SCOTUS won't hear California carry case, leaving 9th Circ. decision intact

DispositionMatrix

NES Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
4,336
Likes
1,885
Location
SoNH
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
Rothery v. Blanas effectively has been lost because SCOTUS has refused to hear the case.
Supreme Court refuses to hear case challenging California conceal carry law
The residents argued the Sacramento County sheriff was issuing permits to friends, donors and supporters but excluding others.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss the case. The court held the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public.

The decision by the Supreme Court not to hear the case keeps that ruling in place.
ETA: Somewhat related:
Atkinson v. Town of Rockport - Federal 1983 Civil Rights Suit
 
[puke]They all failed reading 101.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 
Last edited:
Hold on here...

CA Sheriff says no permits for little people but hands them out to family and friends.
Little people sue in district court.
District court says Sheriff is right and 2A doesn't extend outside home
Little people appeal to 9th circuit court of appeals.
New Sheriff in town and one of the plaintiffs now has his permit and the other never reapplied.
Court of appeals dismisses case since one plaintiff has his permit and the other never tried again...
Someone runs it up to the SCOTUS who decided not to touch the case with one remaining plaintiff who won't reapply under the new Sheriff.

From what I have seen watching other cases like this, there is no way the SCOTUS was going to touch it. Bad case that would collapse as soon as someone asked the plaintiff if they tried to apply again, or as soon as the new Sheriff handed the plaintiff a permit.

Better to walk away from some cases than risk a bad decision at the SCOTUS level.
 
Hold on here...

CA Sheriff says no permits for little people but hands them out to family and friends.
Little people sue in district court.
District court says Sheriff is right and 2A doesn't extend outside home
Little people appeal to 9th circuit court of appeals.
New Sheriff in town and one of the plaintiffs now has his permit and the other never reapplied.
Court of appeals dismisses case since one plaintiff has his permit and the other never tried again...
Someone runs it up to the SCOTUS who decided not to touch the case with one remaining plaintiff who won't reapply under the new Sheriff.

From what I have seen watching other cases like this, there is no way the SCOTUS was going to touch it. Bad case that would collapse as soon as someone asked the plaintiff if they tried to apply again, or as soon as the new Sheriff handed the plaintiff a permit.

Better to walk away from some cases than risk a bad decision at the SCOTUS level.


Well, kinda, depending on how "Voluntary Cessation" works into this case... EG the concept that someone can;t just make a legal issue go away by simply ceasing the
behavior.

EG Wikipedia - Voluntary Cessation - mootness -

"Where a defendant is acting wrongfully, but ceases to engage in such conduct once a litigation has been threatened or commenced, the court will still not deem this correction to moot the case. Obviously, a party could stop acting improperly just long enough for the case to be dismissed and then resume the improper conduct. For example, in Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000), the Supreme Court held that an industrial polluter, against whom various deterrent civil penalties were being pursued, could not claim that the case was moot, even though the polluter had ceased polluting and had closed the factory responsible for the pollution. The court noted that so long as the polluter still retained its license to operate such a factory, it could open similar operations elsewhere if not deterred by the penalties sought."


I agree though, that on paper, the existing case might be flimsy for a whole bunch of other reasons. Maybe the courts thought that "well, cuz the sheriff is different person now, we can't assume that the trash conduct will
necessarily continue under the new sheriff" and so on....

-Mike
 
Hold on here...

CA Sheriff says no permits for little people but hands them out to family and friends.
Little people sue in district court.
District court says Sheriff is right and 2A doesn't extend outside home
Little people appeal to 9th circuit court of appeals.
New Sheriff in town and one of the plaintiffs now has his permit and the other never reapplied.
Court of appeals dismisses case since one plaintiff has his permit and the other never tried again...
Someone runs it up to the SCOTUS who decided not to touch the case with one remaining plaintiff who won't reapply under the new Sheriff.

From what I have seen watching other cases like this, there is no way the SCOTUS was going to touch it. Bad case that would collapse as soon as someone asked the plaintiff if they tried to apply again, or as soon as the new Sheriff handed the plaintiff a permit.

Better to walk away from some cases than risk a bad decision at the SCOTUS level.
This is where it all fails ! The .GOV has still denied people a RIGHT ! You should not get it wiped clean because you changed a person or your mind. It's a protected right that needs to be enforced. Never-mind all this BS about it's meaning. It's meaning is plain and simple.
 
So much for all the hype surrounding the Kavanaugh appointment and a pro-2A SCOTUS..... same old BS!

