PDA

View Full Version : Question Re SCOTUS


Bruce
10-07-2009, 2:03 AM
In hearing the upcoming Chicago case, can or will the court clarify what they deem to be "reasonable" restrictions on firearms? For example could they say NICS is O.K. but fees and applications are not; etc.

kf6tac
10-07-2009, 2:31 AM
In hearing the upcoming Chicago case, can or will the court clarify what they deem to be "reasonable" restrictions on firearms? For example could they say NICS is O.K. but fees and applications are not; etc.

Unless they're feeling particularly generous, they'll probably only go so far as to opine as to whether the specific Chicago ban at issue comports with the Second Amendment. In doing so, they may use factors that will shed light on how other gun restrictions around the country might fare in court, but as a general matter, the Supreme Court is not fond of saying, "And here is our opinion on other restrictions that are not before us in this case."

wash
10-07-2009, 8:14 AM
I believe they will set the standard of scrutiny, a measuring stick to determine if a regulation is reasonable or not.

At that point, the writing is on the wall, it will be easy to determine if a law is unconstitutional and the anti's will have to decide if they want to fold or fight a losing battle.

GrizzlyGuy
10-07-2009, 9:36 AM
I expect them to affirmatively state that reasonable restrictions are still allowed and give an example or two (ex: prohibiting felons from owning/possessing firearms). But I don't expect them to define what is reasonable and not reasonable with any level of precision or specificity. They will leave that for the states and lower courts to decide.

yellowfin
10-07-2009, 9:49 AM
At that point, the writing is on the wall, it will be easy to determine if a law is unconstitutional and the anti's will have to decide if they want to fold or fight a losing battle.They're going to fight, no matter what. They just can't bring themselves to give up what they've believed and fought so long, it's like a religion for them. They're like the kamikazes or suicide bombers. They don't have the slightest care in the world for the consequences for anyone else.

wash
10-07-2009, 10:12 AM
They're going to fight, no matter what. They just can't bring themselves to give up what they've believed and fought so long, it's like a religion for them. They're like the kamikazes or suicide bombers. They don't have the slightest care in the world for the consequences for anyone else.
I'm not sure about that.

It will be up to the district attorney or attorney general to decide to fight or not. With today's budget drama, I bet a lot will fold and the judges will make it easier for them once there are a stack of summary judgments that tells them they can't win.

LCAV will provide free council for the anti's but some might quit doing that if they are concerned with their win/loss ratio.

But even if the anti's fight and win at the local level, the circuit court will give us a win if they don't want to get bit** slapped by SCOTUS.

tiki
10-07-2009, 10:18 AM
I don't believe they can make a list of what is reasonable and what isn't. Each law will have to be challenged in court and that court will make the decision, which is subject to appeal to a higher court.

wash
10-07-2009, 10:33 AM
That's kind of true, they won't make a list.

But let's say two towns in different states have essentially the same gun law. Once the first is challenged and repealed because it doesn't meet the scrutiny requirement, town #2 is going to have a precedent working against their law. That means it will be very very tough for that law to survive at the local court level. If the case gets past that to the circuit court level, the judges will not want to get their decisions overturned so they will make sure the scrutiny test was done properly, confirming the precedent and give a summary judgment repealing the law in town #2.

What this means is that we are probably going to do a little venue shopping to set up good precedents. That might seem to delay things in NY but it will probably speed things up by taking the wind out of the anti's arguments before we fight them.

Harley Quinn
10-07-2009, 10:39 AM
This is a good link to read IMHO

SCOTUS will be busy on several fronts.

http://www.sacbee.com/838/story/2228269.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=925250#Comments_Container

Regards

yellowfin
10-07-2009, 11:14 AM
That all depends entirely on how that circuit leans. The 2nd Circuit is going to fight for every inch and probably doesn't care if they get 10 or 20 cases appealed to the Supreme Court and every one of them overturned. I'm not a betting man but if I were I'd be real interested to see what the line is on how many of NY's laws they're going to defend at least all the way up to circuit if not to the SCOTUS. These are very, very bad people.

