the majority of the decisions are pro 2a and the NJ courts are out of step with the others.

If they take it up, they wouldn't hear it until the fall term of '14, right?

 

[Quiet]

What I hate is that the argument being put forth never disagrees, even in a passing manner, that even intermediate scrutiny is the wrong standard for an enumerated right, that the courts should be using strict scrutiny to see if there is a demonstrated need, evidence that the law would achieve the need, and evidence that there is no other less intrusive way of achieving the need.

 

[jar]

What I hate is that the argument being put forth never disagrees, even in a passing manner, that even intermediate scrutiny is the wrong standard for an enumerated right, that the courts should be using strict scrutiny to see if there is a demonstrated need, evidence that the law would achieve the need, and evidence that there is no other less intrusive way of achieving the need.

Note that this is the petition for cert, the brief asking the court to take the case. *If* the court takes the case, there will be another round of briefing on the merits arguing how it should be decided. From the decision below, quoting Gura's brief: "They contend that only strict scrutiny could possibly
apply to the case at bar because the burden imposed
by the “justifiable need” standard “is substantial,
implicating the core rights of responsible, law-abiding
citizens to engage in an activity whose protection is
literally enumerated.” Appellants’ Brief 52."

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Hardimans dissent in the Circuit Court decision is interesting,



He implies, or maybe I'm inferring, that SCOTUS was deciding the case at hand (Heller) and giving a hint at how it would decide a carry outside the home case. Which would be consistent with the Court making narrow as possible rulings. A grant of cert and a favorable decision would be huge. Maybe this case is ripe enough for the Court to take it and decide the issue.

I think you're correct. The problem has been that most states fighting right-to-carry (as well as amici like the Brady Center) have taken the view that the limited scope of the Heller/McDonald decisions imply that there is NO right outside the home. Massachusetts has firmly maintained this argument.*

Judge Posner's decision in Moore also addresses the limited scope of Heller by contrasting the issue with that in Lawrence v. Texas:

Our principal reservation about the Second Circuit ’s analysis (apart from disagreement, unnecessary to bore the reader with, with some of the historical analysis in the opinion—
we regard the historical issues as settled by Heller) is its suggestion that the Second Amendment should
have much greater scope inside the home than outside simply because other provisions of the Constitution
have been held to make that distinction. For example, the opinion states that “in Lawrence v. Texas, the
[Supreme] Court emphasized that the state’s efforts to regulate private sexual conduct between onsenting adults is especially suspect when it intrudes into the home.” 2012 WL 5907502, at *9. Well of course—the interest in having sex inside one’s home is much greater than the interest in having sex on the sidewalk in front of one’s home. But the interest in self-protection is as great outside as inside the home.

Things are not great in MA but the "need" requirement and other BS they deal with in NJ and NYC is absurd. There are splits but the majority of the decisions are pro 2a and the NJ courts are out of step with the others.

If they take it up, they wouldn't hear it until the fall term of '14, right?

Ironically, of the may-issue states, Massachusetts makes in the most difficult to legally purchase and own a firearm. However, once you get over that initial licensing hurdle, we're the easiest may-issue state in which to actually carry.

*Just to give a preview of what we're up against: Massachusetts steadfastly maintains that there is no right to carry a firearm in public. But if such a right does somehow exits, there is no right to carry a 'large-capacity firearm in public in a concealed manner'. Therefore, if that right does exist it can be satisfied with the LTC/B which permits the holder to openly carry a non-large capacity handgun.

 

[Garys]

I think you're correct. The problem has been that most states fighting right-to-carry (as well as amici like the Brady Center) have taken the view that the limited scope of the Heller/McDonald decisions imply that there is NO right outside the home. Massachusetts has firmly maintained this argument.*

Until Moore IL also contended that there was no right to carry outside the home. Not having read the entire brief yet, I don't know if that's mentioned or not. During the time between the Moore decision and the end of the window for IL to appeal I talked to some gun rights activists in IL and a fairly high ranking guy from the SAF. They all thought that IL was under tremendous pressure from the anti gun forces not to appeal the decision to SCOTUS. The danger was that SCOTUS would grant cert. and if they upheld the 7th Circuit, the decision would ripple across every state to some degree or another. I think this might be a case with similar impact IF cert. is granted and if the decision follows the logic in Heller and McDonald.