If SCOTUS had 9 conservative justices on it this case still had a fair chance of getting denied cert. Odds are against SCOTUS taking any case in general, for a whole variety of reasons. The case practically has to be a surgical level of sanitation and if there's any amount of dirt around the edges, it wont get touched... which isn't always a bad thing. It prevents trash cases from entering SCOTUS and with an attendant possible result of bad case law. IIRC the number of cases that are actually granted Cert. is somewhere around 5% of all the cases submitted.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
Better to walk away from some cases than risk a bad decision at the SCOTUS level.

The man has a good point.
A bad case will screw us longer than a good one will help us.

 
So that would be about 1%. Wow. I had no idea that it was that low.

Bob

It's a little higher than 1% and I should have cited it. Another 100 cases or so are disposed of without plenary review.

The Term of the Court begins, by law, on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October of the next year. Each Term, approximately 7,000-8,000 new cases are filed in the Supreme Court. This is a substantially larger volume of cases than was presented to the Court in the last century. In the 1950 Term, for example, the Court received only 1,195 new cases, and even as recently as the 1975 Term it received only 3,940. Plenary review, with oral arguments by attorneys, is currently granted in about 80 of those cases each Term, and the Court typically disposes of about 100 or more cases without plenary review. The publication of each Term’s written opinions, including concurring opinions, dissenting opinions, and orders, can take up thousands of pages. During the drafting process, some opinions may be revised a dozen or more times before they are announced.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/courtatwork.aspx
 
I say this is every thread. SCOTUS will never hear another major gun case. Ever. They cannot reconcile previous decisions. They will let a civil war take place before they will affirm 2A and throw out AWBs or other laws
 
I say this is every thread. SCOTUS will never hear another major gun case. Ever. They cannot reconcile previous decisions. They will let a civil war take place before they will affirm 2A and throw out AWBs or other laws

Maybe they won't, but I'll take minor ones as being better than nothing.

Also part of the reason gun cases don't make it, is most of them are crap, or develop a serious flaw in some area or another along the way, etc.

Abramski would have been a nice win, if Kennedy wasn't such a shithead. Even with a narrow ruling that would have gutted the nebulous fed bullshit about what a straw purchase actually is...

-Mike
 
Maybe they won't, but I'll take minor ones as being better than nothing.

Also part of the reason gun cases don't make it, is most of them are crap, or develop a serious flaw in some area or another along the way, etc.

Abramski would have been a nice win, if Kennedy wasn't such a shithead. Even with a narrow ruling that would have gutted the nebulous fed bullshit about what a straw purchase actually is...

-Mike

This is exactly my point. The law is intended especially to protect all people, even undesirable people, from violations of natural rights. It's not ok to bootstrap a dirtbag just because you don't like him or he committed another crime
 
I say this is every thread. SCOTUS will never hear another major gun case. Ever. They cannot reconcile previous decisions. They will let a civil war take place before they will affirm 2A and throw out AWBs or other laws

At least with the R's in the presidency and controlling both houses of congress, surely we'll have some favorable laws coming our way.........................
 
I say this is every thread. SCOTUS will never hear another major gun case. Ever. They cannot reconcile previous decisions. They will let a civil war take place before they will affirm 2A and throw out AWBs or other laws

You could be right. According to Justice Thomas, after the court denied hearing another CA gun case on 2/20/18, Justice Thomas said that the Court is treating the 2nd Amendment/gun rights as "a constitutional orphan."


Referring to this record of nonintervention, Justice Thomas accused his fellow justices of treating the right to bear arms as a "disfavored" constitutional right.

He contended that his fellow justices would have easily agreed to hear other cases if they involved the right to free speech, the right to abortion, or the right to be free from unreasonable searches. Noting that the court has not reviewed an important gun rights case in eight years, he castigated his colleagues for treating gun rights as "a constitutional orphan."

Supreme Court Won't Hear Challenge To California's Gun Laws
 
This is the reason we have a supreme court or lack there of. Why are they not willing to hear it? Should they be allowed to pick and choose what they hear? If an amendment, a right is being stepped on like 2A the court should and needs to address it. That's WHY they are sitting on that bench. Instead we have spineless men and women in black ropes who continue to let our basic freedoms get ripped away.
 
On NRA TV with Cam and Co. they were talking about how bad this case was. They said it was actually a good thing that this particular one got denied cert. Maybe Weng vs Evans (now new commish) will be the one to go. I think it is a far better case that covers selectivity of LTC restrictions.
 
Back
Top Bottom