US Supreme Court OT 2018

Status
Not open for further replies.

Comm2A

Director Comm2a
Dealer
NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
135
Likes
859
We're reviving our Supreme Court Watch idea. October Term 2018, a non-exhaustive list of Second Amendment related cases on, or have potential to be on, the Supreme Court docket for OT2018.

Two cases are schedule for tomorrow's conference which means we might see grants on Monday.

Please stay on-topic.
 

Dench

NES Member
Rating - 100%
99   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
17,151
Likes
5,625
If you click on the link you'll see them as well as links to the SCOUT website.
Can you explain to us which one it is? I love Comm2A. You guys do great work, and the fight is more important than anything that goes on NES. That said you guys are making threads with minimal info, redirecting us to another page that is in no way clear to a layman on which of the 7 cases listed on linked page is going to SCOTUS.

Don't you guys want to talk about any of this? A ton of us would love to.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,276
Likes
3,931
Location
My forest stronghold
I've barely read the questions presented let alone the petitions in these cases. We want to make the information available and accessible, and that's what we're trying to keep up with. But we don't usually have the bandwidth or perspective to layout the Cliffs Notes. We've linked to the SCOTUS docket that has the petitions and the briefs. They're usually pretty readable except when they get into really wonky legal crap.

People ought to look at the NYC case. If the court grants cert in that, they probably won't if Gould gets petitioned.
 

Chevy 2 65

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
15,203
Likes
5,966
Location
Somewhere in the sands of time
I've barely read the questions presented let alone the petitions in these cases. We want to make the information available and accessible, and that's what we're trying to keep up with. But we don't usually have the bandwidth or perspective to layout the Cliffs Notes. We've linked to the SCOTUS docket that has the petitions and the briefs. They're usually pretty readable except when they get into really wonky legal crap.

People ought to look at the NYC case. If the court grants cert in that, they probably won't if Gould gets petitioned.
If this one was denied Rothery v. Blanas, how does Gould stand a chance of being heard? If anything Rothery v. Blanas should have been heard, because of the following.
One person should not be allowed to decide who and what for a right. 2nd class citizen etc..

  1. Does California’s grant of a lifetime right to honorably retired California peace officers to carry a concealed weapon, coupled with a grant of unbridled discretion to each elected Sheriff whereby concealed weapon permits are issued on a quid pro quo basis to political supporters, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when average citizens, including former military, are subjected to the capriciousness of the locally elected Sheriff?
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
676
Likes
919
Location
Merrimack Valley
If this one was denied Rothery v. Blanas, how does Gould stand a chance of being heard? If anything Rothery v. Blanas should have been heard, because of the following.
One person should not be allowed to decide who and what for a right. 2nd class citizen etc..

  1. Does California’s grant of a lifetime right to honorably retired California peace officers to carry a concealed weapon, coupled with a grant of unbridled discretion to each elected Sheriff whereby concealed weapon permits are issued on a quid pro quo basis to political supporters, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when average citizens, including former military, are subjected to the capriciousness of the locally elected Sheriff?
SCOTUS gets to pick their own cases. They denied cert, but they might have done that for 100 different reasons. They may just know Gould is coming and think it's a better case for them to take.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,276
Likes
3,931
Location
My forest stronghold
If this one was denied Rothery v. Blanas, how does Gould stand a chance of being heard? If anything Rothery v. Blanas should have been heard, because of the following.
One person should not be allowed to decide who and what for a right. 2nd class citizen etc..

  1. Does California’s grant of a lifetime right to honorably retired California peace officers to carry a concealed weapon, coupled with a grant of unbridled discretion to each elected Sheriff whereby concealed weapon permits are issued on a quid pro quo basis to political supporters, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when average citizens, including former military, are subjected to the capriciousness of the locally elected Sheriff?
SCOTUS gets to pick their own cases. They denied cert, but they might have done that for 100 different reasons. They may just know Gould is coming and think it's a better case for them to take.
How the Supreme Court picks their cases is on of life's great mysteries. Traditionally, petitions involving circuit splits were almost always granted, but that's changed in the last few years. We do know that four justices have to vote to grant a petition. There may be many reasons why the justices are avoiding adding some much needed clarity to Heller. Maybe four justices won't vote to hear a case unless they're sure they'll get a fifth. Maybe no single case has satisfied four justices. Perhaps the court wants to avoid a decision that will cause a major shit-storm regardless of what they decide. We just don't know, so we just keep sending good cases up.
 