We can only hope.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Until Moore IL also contended that there was no right to carry outside the home. Not having read the entire brief yet, I don't know if that's mentioned or not. During the time between the Moore decision and the end of the window for IL to appeal I talked to some gun rights activists in IL and a fairly high ranking guy from the SAF. They all thought that IL was under tremendous pressure from the anti gun forces not to appeal the decision to SCOTUS. The danger was that SCOTUS would grant cert. and if they upheld the 7th Circuit, the decision would ripple across every state to some degree or another. I think this might be a case with similar impact IF cert. is granted and if the decision follows the logic in Heller and McDonald.

We can only hope.

You're exactly right. IL was under tremendous pressure to take their lumps in Moore and move on. The same thing happened in DC following the city's Heller loss in the DC circuit. All the major gun control groups begged DC not to file an appeal with the Supreme Court. Foolishly they did and served us up the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Garys]

You're exactly right. IL was under tremendous pressure to take their lumps in Moore and move on. The same thing happened in DC following the city's Heller loss in the DC circuit. All the major gun control groups begged DC not to file an appeal with the Supreme Court. Foolishly they did and served us up the gift that keeps on giving.

Some day, and probably soon, Heller is going to be looked at as the Gettysburg of the anti 2A movement. They won't give up and we'll still have to fight, but in the end we'll win.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Abramski gets argued today.

Live Blog

 

[Quiet]

That link doesn't return anything on Abramski for me.

 

[jar]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-1493_2135.pdf is the transcript of the Abramski argument.

 

[Whutmeworry]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-1493_2135.pdf is the transcript of the Abramski argument.

Reading this transcript makes my head hurt. All it does is prove how ridiculous and pointless the whole concept of background checks is. The government has a responsibility to remove dangerous people from free society, and KEEP them removed from society. That's all, that's it! At that point, background checks are totally unneccessary, and all this pointless haggling over who's qualified to possess a firearm would not need to take place.

 

[jasons]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-1493_2135.pdf is the transcript of the Abramski argument.

Is it just me or did Dietz's argument seem a little uninspired?

 

[Mike S]

Is it just me or did Dietz's argument seem a little uninspired?

It's hard to say reading text. I feel that Dietz missed some opportunities with that argument. I would have liked a stronger argument about the sale(s) being legal, private and none of .gov's freaking business.

Also some info for SCOTUS about background checks basically being a farce would have been nice.

This will be an interesting decision. Reading through this you'd think that SCOTUS was talking about WMD's not firearms.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Update: Three relevant cases have been distributed for conference on February 21st.
-Lane v. Holder
-NRA v. McCraw
-NRA v. BATFE

 

[Coyote33]

I think you're correct. The problem has been that most states fighting right-to-carry (as well as amici like the Brady Center) have taken the view that the limited scope of the Heller/McDonald decisions imply that there is NO right outside the home. Massachusetts has firmly maintained this argument.*

Judge Posner's decision in Moore also addresses the limited scope of Heller by contrasting the issue with that in Lawrence v. Texas:

Ironically, of the may-issue states, Massachusetts makes in the most difficult to legally purchase and own a firearm. However, once you get over that initial licensing hurdle, we're the easiest may-issue state in which to actually carry.

*Just to give a preview of what we're up against: Massachusetts steadfastly maintains that there is no right to carry a firearm in public. But if such a right does somehow exits, there is no right to carry a 'large-capacity firearm in public in a concealed manner'. Therefore, if that right does exist it can be satisfied with the LTC/B which permits the holder to openly carry a non-large capacity handgun.

Until Moore IL also contended that there was no right to carry outside the home. Not having read the entire brief yet, I don't know if that's mentioned or not. During the time between the Moore decision and the end of the window for IL to appeal I talked to some gun rights activists in IL and a fairly high ranking guy from the SAF. They all thought that IL was under tremendous pressure from the anti gun forces not to appeal the decision to SCOTUS. The danger was that SCOTUS would grant cert. and if they upheld the 7th Circuit, the decision would ripple across every state to some degree or another. I think this might be a case with similar impact IF cert. is granted and if the decision follows the logic in Heller and McDonald.

We can only hope.

How does this change with the latest ruling in California? Or does it not change?