2013 Supreme Court Term

[Knuckle Dragger]

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

I'd it doesn't change other than to get SCOUTS closer to addressing the right-to-carry issue. All of the circuits, including where we've lost, have agreed that the Second Amendment is to some degree applicable outside the home.

Where the circuits split is in the regulation of that right. The Second, Third and Fourth circuits have been highly deferential to the states in minimizing the extent to which those regulations burden the exercise of the right. Those courts have basically agreed with New York, New Jersey, and Maryland that the challenge regulations in those state are necessary and don't overly burden the right. The Ninth Circuit, on the other hand, has come to the conclusion that San Diego's policy doesn't burden the right, it removes it.

We're getting closer to the tipping point where the accumulated case law is large enough and diverse enough that will be necessary for the Supreme Court to step in and provide some rules for the lower courts to follow.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Add Kwong v. de Blasio to the list. Response due March 24 (unless NYC asks for an extension).

Also, tomorrow (2/21) three cases are up in conference. We Should know next week if certiorari is granted in the following cases:

Lane v. Holder	Whether consumers have standing to challenge the constitutionality of laws regulating the sale of firearms.
NRA v. McCraw	Whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense in case of confrontation includes the right to bear arms in public. Whether that right to bear arms extends to responsible, law-abiding 18-to-20-year-old adults. Whether Texas’s ban on responsible, lawabiding 18-to-20-year-old adults bearing handguns in public for self-defense violates the Second Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.
NRA v. BATFE	Whether a nationwide, class-based, categorical ban on meaningful access to the quintessential means to exercise the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense can be reconciled with the Second Amendment, the equal protection guarantee, and this Court’s precedents.

 

[Quiet]

Add Kwong v. de Blasio to the list. Response due March 24 (unless NYC asks for an extension).

Also, tomorrow (2/21) three cases are up in conference. We Should know next week if certiorari is granted in the following cases:

Lane v. Holder	Whether consumers have standing to challenge the constitutionality of laws regulating the sale of firearms.
NRA v. McCraw	Whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense in case of confrontation includes the right to bear arms in public. Whether that right to bear arms extends to responsible, law-abiding 18-to-20-year-old adults. Whether Texas’s ban on responsible, lawabiding 18-to-20-year-old adults bearing handguns in public for self-defense violates the Second Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.
NRA v. BATFE	Whether a nationwide, class-based, categorical ban on meaningful access to the quintessential means to exercise the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense can be reconciled with the Second Amendment, the equal protection guarantee, and this Court’s precedents.

Do you know offhand what's the class specifically involved in NRA v BATFE

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Do you know offhand what's the class specifically involved in NRA v BATFE

Adults between the ages of 18 and 21.

 

[terraformer]

Adults between the ages of 18 and 21.

....purchasing at a dealer.

 

[Garden12]

Also, tomorrow (2/21) three cases are up in conference. We Should know next week if certiorari is granted in the following cases:

Lane v. Holder	Whether consumers have standing to challenge the constitutionality of laws regulating the sale of firearms.
NRA v. McCraw	Whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense in case of confrontation includes the right to bear arms in public. Whether that right to bear arms extends to responsible, law-abiding 18-to-20-year-old adults. Whether Texas’s ban on responsible, lawabiding 18-to-20-year-old adults bearing handguns in public for self-defense violates the Second Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.
NRA v. BATFE	Whether a nationwide, class-based, categorical ban on meaningful access to the quintessential means to exercise the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense can be reconciled with the Second Amendment, the equal protection guarantee, and this Court’s precedents.

All three denied cert today.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022414zor_19m2.pdf

 

[terraformer]

We should start a new thread called 2014 Supreme Court Term at this point. The 2013 term (which ends in may 2014) is done for.

 

[jar]

We should start a new thread called 2014 Supreme Court Term at this point. The 2013 term (which ends in may 2014) is done for.

Drake and Kwong should get to conference before the end of this term, but of course wouldn't be heard until the 2014 term if granted. You could argue either way for staying in this thread or a new one. Also, while Castleman and Abramski aren't 2A cases as such, this thread is as good a place as any to discuss the opinions when they come out.

