2013 Supreme Court Term

[jasons]

You're actually seriously advising people to remove their pro-2A bumper stickers from their cars because of this ruling?

At first I was going to suggest that you just missed the wink emoticon, but if you meant what you said, I guess I was wrong.

Feel free to leave them on if you want the reverse of this:

What you mean to say is, take notice of Anti's bumper stickers and their driving mistakes, right? ;-).

 

[soloman02]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-9490_3fb4.pdf



more cause for cops to stop people unjustly. Scalia writes a scathing dissent +1

Wouldn't want to be on that guy's sh*t list...

Man, he seems pissed in that dissent

Great dissent by Scalia.

Scalia seems rather hypocritical here. Just the other day he was telling law students (I'm paraphrasing) "We have to spy on you, its for the children" and "collecting and reading all your email, FB posts, Tweets, and Phone calls is not 'unreasonable' cause terrorism! 'Murica!"

 

[soloman02]

Another case to watch:

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-supreme-court-aereo-20140422,0,879667.story

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices sounded uncertain and conflicted Tuesday in trying to decide whether a TV streaming service that allows users to receive their favorite programs through tiny, rented antennas violates the broadcasters' copyrights.

The case of ABC vs. Aereo has the potential to reshape the broadcast and cable industries if the Brooklyn-based upstart prevails in the high court. And that appeared possible after Tuesday’s argument.

An attorney for the broadcasting industry urged the court to shut down Aereo. It allows “tens of thousands of paying strangers” to watch the programs they wish, but without paying any copyright fees to broadcasters. If Aereo prevails, some experts think the cable and satellite companies may decide to stream their own signals in the same way Aereo does and refuse to pay licensing fees to the broadcasters.

Before Tuesday’s argument, most legal experts were convinced the justices would rule against Aereo's service as a violation of copyright laws. But that certainty faded during the hour-long argument. Several justices admitted they were struggling for the right answer.

The broadcast industry relies heavily on a provision in the copyright law that a television broadcast may not be aired “publicly” without the permission of the broadcaster. Cable and satellite companies pay fees to broadcast networks to transmit those signals to their subscribers, but Aereo does not.

The competing lawyers argued over whether a customer of Aereo’s service is receiving a “public” performance of a copyrighted broadcast or instead is watching a private show at home.

The attorney for Aereo said its service was like the videocassette recorders that became popular in the 1980s, which allowed homeowners to make copies of programs to be viewed at home.

Aereo “could rent DVRs in Brooklyn, and it would be the same situation,” said Washington attorney David Frederick. He added that Aereo’s tiny antennas “pick up over-the-air signals that are free to the public.”

I'm rooting for Aereo. But I am biased as I like their service.

 

[terraformer]

Scalia seems rather hypocritical here. Just the other day he was telling law students (I'm paraphrasing) "We have to spy on you, its for the children" and "collecting and reading all your email, FB posts, Tweets, and Phone calls is not 'unreasonable' cause terrorism! 'Murica!"

In public talks he is intentionally provocative. Give his recent 4a dissents, I suspect last week was just that, provocative.

 

[soloman02]

In public talks he is intentionally provocative. Give his recent 4a dissents, I suspect last week was just that, provocative.

When the NSA case(s) get to SCOTUS we will find out if it was provocative or indicative of his real stance.

Pray it is the former cause the NSA needs a good beatdown.

 

[Quiet]

In public talks he is intentionally provocative. Give his recent 4a dissents, I suspect last week was just that, provocative.

Hmmmm. I dunno! In this dissent seems he's just calling out his anti-4a comrades in chains on their poor logic skillz. Had the driver slowed down of "stiffened up" because there was a cop behind him, he feels that valid precedent would have made the stop OK.

If I call the cops and say "pickup truck with license plate 123456 just drove over some guy's lawn, and he's headed south on Main Street" and there's a radar trap down the road and dispatch calls to them... under this rule they could stop that truck and check them out. Under Scalia's dissent, they could do no more than watch them drive by since there's no evidence of drunken driving and I didn't identify myself to the 911 operator.