Chevy 2 65

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
15,203
Likes
5,966
Location
Somewhere in the sands of time
How the Supreme Court picks their cases is on of life's great mysteries. Traditionally, petitions involving circuit splits were almost always granted, but that's changed in the last few years. We do know that four justices have to vote to grant a petition. There may be many reasons why the justices are avoiding adding some much needed clarity to Heller. Maybe four justices won't vote to hear a case unless they're sure they'll get a fifth. Maybe no single case has satisfied four justices. Perhaps the court wants to avoid a decision that will cause a major shit-storm regardless of what they decide. We just don't know, so we just keep sending good cases up.
Thanks. Maybe one day they will have the stones to make all this right?
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,276
Likes
3,931
Location
My forest stronghold
I've added a new case to the list. Rogers v. Grewal out of New Jersey:
  1. Whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense.
  2. Whether the government may deny categorically the exercise of the right to carry a firearm outside the home to typical law-abiding citizens by conditioning the exercise of the right on a showing of a special need to carry a firearm.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
2,386
Likes
668
Location
Mass
Mance v. Whitaker 18-663 interstate handgun sales. Waiting for a response 1/22/19. is that in process of trying to get cert or already has cert and the court is responding in some way?
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,276
Likes
3,931
Location
My forest stronghold
Mance v. Whitaker 18-663 interstate handgun sales. Waiting for a response 1/22/19. is that in process of trying to get cert or already has cert and the court is responding in some way?
Good question. The court is waiting for the government (Whitake, through the office of the Solicitor General) to file a response arguing why the petition should not be granted.

The 'normal' series of events during the petition stage (as opposed to the merits stage) would be that someone petitions the court for a writ of certiorari review, the respondent has the opportunity to respond, and then the petitioner has the ability to file a reply to the respondent's brief. Along the way, other groups and individuals have the opportunity to file amicus briefs in support of the petitioner. I don't think you can file an amicus opposing a grant of certiorari. If you can, it's very unusual.

This whole round of filings is entirely focused on whether the court should grant the petition. The petition is then distributed for conference where the justices decide whether or not they're going to grant cert. Sometimes those petitions get relisted which usually means they haven't made up their minds, are waiting for more information, or they've decided to deny cert and one or more justices needs time to write a dissent from cert opinion.

There are a lot of other things that can happen along the way. The defending party can waive their right to file a response. That happens a lot because most of these petitions are BS. Sometimes the justices will 'request' a response from the respondent. Sometimes they'll issue a CVSG or "Call for the Views of the Solicitor General". They did this recently and in a very unusual move gave the Solicitor General a deadline.

If the justices do grant cert, there's another round of filings and perhaps amicus briefs on the merits that leads up to a hearing months later and decision by the end of the term.

Sometimes the court will GVR - Grant Vacate and Remand - a petition and issue an unsigned per curiam decision as they did in Caetano without a briefing on the merits or a hearing. Caetano is a great example where Massachusetts declined to file a response, but the court requested one anyway. The timeline on that docket is worth reviewing if you want to see how these things work.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,276
Likes
3,931
Location
My forest stronghold
One new case was granted yesterday: Rehaif v. United States 17-9560:
Whether the “knowingly” provision of § 924(a)(2) applies to both the possession and status elements of a § 922(g) crime, as has been urged by then-Judge, now Justice Gorsuch, or whether it applies only to the possession element, as has been held by the courts.
 

Dench

NES Member
Rating - 100%
99   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
17,151
Likes
5,625
They'll probably take the alien case and we can blow the rest straight up our asses with our luck. Theyve been useless in recent years.
 

Dench

NES Member
Rating - 100%
99   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
17,151
Likes
5,625
See Post #17. They took the 'alien' case. This could be very relevant to some folks in Mass. Just saying.....
It's hard to put into words how dumb it is that this has to be a case in the 1st place and how equally dumb it is that it got to SCOTUS in this manner.

(R) says Guns are good.
(D) says Guns are bad.
(R) says illegals are bad.
(D) says illegals are good.
(R) says arabs are probably bad and all terrorists.
(D) says arabs are all good except the ones on TV.

This case hits. A black hole forms and puts us all out of our misery.

If I was an evil (D) and I wanted to shit can this case one of the 1st things I'd do was make the defendant apart of a class that the body of support of said defendant would hate, confuse and muddle the actual issue. Boom.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
3,310
Likes
2,345
Location
Merrimack Valley
It's hard to put into words how dumb it is that this has to be a case in the 1st place and how equally dumb it is that it got to SCOTUS in this manner.

(R) says Guns are good.
(D) says Guns are bad.
(R) says illegals are bad.
(D) says illegals are good.
(R) says arabs are probably bad and all terrorists.
(D) says arabs are all good except the ones on TV.

This case hits. A black hole forms and puts us all out of our misery.

