March to the Supreme Court

*sigh*

Any thoughts on that?

Not really. They have one guy at the AGs office who will handle these types of cases and he has extended everything he has done on 2A issues to date.

But that doesn't mean the AG's office thinks they will lose or that the SC will rule against them. I suspect the SC will rule there is a right for 18-20 yr olds to possess (remember, "carry" as we know it is not implicated here) outside the home. It's the burden shifting question that is far more interesting. But I won't be going into more detail on that because we already have an amicus planned and until (if the case even gets granted cert) we submit that to the court, I can't be locking Comm2A into a position.
 
A 30 day extension is automatically granted if requested, and they usually will grant a second one. Not sure why this one went 60 days in one shot, but it doesn't seem too irregular.

Holidays. The date would have been 1/8/2012 otherwise.
 
Maybe, but very unlikely. I continue to put the odds on Powell.
I'm inclined to agree on Lowrey as I don't see anything terribly compelling from the justices' standpoint. Still they're going to the trouble of reviewing it.....

ETA: with healthcare, etc. I think they'll have a busy enough terms that they'll want to push 2A issues to the 2012-13 term where they'll likely have a better crop of cases to pick from.
 
At this point Powell is such a long shot I will look like such a hero if it gets cert but I still think Powell gets it because of question 2.
 
Delacy v CA, which I was previously unaware of was denied today as well.

Summary I posted elsewhere:
Delacy v California was a California state case whose facts as I understand them were:
- Delacy was convicted of misdemeanor battery(in CA this is any harmful touching of another person)
- Under CA law, misdemeanor battery is a 10 year firearms prohibition
- Delacy, claiming to be unaware of the 10 year prohibition, was caught with firerams
- Delacy was convicted of illegal possession under CA law, which he then appealed in this action

The ruling below (in the highest CA state court) basically hung it's hat on Heller footnote 27, saying that since bans on possession by felons are presumptively lawful, bans on possessions by a broad swath of misdemeanors are perfectly constitutional.

Unfortunate that such a pile of crap was allowed to stand, but further cements the notion that SCOTUS is not going to take any criminal 2A cases.
 
Back
Top Bottom