Has anyone here ever been asked to identify themselves to a 911 operator when reporting a drunk driver or a disabled vehicle or any reason?

Then again ... if someone shouted from across the street, points and yells "That guy in the red hat and striped pants just robbed a guy at knifepoint around the corner 2 minutes ago" if the cop doesn't see him running or carrying a purse he is not allowed to stop and talk to the guy if the "witness" doesn't actively run towards the situation? He just has to let him walk away, go find the accuser and subject his report to tests of veracity before turning back to the "Identified person" walking away? Someone pointing at an identifiable person saying "this guy just committed a felony" doesn't qualify as reasonable suspicion? Someone calling the cops and saying "This idiot nearly ran me off the road" doesn't justify stopping someone and asking "Did you just run someone off the road"?

Time is of the essence in this type of complaint.

This is right on the razor's edge (duhhh, probably why they took the case to begin with) and I'm not sure how I feel about it other than to agree with Scalia's logic complaints.

 

[Bonesinium]

Hmmmm. I dunno! In this dissent seems he's just calling out his anti-4a comrades in chains on their poor logic skillz. Had the driver slowed down of "stiffened up" because there was a cop behind him, he feels that valid precedent would have made the stop OK.

If I call the cops and say "pickup truck with license plate 123456 just drove over some guy's lawn, and he's headed south on Main Street" and there's a radar trap down the road and dispatch calls to them... under this rule they could stop that truck and check them out. Under Scalia's dissent, they could do no more than watch them drive by since there's no evidence of drunken driving and I didn't identify myself to the 911 operator.

Has anyone here ever been asked to identify themselves to a 911 operator when reporting a drunk driver or a disabled vehicle or any reason?

Then again ... if someone shouted from across the street, points and yells "That guy in the red hat and striped pants just robbed a guy at knifepoint around the corner 2 minutes ago" if the cop doesn't see him running or carrying a purse he is not allowed to stop and talk to the guy if the "witness" doesn't actively run towards the situation? He just has to let him walk away, go find the accuser and subject his report to tests of veracity before turning back to the "Identified person" walking away? Someone pointing at an identifiable person saying "this guy just committed a felony" doesn't qualify as reasonable suspicion? Someone calling the cops and saying "This idiot nearly ran me off the road" doesn't justify stopping someone and asking "Did you just run someone off the road"?

Time is of the essence in this type of complaint.

This is right on the razor's edge (duhhh, probably why they took the case to begin with) and I'm not sure how I feel about it other than to agree with Scalia's logic complaints.

He touched on that. The opinion did as well. However the courts opinion took it to a further extreme.

The point as I see it is, is about the credibility, or rather the likelihood of credibility of the report/complaint. In this case, the opinion said that an anonymous report with no evidence withstanding beside the report is good enough. His dissent was that an anonymous report is often anonymous to avoid accountability, opening the door for false reports...without accountability. That isn't reasonable.

 

[exo]

What a sad system we have where we wait with bated breath to find out what folks in black robes have to say about our natural rights.

 

[WatchCityCPA]

What a sad system we have where we wait with bated breath to find out what folks in black robes have to say about our natural rights.

With all its imperfections, problems and recent downward slide, it's still the country with most individual freedom in the world. Plenty of room to improve, but still - we have first world problems here...

This is not 2A related, but since it's the Supreme Court thread, it belongs here:

http://reason.com/24-7/2014/04/22/supreme-court-upholds-michigan-affirmati

 

[exo]

With all its imperfections, problems and recent downward slide, it's still the country with most individual freedom in the world. Plenty of room to improve, but still - we have first world problems here...

I dunno about recent. 1861 comes to mind, as does 1913, 1933-1936 inclusive, 1968, 1986...

This is not 2A related, but since it's the Supreme Court thread, it belongs here:

http://reason.com/24-7/2014/04/22/supreme-court-upholds-michigan-affirmati

Well, that's something at least.

 

[WatchCityCPA]

I dunno about recent. 1861 comes to mind, as does 1913, 1933-1936 inclusive, 1968, 1986...

...

Indeed - I should have said recently accelerating downward slide instead of recent.

