1. If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

  2. Dismiss Notice

US Supreme Court OT 2018

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Comm2A, Jan 10, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Knuckle Dragger

    Knuckle Dragger NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    7,085
    Likes Received:
    3,324
    Location:
    My forest stronghold
    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.
     
  2. Chevy 2 65

    Chevy 2 65 NES Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2013
    Messages:
    14,417
    Likes Received:
    5,121
    Location:
    Somewhere in the sands of time
    Again, Thank You makes sense.
     
  3. Boston4567

    Boston4567 NES Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2018
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    469
    Location:
    Merrimack Valley
    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.
     
  4. Dench

    Dench

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    15,741
    Likes Received:
    4,389
    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.
     
    Knuckle Dragger likes this.
  5. Knuckle Dragger

    Knuckle Dragger NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    7,085
    Likes Received:
    3,324
    Location:
    My forest stronghold
    ^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.
     
    Bonesinium likes this.
  6. Knuckle Dragger

    Knuckle Dragger NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    7,085
    Likes Received:
    3,324
    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
     
    Mesatchornug likes this.
  7. mlaboss

    mlaboss NES Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Messages:
    4,100
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    CAR, GoodWillHunting, SERE and 4 others like this.
  8. rep308

    rep308 NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    2,343
    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: Jan 23, 2019
  9. drgrant

    drgrant Moderator NES Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    66,453
    Likes Received:
    22,727
    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
     
  10. Knuckle Dragger

    Knuckle Dragger NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    7,085
    Likes Received:
    3,324
    Location:
    My forest stronghold
    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.
     
    hv55maxx and Boston4567 like this.
  11. VetteGirlMA

    VetteGirlMA NES Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,665
    Likes Received:
    2,340
    Location:
    western mass
    Maybe the logjam is finally breaking? I sure hope so.
     
    CAR and Boston4567 like this.
  12. milktree

    milktree NES Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    1,575
    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?
     
  13. Knuckle Dragger

    Knuckle Dragger NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    7,085
    Likes Received:
    3,324
    Location:
    My forest stronghold
    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.
     
    milktree likes this.
  14. Radtekk

    Radtekk NES Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    Messages:
    8,110
    Likes Received:
    5,659
    Location:
    Breathing free in Tennessee!
    "Offensive" is my middle name :)
     
    CAR likes this.
  15. Knuckle Dragger

    Knuckle Dragger NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    7,085
    Likes Received:
    3,324
    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.
     
    beach, drgrant and JJ4 like this.
  16. Waher

    Waher NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    7,722
    Likes Received:
    5,911
    Location:
    BG&RA, BR&PC
    I hope SCotUS keeps the case going and makes note of this tactic as unacceptable in their ruling.
     
  17. Chevy 2 65

    Chevy 2 65 NES Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2013
    Messages:
    14,417
    Likes Received:
    5,121
    Location:
    Somewhere in the sands of time
    They know they are in the wrong and are now trying to tuck tail and run. Could the court still rule in our favor? regardless of what NYC does?
     
  18. SgtHal75

    SgtHal75 NES Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2016
    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    1,206
    Location:
    Hidden rebel base
    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.
     
    kelton, rickflst and Chevy 2 65 like this.
  19. Boston4567

    Boston4567 NES Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2018
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    469
    Location:
    Merrimack Valley
    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.
     
    Salyeica and Cap'n Mike like this.
  20. Chevy 2 65

    Chevy 2 65 NES Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2013
    Messages:
    14,417
    Likes Received:
    5,121
    Location:
    Somewhere in the sands of time
    Agree
     
  21. drgrant

    drgrant Moderator NES Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    66,453
    Likes Received:
    22,727
    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....
     
  22. Radtekk

    Radtekk NES Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    Messages:
    8,110
    Likes Received:
    5,659
    Location:
    Breathing free in Tennessee!
    Emphasis mine... Isn't that what WE'VE been doing for decades? The death of 1000 cuts?
     
  23. Knuckle Dragger

    Knuckle Dragger NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    7,085
    Likes Received:
    3,324
    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.
    We filed our cert petition on April 1st.
     
    rogues, VTski4x4, Cap'n Mike and 2 others like this.
  24. crispnipz

    crispnipz

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2017
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    331
    Location:
    Medford

    Attached Files:

  25. smokey-seven

    smokey-seven NES Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    Messages:
    4,241
    Likes Received:
    2,459
    Location:
    North Shore
    Thank you. I have a very long relationship with April 1. May the force be with us.
     
  26. Knuckle Dragger

    Knuckle Dragger NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    7,085
    Likes Received:
    3,324
    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.
     
  27. Knuckle Dragger

    Knuckle Dragger NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    7,085
    Likes Received:
    3,324
    Location:
    My forest stronghold
    Armory1903, crispnipz and SERE like this.
  28. Knuckle Dragger

    Knuckle Dragger NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    7,085
    Likes Received:
    3,324
    Location:
    My forest stronghold
    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

     
  29. Knuckle Dragger

    Knuckle Dragger NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    7,085
    Likes Received:
    3,324
    Location:
    My forest stronghold
    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.

     
    CAR likes this.
  30. Armory1903

    Armory1903 NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    51
    Location:
    Western MA
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page