If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
How long does it take for orders once the conference takes place?
Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner.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.
Without that requirement of evidence, I fear where a declaration of gun violence as a public health crisis will take us. New regulations of 2A activities based on a governmental interest of public health requiring nothing more than anecdotal evidence of fit could be disastrous. Thus a worthy fight to prevent the confirmation of a rabidly anti-gun surgeon general.
No news on Drake today. Much better than being denied outright, but now more waiting.
Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
Drake was re-listed for Friday. Perhaps another week before we know anything. Although, the justices could be waiting to see if 9CA grants en banc to Peruta (or Richards, or Baker).
The judicial equivalent of 'show me yours first then I'll show you mine'. I think this has been going on a lot in the courts.And the 9CA could be waiting to see if SCOTUS grants cert to Drake. At least in theory, I suppose.
Probably not quite as wonkish as Castelman, but close. Still, it will be a great opportunity for the Brady types to stir the pot. I predict a Brady amicus brief followed by a press release crowing about how they stood up to the gun lobby's support for arming career criminals.Just caught on SCOTUSBlog that Johnson v US was granted on Monday. This isn't a 2A case, but another wonkish statutory construction case ala Abramski or Castleman. The question presented is: "Whether mere possession of a short-barreled shotgun should be treated as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act." Johnson pled guilty to felon in possession in 2012. He got a 15 year mandatory minimum sentence because the ACCA triggers one if you are convicted of FIP and have 3 prior convictions for 'violent felonies'. Two of his prior convictions are for robbery and aren't at issue, the 3rd was for possession of an SBS. There's a circuit split on this issue and some prior SCOTUS decisions that petitioner claims preclude the 8th circuits decision that it counts as a violent felony.
This probably doesn't have much implication for us, but I found it interesting.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/johnson-v-united-states-3/
Scalia writes a scathing dissent +1
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-9490_3fb4.pdf
more cause for cops to stop people unjustly. Scalia writes a scathing dissent +1
Scrape off your pro-2A number stickers guys.
The Court’s opinion serves up a freedom-destroying cocktail consisting of two parts patent falsity: (1) that anonymous 911 reports of traffic violations are reliable so long as they correctly identify a car and its location, and
(2) that a single instance of careless or reckless driving necessarily supports a reasonable suspicion of drunkenness. All the malevolent 911 caller need do is assert a traffic violation, and the targeted car will be stopped, forcibly if necessary, by the police.
Scrape off your pro-2A number stickers guys.
What you mean to say is, take notice of Anti's bumper stickers and their driving mistakes, right? ;-).
I said what I meant to say.