 

[WatchCityCPA]

More goodies from Reason:

http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/22/scotus-grills-ohio-over-its-speech-suppr/print

 

[browncoat]

Great dissent by Scalia.

I agree. Something that is of interest to me, and that the dissent didn't bring up (because it assumed good faith), is that there is now nothing to stop one police officer from calling in an "anonymous tip" that allows another police officer to conduct a stop and search.

- - - Updated - - -

Great dissent by Scalia.

I agree. Something that is of interest to me, and that the dissent didn't bring up (because it assumed good faith), is that there is now nothing to stop one police officer from calling in an "anonymous tip" that allows another police officer to conduct a stop and search.

 

[nhpoke]

I agree. Something that is of interest to me, and that the dissent didn't bring up (because it assumed good faith), is that there is now nothing to stop one police officer from calling in an "anonymous tip" that allows another police officer to conduct a stop and search.

This is certainly scary. In response to why did you conduct that search, LEO can simply say "passerby said ...".

 

[Hoover]

I agree. Something that is of interest to me, and that the dissent didn't bring up (because it assumed good faith), is that there is now nothing to stop one police officer from calling in an "anonymous tip" that allows another police officer to conduct a stop and search.

- - - Updated - - -



I agree. Something that is of interest to me, and that the dissent didn't bring up (because it assumed good faith), is that there is now nothing to stop one police officer from calling in an "anonymous tip" that allows another police officer to conduct a stop and search.

Forget calling in a tip by a cop. What if a crooked cop says, 'I was told x by a 40 yr old white male on the street'. 'I didn't get his name or any info, just the tip that such and such was drunk, had drugs, etc.' A crooked cop could manufacture a non existent anonymous tip.

 

[Bonesinium]

I agree. Something that is of interest to me, and that the dissent didn't bring up (because it assumed good faith), is that there is now nothing to stop one police officer from calling in an "anonymous tip" that allows another police officer to conduct a stop and search.

Forget calling in a tip by a cop. What if a crooked cop says, 'I was told x by a 40 yr old white male on the street'. 'I didn't get his name or any info, just the tip that such and such was drunk, had drugs, etc.' A crooked cop could manufacture a non existent anonymous tip.

I got news for you guys. Cops already can and do, do those things...

 

[Coyote33]

... 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.

Same with the reporter and the large capacity magazine in DC.

...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.

Good luck with that one!

Outside of the primary issue in Drake, the right to carry outside the home, there looks to be a pretty interesting supporting issue as well. That being the idea that the appeals court accepted the state's argument of a fit between issuing based only on justifiable need and the state's interest in public safety, without requiring any evidence to support the alleged fit.

I would certainly like to see SCOTUS reaffirm the requirement that regulations infringing on 2A activities actually be supported credible evidence of the fit between the regulation and the claimed governmental interest. It seems that in too many cases, the government's claim of a public safety interest trumps all contrary claims without having to be proven.

What you tolerate, you validate. What you put up with, you deserve!

... do we get a vehicle that is very common OR very unique and drive like a "Sunday Driver"? Though this would not seem to matter as long as the anonymous caller is believed.

Just BE that caller!

What you mean to say is, take notice of Anti's bumper stickers and their driving mistakes, right? ;-).

Like I said, ...

I got news for you guys. Cops already can and do, do those things...

Do do? More like Doo-Doo!

 

[rosefox911]

So assuming The Supreme Court sides in favor of the second amendment in the Drake case, what would this mean for Mass residents who have restricted LTCs, that do not allow them to carry outside the home (aka people like me)?

 

[slap shot]

So assuming The Supreme Court sides in favor of the second amendment in the Drake case, what would this mean for Mass residents who have restricted LTCs, that do not allow them to carry outside the home (aka people like me)?

If your grandchildren end up being like, then ya, it will affect "people like you"

 

[Bonesinium]

So assuming The Supreme Court sides in favor of the second amendment in the Drake case, what would this mean for Mass residents who have restricted LTCs, that do not allow them to carry outside the home (aka people like me)?

Probably nothing. It would require legislators, judiciaries, and enforcers to follow the law, which they don't do much of now as it is. This wouldn't be likely to change that.