I thought the NRA cases denied today were a bridge too far from the beginning. I had better hopes for Lane given how terribad the standing holding below was. If I were in charge of the court, I would've summarily reversed with a note to read the standing holding in Dearth and remand for a trial on the merits. Of course, if I ran the court, I would've granted Kachalsky.

If petitioned, which appears doubtful at this point, I'd think Peruta would be almost a lock for a cert grant. It'll be interesting to see what happens with Richards and Baker.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

We're also waiting for decision in Castleman and Abramski. The former is kind of a dog and doesn't have much support on our side. It's kind of a wonkie technical legal question. Abramski on the other hand is kind of important and a victory would help to keep the ATF from making up their own laws.

 

[Garys]

Abramski baffles me. Not that it made it to SCOTUS, but that he was arrested in the first place. It would seem that someone decided he was a bad guy (and maybe he is) and looked for a reason to arrest, try, and convict him. It just doesn't seem like what he did violated either the letter or spirit of the straw purchase regulations.

We're also waiting for decision in Castleman and Abramski. The former is kind of a dog and doesn't have much support on our side. It's kind of a wonkie technical legal question. Abramski on the other hand is kind of important and a victory would help to keep the ATF from making up their own laws.

 

[terraformer]

Abramski baffles me. Not that it made it to SCOTUS, but that he was arrested in the first place. It would seem that someone decided he was a bad guy (and maybe he is) and looked for a reason to arrest, try, and convict him. It just doesn't seem like what he did violated either the letter or spirit of the straw purchase regulations.

They think he robbed a bank. Armed robbery. That's why they looked for his gun purchases. When they came for the gun for "evidentiary" purposes, he told them where it was. When the bank robbery charge evaporated into thin air (ultimately he pissed off his cop co workers which is the root cause for the witch hunt) they turned the "straw buy" over to the feds who "totally believed, like you know" the robbery charge and were happy to help out their brothers in the stasi.

And no, none of this is an unreasonable way to characterize the facts here. This is what happens when cops police with their hearts and/or their dicks. The whole system comes crashing to a train wreck when the people in charge go with their feelings.

 

[Garys]

I knew the background after doing some reading about the case. I knew that they suspected him of the bank job. I think he was fired from Roanoke PD, I forget if it was the city or county PD. Either way, they didn't like him. This seems a stupid way to get back at him, but what do I know?

Depending on how this is decided, it could be very good or very bad for gun owners. If his conviction is overturned, it certainly could remove uncertainty about what a straw purchase is. Other than the current ATF "It's whatever we say it is on a particular day."

They think he robbed a bank. Armed robbery. That's why they looked for his gun purchases. When they came for the gun for "evidentiary" purposes, he told them where it was. When the bank robbery charge evaporated into thin air (ultimately he pissed off his cop co workers which is the root cause for the witch hunt) they turned the "straw buy" over to the feds who "totally believed, like you know" the robbery charge and were happy to help out their brothers in the stasi.

And no, none of this is an unreasonable way to characterize the facts here. This is what happens when cops police with their hearts and/or their dicks. The whole system comes crashing to a train wreck when the people in charge go with their feelings.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

One of the things that irritates me about Abramski is the flagrant hypocrisy of the Brady Center. They're trying to get straw purchase mileage out of this case arguing that it's an irrelevant fact that Abramski's uncle was not prohibited and passed his own background check. In fact Abramski and his uncle did everything they could to comply with the law and their understanding of it.

And yet, when Sarah Brady buys a .30-06 rifle with the intention of transferring it to her son and doing just that without a background check, the Brady Campaign argued that it was perfectly legal because the younger Brady was not prohibited. But the feds didn't feel the need to arrest Sarah.

This case turns (or should turn) on what the law is. The 4473 wording that the ATF introduced in the mid-90s isn't supported by statute and if enforced as it is here, effectively gives ATF the power to legislate. The origins of the straw purchase doctrine are dubious as well. Finally, we do have a clear circuit split issue here as well. In at least one other circuit Abramski could not have been convicted.

 

[terraformer]

I knew the background after doing some reading about the case. I knew that they suspected him of the bank job. I think he was fired from Roanoke PD, I forget if it was the city or county PD. Either way, they didn't like him. This seems a stupid way to get back at him, but what do I know?

