Missed this. Does this affect DUI in MA?

[teaser452]

https://apps.americanbar.org/ababoards/blog/blogpost.cfm?threadid=33353&catid=14911

So, the 3rd circuit restored his gun rights.

Doesn't this negate the federal law barring anyone convicted of a crime where they could have served over one year in jail from losing gun rights?

Specifically as mentioned, DUIs in MA.

Sorry if this is a dupe. If so, please point me to the thread discussing it.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

What other rights are lost for the same crime? Good on the 3rd

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The third covers DE, NJ and eastern PA.

SCOTUS denied cert, which should mean this remains in effect in the third district. Other districts will do as they please, but a ruling against in another district will set up a direct conflict between districts - something that is usually granted cert. I don't know if a conflict will allow another bite at the cert apple.

Naturally, there will be those that claim that denial of cert implicitly overturns the 3rd circuit decision and is a ruling against misdafelons. I don't think it works that way - denial of cert means no action by the court, and exisiting decisions remain in effect.

 

[eboos]

A 3rd Circuit court opinion is only binding in the 3rd Circuit (PA, DE, NJ and the Virgin Islands). The 1st Circuit could rule in an entirely different way, but then there would be a split in the circuits which tee up the case for Supreme Court review.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

A 3rd Circuit court opinion is only binding in the 3rd Circuit (PA, DE, NJ and the Virgin Islands). The 1st Circuit could rule in an entirely different way, but then there would be a split in the circuits which tee up the case for Supreme Court review.

The denial of cert may turn out to be a good thing.

If cert was granted now, there is a good change we would lose. If this drags on, and cert is granted after another Trumpian judge is appointed, our odds improve.

 

[firestorm]

A 3rd Circuit court opinion is only binding in the 3rd Circuit (PA, DE, NJ and the Virgin Islands). The 1st Circuit could rule in an entirely different way, but then there would be a split in the circuits which tee up the case for Supreme Court review.

Can this case be cited in another circuit in a similar case for restoration of rights? It isn't binding, but can it be used as your argument or must you go another direction entirely since it does not bind the other courts?

 

[eboos]

Can this case be cited in another circuit in a similar case for restoration of rights? It isn't binding, but can it be used as your argument or must you go another direction entirely since it does not bind the other courts?

It could, and it should when a similar case is presented here, but it is only persuasive.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

This presents some interesting questions:

1. Is the non-PP status of such in-duh-viduals in the 3rd circuit accepted by the feds (pass NICS check, etc.) or is it like the MJ situation immediately after Wesson v. Fowler in MA (MA took the position that our win applied only to those two individuals, not all persons in similar circumstances)?

2. If someone has their rights restored in the 3rd circuit, are they now PPP (partially prohibited person), or does the restoration of their rights apply in the entire US? If the answer is yes, does this restoration remain in place when the misdafelon later moves to a state not in the 3rd?

What all reports of this case seem to me missing is that the denial of cert is NOT an overturning of the 3rd circuit's decision, and does not invalidate that win.

 

[firestorm]

This presents some interesting questions:

1. Is the non-PP status of such in-duh-viduals in the 3rd circuit accepted by the feds (pass NICS check, etc.) or is it like the MJ situation immediately after Wesson v. Fowler in MA (MA took the position that our win applied only to those two individuals, not all persons in similar circumstances)?

2. If someone has their rights restored in the 3rd circuit, are they now PPP (partially prohibited person), or does the restoration of their rights apply in the entire US? If the answer is yes, does this restoration remain in place when the misdafelon later moves to a state not in the 3rd?

What all reports of this case seem to me missing is that the denial of cert is NOT an overturning of the 3rd circuit's decision, and does not invalidate that win.

Either they are assuming people reading already know that (Dangerous assumption) or they are leaving it out for their own reasons (They don't understand it themselves, or maybe they don't want to spread the word that this means people in those states can now appeal their loss of rights)

ETA: Maybe I don't understand it, does this mean those people automatically get their rights restored (All others in similar situation in those states), or only those that go out and sue for a restoration?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

ETA: Maybe I don't understand it, does this mean those people automatically get their rights restored (All others in similar situation in those states), or only those that go out and sue for a restoration?

It could mean either (see question #1). When we won the MJ case in MA, the initial state position was "each individual has to sue". Comm2a responded with "Ok, we can play that game", won a second case, and the state accepted that the policy had to be changed.

Normally in a denial of cert, the side that likes the status quo claims "the court ruled for us", and the other side responds with "actually, the court did not rule". This situation is different since there is a mixes status quo.

My cynical prediction is the 3rd circuit will grant an en banc so it can rescind the favorable decision from the 3 judge appellate panel, and that the en banc panel will accept denial of cert as a "quasi ruling".

 

[eboos]

Unless the judgement of the 3rd Circuit is stayed, that is the judgment that stands. The SCOTUS denying cert does not validate not invalidate the 3rd Circuit ruling. It says nothing but "we decline to review this case."

In the same sex marriage cases, before the SCOTUS heard and ruled on Obergefell, some jurisdictions sought to stay the judgments of the Circuits that ruled in favor of same sex marriage until the outcome of Obergefell. Those requests were denied, which meant that the jurisdictions which had marriage bans struck down must follow the decision of their Circuits.

 

[terraformer]

It should. Comm2A is running a case with Alan Gura in DC for a RI man who is prohibited in MA and Federally but not in RI. Search NES for Baginski.

 

[Wrench75]

This presents some interesting questions:

1. Is the non-PP status of such in-duh-viduals in the 3rd circuit accepted by the feds (pass NICS check, etc.) or is it like the MJ situation immediately after Wesson v. Fowler in MA (MA took the position that our win applied only to those two individuals, not all persons in similar circumstances)?

2. If someone has their rights restored in the 3rd circuit, are they now PPP (partially prohibited person), or does the restoration of their rights apply in the entire US? If the answer is yes, does this restoration remain in place when the misdafelon later moves to a state not in the 3rd?

What all reports of this case seem to me missing is that the denial of cert is NOT an overturning of the 3rd circuit's decision, and does not invalidate that win.

It would make absolutely no sense to draw that conclusion from them not stepping in. The 3 rd ruled and, when asked, SCOTUS said "nope, we see no reason to intervene, carry on" What kind of mental gymnastics does it take to convince ones self that it means the ruling was overturned? The people who believe otherwise must be truly brain dead. SCOTUS took no action. No action! Even the dumbest person knows no action means no change. Most of these people are so ****ing mentally damaged that they just can't accept that something didn't go their way, or that someone doesn't agree with them.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

What kind of mental gymnastics does it take to convince ones self that it means the ruling was overturned? The people who believe otherwise must be truly brain dead.

You answered your own question.

 

[Wrench75]

It was rhetorical.