Maestro Pistolero
10-07-2009, 11:20 AM
The court has already opened the can of worms with the sensitive places statement in Heller.

I hope, after finding the 2nd to be incorporated, that the majority will be as eager to offer much-needed guidance as to what constitutes a sensitive place, as it was in tossing out that nebulous, vague term in the first place. Perhaps more useful to our point of view, would be clarification of what does NOT constitute a sensitive place. With the question of what constitutes a sensitive place now being the point of so much debate, and in fact the hinging point of what the bear part of 2A really means, it would seem that the court could hardly avoid addressing it.

Another point: If possession, or more accurately bearing were to be limited to the home as Paul Helmke and others disingenuously insist, why would the court even suggest that certain sensitive places may be out of bounds for bearing? Wouldn't they all be out of bounds?

wash
10-07-2009, 11:39 AM
We've got cases going in CA and D.C. that should set very good precedence for CCW issuance and handgun rosters.

Once those are in the bag it's merely an issue of finding a good NY clients and suing, re-using a lot of the material from the previous cases. The anti's might try to drag it out but chances are you'll get a victory with the anti's appealing.

If they take a loser case all the way to SCOTUS, they will only do that once, after that they will be playing damage control.

If they fight tooth and nail, my wild guess is that it might be 3 years before the first NY law gets repealed, then the house of cards will fall down quickly.

The time line would go something like this:

Next summer, Incorporation through the McDonald case, cases filed in NY against the handgun ban.

Next fall/winter victory against the CA not un-safe handgun roster and shall issue CCW from the Sykes(?) case. Ccw case filed in NY.

Fall/Winter 2011, progress made in NY cases? Who knows how long it will take for a decision and an appeal?

Some time 2012, the NY handgun ban falls, the anti's freak because they know that handguns and CCW in NYC will happen very shortly. They draft a whole bunch of new legislation that has a bunch of holes in it like the CA AWB and you get to have fun ripping them a new one.

wash
10-07-2009, 11:42 AM
Wouldn't it be great if we got a roster of not un-sensitive places?

Where every place had to submit a sample to prove it's not un-sensitive and pay a fee every year to stay on the list?

press1280
10-07-2009, 3:05 PM
We've got cases going in CA and D.C. that should set very good precedence for CCW issuance and handgun rosters.

Once those are in the bag it's merely an issue of finding a good NY clients and suing, re-using a lot of the material from the previous cases. The anti's might try to drag it out but chances are you'll get a victory with the anti's appealing.

If they take a loser case all the way to SCOTUS, they will only do that once, after that they will be playing damage control.

If they fight tooth and nail, my wild guess is that it might be 3 years before the first NY law gets repealed, then the house of cards will fall down quickly.

The time line would go something like this:

Next summer, Incorporation through the McDonald case, cases filed in NY against the handgun ban.

Next fall/winter victory against the CA not un-safe handgun roster and shall issue CCW from the Sykes(?) case. Ccw case filed in NY.

Fall/Winter 2011, progress made in NY cases? Who knows how long it will take for a decision and an appeal?

Some time 2012, the NY handgun ban falls, the anti's freak because they know that handguns and CCW in NYC will happen very shortly. They draft a whole bunch of new legislation that has a bunch of holes in it like the CA AWB and you get to have fun ripping them a new one.
The Palmer v. DC (carry case) should set precedence with CCW issuance across the country.I'm not a legal expert, but since it'll be heard in Federal court in January, its technically at a later stage than Sykes. I guess NY and NJ could try to make a DC-type argument and say ,"since we give permits to a few (privleged) people, then its not a total ban on carry and is thus reasonable."

yellowfin
10-07-2009, 3:07 PM
The Palmer v. DC (carry case) should set precedence with CCW issuance across the country.I'm not a legal expert, but since it'll be heard in Federal court in January, its technically at a later stage than Sykes. I guess NY and NJ could try to make a DC-type argument and say ,"since we give permits to a few (privleged) people, then its not a total ban on carry and is thus reasonable." But then we hit them with equality under the law via the 14th Amendment if McDonald strikes down Slaughterhouse. They've got nothing that beats that.

kf6tac
10-07-2009, 3:11 PM
The Palmer v. DC (carry case) should set precedence with CCW issuance across the country.I'm not a legal expert, but since it'll be heard in Federal court in January, its technically at a later stage than Sykes. I guess NY and NJ could try to make a DC-type argument and say ,"since we give permits to a few (privleged) people, then its not a total ban on carry and is thus reasonable."

None of the cases currently pending in district court (incl. Palmer, Sykes, Pena) will be precedential until such time that they are heard by the appropriate Court of Appeal (DC Circuit for Palmer, Ninth Circuit for Sykes and Pena), and even then, they will only bind courts within the respective circuit. The rationale may or may not have persuasive value in other courts, but courts not bound by the decisions will still be free to disagree as long as they are not in conflict with the Supreme Court or their own precedents.

wash
10-07-2009, 3:18 PM
They won't be binding precedents until appeal but they will be precedents.

The writing will be on the wall and the other circuits will pay close attention to make sure they aren't missing anything or sound too stupid if they go the other way.

hoffmang
10-07-2009, 5:03 PM
Don't forget that the attorneys fee bills are coming due in Heller and will come due in McDonald, Palmer, and Nordyke in the not too distant future. Those bills - paid by municipalities and counties - are going to end up being a large disincentive to the hold outs over the long haul.

D.C. is dumb enough to appeal Palmer all the way...

-Gene

yellowfin
10-07-2009, 5:21 PM
I will absolutely love laughing as the municipal authorities refuse to pay the bill and are hauled in for it.

microwaveguy
10-26-2009, 9:07 PM
Actual link to the SCOTUS filing for Certiorari ( McDonald vs Chicago )

www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/08-1521_pet.pdf

43 pages

7x57
10-27-2009, 9:34 AM
Those bills - paid by municipalities and counties - are going to end up being a large disincentive to the hold outs over the long haul.

D.C. is dumb enough to appeal Palmer all the way...


It also has to do with the accountability of local government. The problem is that the accountable governments are largely not our problem in the first place, since they tend to be in pro-gun areas and tend to listen to their voters saying that they don't want their guns touched.

If a city in Nebraska was found to be wasting a lot of money on loser anti-gun lawsuits, the city council would probably get replaced immediately. But His Thuggishness Richard II, King of Chicago can spend other people's money forever and not suffer any great personal cost for it. I suspect the same of Bloomberg and the DC city council.

I think that means we'll have to fight those gun-banning strongholds more than would be rational from their point of view (ETA: I mean more than would be rational if costs mattered, but this was poorly worded--it is "rational" to spend money on long shots if it isn't your money in the first place). On the other hand, if our cases are chosen well it means we get to appeal the right issues faster, and it also means that they will volunteer to be made public examples of. If Chicago gets spanked repeatedly because nobody can stop Daley from spending stolen taxpayers' money, my guess is most places not run by organized crime will not bother. It sucks for those living in those places, but could be a net win for the rest of us who won't have to fight as hard thanks to the salutary public beatings administered to the hardcore antis.

Closer to home, LA might have to get spanked for real, but if it does I imagine Pasadena and an awful lot of other SoCal cities will accept reality without more than some rude words. :D

I'm *sure* you an the rest of CGF won't take any extra glee in your special role as administrator-of-beatings for the hardcore elements in California. Because that would be just so wrong. :43:

7x57

Untamed1972
10-27-2009, 2:42 PM
I'm *sure* you an the rest of CGF won't take any extra glee in your special role as administrator-of-beatings for the hardcore elements in California. Because that would be just so wrong. :43:

7x57


I'm having visions of thigh-high boots and riding crops......"Thank you Mistress Calguns! May I have another?"

LOL

7x57
10-27-2009, 2:53 PM
I'm having visions of thigh-high boots and riding crops......"Thank you Mistress Calguns! May I have another?"


While I heartily encourage the confinement of our home-grown antis to "Gene and Bill's Dungeon Of Pain" for re-education, I very much want to avoid these visions of either one in the thigh-high boots and riding crops of which you speak. :chris:

Come to think of it, I believe that goes for the entire CGF board. :chris: :chris:

That said, if they manage to get certain CA politicians confined in the re-education camp, I shall take to heart what these same politicians say about things done in the privacy of one's own dungeon o' torture being none of my business. :D

7x57

bulgron
10-27-2009, 3:48 PM
Closer to home, LA might have to get spanked for real, but if it does I imagine Pasadena and an awful lot of other SoCal cities will accept reality without more than some rude words. :D

I'll bet dollars to donuts that San Francisco holds out longer and with way more ferocity than does LA. In LA, it's all about elitism and class privilege, which is worth fighting for only just so much. In San Francisco, it's all about world view, and personal philosophy, and the "right thing" to do, and a whole bunch of loony-tunes fuzzy thinking that just isn't ever going to go away, no matter how large of a 2x4 you use in your attempt to teach reality to the residents of that fairy-tale land by the sea.

wash
10-27-2009, 3:50 PM
You forgot that we've got Gene Hoffman up here...

7x57
10-27-2009, 3:52 PM
I'll bet dollars to donuts that San Francisco holds out longer and with way more ferocity than does LA.

Hmm. Possibly. But SF has already been spanked enough times in court by the NRA that I think they may be getting a little bit gun-shy, while LA is not even in compliance with the CCW court order. I'm tempted to take your bet, though these days dollars vs. doughnuts actually is about the opposite odds to when the phrase was coined. :chris:

7x57

bulgron
10-27-2009, 4:03 PM
You forgot that we've got Gene Hoffman up here...

I don't know that Gene's physical location in California should make any difference.

bulgron
10-27-2009, 4:04 PM
Hmm. Possibly. But SF has already been spanked enough times in court by the NRA that I think they may be getting a little bit gun-shy, while LA is not even in compliance with the CCW court order. I'm tempted to take your bet, though these days dollars vs. doughnuts actually is about the opposite odds to when the phrase was coined. :chris:

7x57

Doughnut holes, then?

:D

wash
10-27-2009, 4:29 PM
The Calguns foundation is based in Redwood City. Don Kilmer works in the SF bay area. That's the leading edge of our gun rights movement.

While Chuck Michel will be doing his thing down in LA, we've got some pretty big guns up here.

CDFingers
10-28-2009, 7:45 AM
Regulation must be labeled as "infringement."

CDFingers

wildhawker
10-28-2009, 10:23 AM
Don't underestimate M&A's role in RKBA litigation. Also, Jason Davis is out of OC and is co-counsel on CGF's Peņa case, along with Gura and Kilmer.


The Calguns foundation is based in Redwood City. Don Kilmer works in the SF bay area. That's the leading edge of our gun rights movement.

While Chuck Michel will be doing his thing down in LA, we've got some pretty big guns up here.

dantodd
10-28-2009, 10:28 AM
I'm having visions of thigh-high boots and riding crops......"Thank you Mistress Calguns! May I have another?"

LOL

Sounds like an annual contest ---- "Mistress CalGuns 2010"

Meplat
10-28-2009, 3:41 PM
They can't win at the local level in CA. We have state preemption. Which is one of the things we could lose if the UOC movement frightens too many too much too soon.


I'm not sure about that.

It will be up to the district attorney or attorney general to decide to fight or not. With today's budget drama, I bet a lot will fold and the judges will make it easier for them once there are a stack of summary judgments that tells them they can't win.

LCAV will provide free council for the anti's but some might quit doing that if they are concerned with their win/loss ratio.

But even if the anti's fight and win at the local level, the circuit court will give us a win if they don't want to get bit** slapped by SCOTUS.