Depending on how this is decided, it could be very good or very bad for gun owners. If his conviction is overturned, it certainly could remove uncertainty about what a straw purchase is. Other than the current ATF "It's whatever we say it is on a particular day."

Sorry, it seemed like you were asking what happened. Yup, this can get very bad if that is allowed to stand.

 

[Garys]

Sorry, it seemed like you were asking what happened. Yup, this can get very bad if that is allowed to stand.

I read up on it because on it's face it seemed like a farcical charge. I had a hard time believing that he was convicted and that it wasn't overturned at the Circuit level. Yep, if it stands we as a group are screwed.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Yesterday New Jersey filed their Response to Drake's petition.

 

[pastera]

Yesterday New Jersey filed their Response to Drake's petition.

Need an account to get to that link

 

[PaulD]

Yesterday New Jersey filed their Response to Drake's petition.

Could you summarize the response? Thanks.

 

[WatchCityCPA]

More info on the topic from Reason.com:

http://reason.com/archives/2014/03/18/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

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.

Came down today. 9-0 against Castleman. The gun control fanatics are gloating about their victory over the 'gun lobby'. I don't recall seeing many on our side sticking up for Castleman.

 

[terraformer]

Came down today. 9-0 against Castleman. The gun control fanatics are gloating about their victory over the 'gun lobby'. I don't recall seeing many on our side sticking up for Castleman.

Did anyone stick up for him? It was an irrelevant fact pattern for the argument he made. By all accounts, he beat the crap out of his GF. It was a complete CF in my mind.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Did anyone stick up for him? It was an irrelevant fact pattern for the argument he made. By all accounts, he beat the crap out of his GF. It was a complete CF in my mind.

GOA filed an amicus. That was enough for the Brady types to claim victory over the evil empire.

This crap makes me mad:
The gun lobby fought for domestic abusers.

 

[browncoat]

GOA filed an amicus. That was enough for the Brady types to claim victory over the evil empire.

This crap makes me mad:
The gun lobby fought for domestic abusers.

It is obvious that Castleman is not a good guy. However, I don't see where the federal government should have the right to say who should or shouldn't have guns. It's creeps like him that provide the openings for more and more of our freedoms to be chipped away.

 

[terraformer]

It is obvious that Castleman is not a good guy. However, I don't see where the federal government should have the right to say who should or shouldn't have guns. It's creeps like him that provide the openings for more and more of our freedoms to be chipped away.

That wasn't the subject of this case. It was solely based on statutory interpretation.

 

[browncoat]

That wasn't the subject of this case. It was solely based on statutory interpretation.

Exactly. I don't have a problem with the ruling of the Court per se, they judged correctly according to the law as Congress wrote it. A part of the Federal code (USC) that said that he couldn't have a gun if he had committed physical domestic violence. He obviously did do that. What wasn't argued in the case, and what I am arguing, is that 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(9) is unconstitutional. Where in the Constitution is Congress given the authority to prohibit the possession of firearms?


Tenth amendment says that they don't have that authority.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

More on Castleman from NPR including a good description of the issue.

High Court Considers Definition Of Domestic Violence In Gun Case

The issue:

The justices that people convicted of minor domestic violence offenses are barred under federal law from possessing a gun, even though some states do not require proof of physical force for conviction on domestic violence charges.

The only thing I take issue with in the reporting is the "acked by gun rights groups..." GOA wrote an amicus brief, that hardly Castleman a gun rights post child.

 

[PaulD]

My question in this case is, if he really beat his GF that badly, why wasn't it a felony?

 

[terraformer]

My question in this case is, if he really beat his GF that badly, why wasn't it a felony?

Because in free America, felonies are reserved for aggravated violence and repeat offenders. Also, my use of beat the crap out of her wasn't meant to accurately reflect what happened so much as to say that he didn't poke her with his finger and threaten sternly worded letters. The latter is what his legal theory required.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Yesterday New Jersey filed their Response to Drake's petition.

And here is plaintiff - petitioner's reply brief.

 

[dixidawg]

This one tickled my fancy:

..."Respondents’ credulity-busting brief outdoes
itself with the claim that New Jersey’s law “affects a
very narrow range of conduct” because it is “greatly
diminished by numerous statutory exceptions. . . .”"