 

[rosefox911]

Probably nothing. It would require legislators, judiciaries, and enforcers to follow the law, which they don't do much of now as it is. This wouldn't be likely to change that.

What a letdown, I should be used to it now living in the people's republic and alll.

 

[Coyote33]

Probably nothing. It would require legislators, judiciaries, and enforcers to follow the law, which they don't do much of now as it is. This wouldn't be likely to change that.

"It's not illegal to be illegal in MA."
~ Martha Coakley

Ever since this, laws have had no meaning. It sure makes late night lights and stop signs easier to ignore. ;-)

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

So assuming The Supreme Court sides in favor of the second amendment in the Drake case, what would this mean for Mass residents who have restricted LTCs, that do not allow them to carry outside the home (aka people like me)?

A lot of water has to flow under the bridge before that question can be answered. First, they have to actually grant cert for the 2014 term which doesn't begun until October. Then the parties and amici will file their briefs, there will be oral arguments and we'll see a decision probably sometime between March and June of next year.

What happens in MA will depend entirely on what's in that decision. What I do know is that the MA AG's office will be extraordinarily clever in trying to find exceptions and loops holes to keep people from having an actual right to carry.

 

[Bonesinium]

No loopholes needed. Worst comes to worst, they will just use the courts, who follow the law as little as the rest. Unless that is what you mean, then you are exactly correct.

 

[Hoover]

A lot of water has to flow under the bridge before that question can be answered. First, they have to actually grant cert for the 2014 term which doesn't begun until October. Then the parties and amici will file their briefs, there will be oral arguments and we'll see a decision probably sometime between March and June of next year.

What happens in MA will depend entirely on what's in that decision. What I do know is that the MA AG's office will be extraordinarily clever in trying to find exceptions and loops holes to keep people from having an actual right to carry.

LenS says all the time, the MA AG's office, state police, etc., their attitude is that if a federal case isn't about a MA law specifically, they will ignore the decision and say it doesn't apply to MA.

Under Roberts, decisions have not been sweeping, they have been very measured in decisions and kept it limited. So I don't think a decision would make MA a shall issue but it would almost definitely force those red towns to really change their issuance policy. They would be handcuffed to some degree. Still sucks though because they could still say no and the courts we would take it to to get that overturned are not all that friendly here in MA.

 

[jar]

There are at least some judges in the MA district court who would get it right. See Comm2A's wins in Fletcher and Wesson.

 

[Len-2A Training]

There are at least some judges in the MA district court who would get it right. See Comm2A's wins in Fletcher and Wesson.

That wasn't a MA District Court (state system), that was a US District Court in MA . . . massive difference in a real world sense.

 

[jar]

That wasn't a MA District Court (state system), that was a US District Court in MA . . . massive difference in a real world sense.

Yeah, I'm well aware, it's just a pain to type out United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Constitutional relief always comes from the federal courts. Especially since the 2A analog in the MA constitution is a dead letter thanks to Commonwealth v Davis. My point was all the people bloviating about how courts will never change anything in MA are demonstrably wrong.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

[WatchCityCPA]

That wasn't a MA District Court (state system), that was a US District Court in MA . . . massive difference in a real world sense.

If I recall correctly, Comm2A members repeatedly stated that the odds of getting justice are very low in any level of MA courts (District/Superior/Supreme), but significantly better in Federal Courts. The data above (and most case law I am familiar with) supports that assertion.

On the bright side, very low > zero. There have been times when MA state courts issued correct and fair rulings, so not all hope is lost.

 

[terraformer]

If I recall correctly, Comm2A members repeatedly stated that the odds of getting justice are very low in any level of MA courts (District/Superior/Supreme), but significantly better in Federal Courts. The data above (and most case law I am familiar with) supports that assertion.

On the bright side, very low > zero. There have been times when MA state courts issued correct and fair rulings, so not all hope is lost.

The problem with state courts is if they don't have precedent to work from, their decision will get overturned. Read the brief in Hill and you will see we lost that in DC. Superior court was willing to go the extra mile. Federal court provides the precedent.