If I was an evil (D) and I wanted to shit can this case one of the 1st things I'd do was make the defendant apart of a class that the body of support of said defendant would hate, confuse and muddle the actual issue. Boom.
Here's my problem with this case:

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Perhaps his college should have done better than an email (certified letter) but he also had all the tools to know his visa would have been in jeopardy.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,276
Likes
3,931
Location
My forest stronghold
Here's my problem with this case:

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Perhaps his college should have done better than an email (certified letter) but he also had all the tools to know his visa would have been in jeopardy.
Actually, you're wrong. "Ignorance of the law..." is a cliche, it's not a legal doctrine. Criminal offenses generally have some mens rea, or guilty mind (intention or knowledge of wrongdoing) aspect to them.

In the case of 922, the statute clearly states "Whoever knowingly violates subsection...". There are two elements to the offense of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. The person has to 1) be in possession of a firearm and 2) be prohibited. In the case of Rehaif, the trial judge instructed the jury that Rehaif only had to know he was in possession of a firearm, NOT that he knew he was in the country unlawfully or that he was a prohibited person as a result.

This case has VERY broad implications. Anyone who stopped reading or comprehending when they read 'alien' or 'muslim' is missing the point entirely. There are so many people (especially in Massachusetts) who are in possession of firearms (knowingly) but are (unknowingly) prohibited persons.

The feds jam people up for this pretty frequently I think. We shouldn't want to government to win this one.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
3,310
Likes
2,345
Location
Merrimack Valley
Actually, you're wrong. "Ignorance of the law..." is a cliche, it's not a legal doctrine. Criminal offenses generally have some mens rea, or guilty mind (intention or knowledge of wrongdoing) aspect to them.

In the case of 922, the statute clearly states "Whoever knowingly violates subsection...". There are two elements to the offense of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. The person has to 1) be in possession of a firearm and 2) be prohibited. In the case of Rehaif, the trial judge instructed the jury that Rehaif only had to know he was in possession of a firearm, NOT that he knew he was in the country unlawfully or that he was a prohibited person as a result.

This case has VERY broad implications. Anyone who stopped reading or comprehending when they read 'alien' or 'muslim' is missing the point entirely. There are so many people (especially in Massachusetts) who are in possession of firearms (knowingly) but are (unknowingly) prohibited persons.

The feds jam people up for this pretty frequently I think. We shouldn't want to government to win this one.
So does this mean because I've never opened my bump stock letter and everything you read on the internet is a lie I can keep my bump stock?
 

Chevy 2 65

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
15,203
Likes
5,966
Location
Somewhere in the sands of time
Actually, you're wrong. "Ignorance of the law..." is a cliche, it's not a legal doctrine. Criminal offenses generally have some mens rea, or guilty mind (intention or knowledge of wrongdoing) aspect to them.

In the case of 922, the statute clearly states "Whoever knowingly violates subsection...". There are two elements to the offense of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. The person has to 1) be in possession of a firearm and 2) be prohibited. In the case of Rehaif, the trial judge instructed the jury that Rehaif only had to know he was in possession of a firearm, NOT that he knew he was in the country unlawfully or that he was a prohibited person as a result.

This case has VERY broad implications. Anyone who stopped reading or comprehending when they read 'alien' or 'muslim' is missing the point entirely. There are so many people (especially in Massachusetts) who are in possession of firearms (knowingly) but are (unknowingly) prohibited persons.

The feds jam people up for this pretty frequently I think. We shouldn't want to government to win this one.
They are prohibited because they are here illegally? Is that correct?
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,276
Likes
3,931
Location
My forest stronghold
They are prohibited because they are here illegally? Is that correct?
The reason that Rehaif is a prohibited person is irrelevant. The question is whether the government has the burden of proving that he knew he was here unlawfully (i.e. prohibited). If folks want to give the government a pass and make it easier for them to convict people without proving the elements of the crime, I get that. But that's a really bad direction to go in.

I also appreciate that folks had a hard-on for illegals and muslims, but that's not the issue here. If a Massachusetts resident with an LTC following a successful FLRB petition was convicted for felon in possession charges, we'd have exactly the same case.
 

Chevy 2 65

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
15,203
Likes
5,966
Location
Somewhere in the sands of time
The reason that Rehaif is a prohibited person is irrelevant. The question is whether the government has the burden of proving that he knew he was here unlawfully (i.e. prohibited). If folks want to give the government a pass and make it easier for them to convict people without proving the elements of the crime, I get that. But that's a really bad direction to go in.

I also appreciate that folks had a hard-on for illegals and muslims, but that's not the issue here. If a Massachusetts resident with an LTC following a successful FLRB petition was convicted for felon in possession charges, we'd have exactly the same case.
Thanks for the clarification. The only question in mind is. Rahaif must of know they were here illegal, how can you not know that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom