US Supreme Court OT 2018

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,317
Likes
4,034
Location
My forest stronghold
Thanks for the clarification. The only question in mind is. Rahaif must of know they were here illegal, how can you not know that?
Maybe he knew, maybe he didn't. The government didn't make the case that he was 'knowingly' in the US unlawfully and the judge told the jury that they didn't have to. The statue reads "whoever knowingly...". So the question is does 'knowingly' apply to both elements of the crime or just one? For my two cents, I think the government really hard to put people in jail and I don't see from the statute how knowling can apply to one required element of the crime and not to the other.

Hey, if he wins, the verdict is overturned and the government can always retry him and present evidence that he was knowingly in the US unlawfully. It's also pretty clear from the question presented where Gorsuch comes down on this.
 

Chevy 2 65

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
15,514
Likes
6,362
Location
Somewhere in the sands of time
Maybe he knew, maybe he didn't. The government didn't make the case that he was 'knowingly' in the US unlawfully and the judge told the jury that they didn't have to. The statue reads "whoever knowingly...". So the question is does 'knowingly' apply to both elements of the crime or just one? For my two cents, I think the government really hard to put people in jail and I don't see from the statute how knowling can apply to one required element of the crime and not to the other.

Hey, if he wins, the verdict is overturned and the government can always retry him and present evidence that he was knowingly in the US unlawfully. It's also pretty clear from the question presented where Gorsuch comes down on this.
Again, Thank You makes sense.
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
676
Likes
919
Location
Merrimack Valley
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?
You're confusing "knowingly" violating the law with "willfully" violating it. "Willful" violations require that you know the action you were taking is illegal. "Knowing" violations just require you knew the action you were taking.

If you have a bump stock in MA that you bought and have used at the range, you're knowingly violating the law. That's enough mens rea for a conviction. If your brother left some plastic contraption in your basement and you have no idea what it is, and it turns out to be a bump stock, you're neither knowingly nor willfully violating the law - no mens rea.
 

Dench

NES Member
Rating - 100%
102   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
17,154
Likes
5,630
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.
Besides what knuckle dragger said we also have the "Vagueness doctrine" which a shit ton of MA gun law would fall under no problemo if we didn't live in partisan fantasy land.

There are way to many laws in the US and a lot of them are ultra complicated, written poorly or vague. Ignorance of a law should and could be a valid defense because no single person could ever keep track of even a small percentage of it.




Back to the alien case, I feel like we only get a few 2A cases every so often and I really get the feeling that they took this one because it's irrelevant when compared to some of the other heavy hitters that they won't even look twice at. This way they can say they have done some 2A cases while ignoring the ones that actually should and need to be ruled on. Lack of a better term we're blowing our load over bullshit.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,317
Likes
4,034
Location
My forest stronghold
Besides what knuckle dragger said we also have the "Vagueness doctrine" which a shit ton of MA gun law would fall under no problemo if we didn't live in partisan fantasy land.

There are way to many laws in the US and a lot of them are ultra complicated, written poorly or vague. Ignorance of a law should and could be a valid defense because no single person could ever keep track of even a small percentage of it.

Back to the alien case, I feel like we only get a few 2A cases every so often and I really get the feeling that they took this one because it's irrelevant when compared to some of the other heavy hitters that they won't even look twice at. This way they can say they have done some 2A cases while ignoring the ones that actually should and need to be ruled on. Lack of a better term we're blowing our load over bullshit.
^Well, you've hit on another HUGE problem. Vagueness. It's hard to prove, but it's also at the heart of much of the infringement we're subjected to.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,317
Likes
4,034
Location
My forest stronghold
Not even remotely a Second Amendment case, but if you're interest in how the 21st Amendment collides with the federal government's exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce, you may be interest in Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair. The case was argued yesterday and challenged a Tennessee law that requires anyone seeking an alcohol license to have resided in the state for at least two years. Oral arguments were yesterday.

Docket
Transcript
 

rep308

NES Member
Rating - 100%
55   0   0
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
7,170
Likes
3,601
Location
inside the 495 Belt
Hope this is the right place, here is theatlantic.com view on: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York.

If the Atlantic is sad, then you should be happy

Supersizing the Second Amendment
The Supreme Court just took a case that could lead to yet more guns on the streets.
Court Hears NY Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of NY - The Atlantic

“The impact of this case could be huge,” Winkler told me, because the Court may decide that the right to gun possession extends outside the home. The Court could undermine long-standing restrictions on concealed carry in America’s major cities, leading to hundreds of thousands more guns on the streets of Los Angeles, New York, Washington, D.C.

From the more friendly WSJ, Subscription required:

Gun Rights Return to the Supreme Court
The Justices agree to hear a challenge to New York City’s limits.
Opinion | Gun Rights Return to the Supreme Court

...The Court’s willingness to hear New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York probably reflects the presence of new Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Though former Justice Anthony Kennedy was part of the Heller majority, other Justices weren’t sure how far he’d go to protect the right. There now may be five Justices to better define the limits of gun regulation, with Chief Justice John Roberts as the swing vote. The New York City case will be an early signal.....
 
Last edited:

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
72,169
Likes
35,470
Lol I love the moonbat full of shit alarmist hyperbole they dump into these articles. Even if there was a huge win, hundreds of thousands is a gross
exaggeration. The lawful carry rate, as I call it- EG, someone carrying a loaded gun on their person on a daily basis, even in gun friendly states is pitifully small, that's hardly would be "thousands more guns".

-Mike
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,317
Likes
4,034
Location
My forest stronghold
I've added a new case to the list. Rogers v. Grewal out of New Jersey:
NJ waived their right to respond, but SCOTUS has decided otherwise. Their response is due March 21. This is very hopeful sign.

We should also see the Justice Department's response in Mance tomorrow. A couple of cases we're tracking or scheduled for Friday's conference. We may see monday weather those cases are relisted or denied. OT 2018.
 

milktree

NES Member
Rating - 100%
28   0   0
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
4,899
Likes
2,536
NJ waived their right to respond, but SCOTUS has decided otherwise. Their response is due March 21. This is very hopeful sign.

We should also see the Justice Department's response in Mance tomorrow. A couple of cases we're tracking or scheduled for Friday's conference. We may see monday weather those cases are relisted or denied. OT 2018.
I don't understand this. Can you Reader's Digest Big-Print it for me?

NJ wanted to not respond, but SCOTUS forced them to? This is good because it'll force NJ to show exactly how stupid they're being?
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,317
Likes
4,034
Location
My forest stronghold
I don't understand this. Can you Reader's Digest Big-Print it for me?

NJ wanted to not respond, but SCOTUS forced them to? This is good because it'll force NJ to show exactly how stupid they're being?
It's pretty common that a respondent will waive their right to respond. They probably do this because SCOTUS grants so few petitions (~1%) and they don't want to waste the effort. But if members of the court do have interest in a case, they can request a response as happened here. What I don't know is how many justice it takes for the court to request a response. It might be only one, I don't know.

What's unusual here is that Rogers was scheduled for conference before the response was due. And it hasn't been relisted. I suspect it will be relisted for a future conference.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,317
Likes
4,034
Location
My forest stronghold
SCOTUS has granted cert in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs New York!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012219zor_8759.pdf
Not so fast. NYC is now trying to moot the case by propose a rule change that would address plaintiffs' claims. Motion To Hold Briefing Schedule in Abeyance.

Plaintiffs could object arguing that the alleged violations are capable of repetition. I think we're going to see a lot of this. The antis are increasingly willing to give up small ground in order to evade any type of review that could set precedent in our favor.
 

Waher

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
11,046
Likes
13,370
Location
Boston Gun & Rifle and Braintree Rifle & Pistol
Not so fast. NYC is now trying to moot the case by propose a rule change that would address plaintiffs' claims. Motion To Hold Briefing Schedule in Abeyance.

Plaintiffs could object arguing that the alleged violations are capable of repetition. I think we're going to see a lot of this. The antis are increasingly willing to give up small ground in order to evade any type of review that could set precedent in our favor.
I hope SCotUS keeps the case going and makes note of this tactic as unacceptable in their ruling.
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
676
Likes
919
Location
Merrimack Valley
Not so fast. NYC is now trying to moot the case by propose a rule change that would address plaintiffs' claims. Motion To Hold Briefing Schedule in Abeyance.

Plaintiffs could object arguing that the alleged violations are capable of repetition. I think we're going to see a lot of this. The antis are increasingly willing to give up small ground in order to evade any type of review that could set precedent in our favor.
This is interesting, but I could also see it as backfiring against the antis. The current court seems inclined to make incremental changes in the law to advance 2A. But if the antis choose tactics that effectively deny the court its right to exercise its power to move the ball forward incrementally, they could get fed up and start taking more cases that are less incremental and ruling more strongly.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
72,169
Likes
35,470
Not so fast. NYC is now trying to moot the case by propose a rule change that would address plaintiffs' claims. Motion To Hold Briefing Schedule in Abeyance.

Plaintiffs could object arguing that the alleged violations are capable of repetition. I think we're going to see a lot of this. The antis are increasingly willing to give up small ground in order to evade any type of review that could set precedent in our favor.
Isn't there some kind of legal procedure/precedent that can be invoked which prevents them from doing this once the ball has rolled past a certain point in the process? EG, if they really wanted to moot it, they should have done so out of the gate like what Krispy Kreme was doing with pardoning that lady's unlawful possession case when she drove from PA into NJ....
 

Radtekk

NES Member
Rating - 100%
113   0   0
Joined
Mar 23, 2011
Messages
8,824
Likes
7,463
Location
Breathing free in Tennessee!
Not so fast. NYC is now trying to moot the case by propose a rule change that would address plaintiffs' claims. Motion To Hold Briefing Schedule in Abeyance.

Plaintiffs could object arguing that the alleged violations are capable of repetition. I think we're going to see a lot of this. The antis are increasingly willing to give up small ground in order to evade any type of review that could set precedent in our favor.
Emphasis mine... Isn't that what WE'VE been doing for decades? The death of 1000 cuts?
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,317
Likes
4,034
Location
My forest stronghold
The Voluntary Cessation Doctrine tells us that a defendant cannot moot a case simply by ending the unlawful conduct. As an example Abner Louima's civil rights case against members of the NYPD wasn't rendered moot when the police officers removed the broomstick from his rectum for the last time.

Keep in mind that NYC is only asking the court to stay the briefing schedule in anticipation of a possible regulatory change. Granting that stay will depend entirely upon the mood of the justices. Were I a justice, I would be pretty miffed that they're pulling this at the 11th hour when they could have easily revisited their regulation at any time up until now.

Who knows? This may make the court more likely to grant cert in Rogers or even Gould. Although I think Rogers makes more sense.
Comm2A probably won’t let us know until they have filed thier cases, for tactical reasons. That’s why I donate to them, hope we get some good news from them real soon.
We filed our cert petition on April 1st.
 

crispnipz

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 12, 2017
Messages
368
Likes
453
Location
Medford

Attachments

Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,317
Likes
4,034
Location
My forest stronghold
Pena (Cali roster) and Mance (interstate handgun sales) were scheduled for last Friday's conference but are not mentioned in today's order list. Looks like both with be relisted. That's probably good in some way. Most cases granted are relisted at least once. That or we can expect a denial of cert dissent.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,317
Likes
4,034
Location
My forest stronghold
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,317
Likes
4,034
Location
My forest stronghold
Not so fast. NYC is now trying to moot the case by propose a rule change that would address plaintiffs' claims. Motion To Hold Briefing Schedule in Abeyance.

Plaintiffs could object arguing that the alleged violations are capable of repetition. I think we're going to see a lot of this. The antis are increasingly willing to give up small ground in order to evade any type of review that could set precedent in our favor.
And petitioners have something to say about NYC's attempt to weasel out of this.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...2019-04-19 NYSRPA response letter - FINAL.pdf

Respondents ask this Court to put this case on indefinite hold merely because the New York City Police Department has initiated a rulemaking process involving proposed amendments to §5-23(a) that they maintain, if adopted in their current form after public comment, may moot
this case. To state the obvious, a proposed amendment is not law.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,317
Likes
4,034
Location
My forest stronghold
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.
Oral argument in Rehaif was held back on April 23rd. SCOTUSBlog did a nice recap of the argument that captures well the actual issue at hand.

Kedem had an equally difficult time with Kavanaugh. “How is the defendant blameworthy if he or she truly thought that the status was lawful and then possesses the gun? Just focus on that question,” said Kavanaugh. “How is that person blameworthy?”

Kedem replied, “So I’m not sure that they are, but I think the more –”
 
  • Like
Reactions: CAR
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom