PDA

View Full Version : SCOTUS: Loadholt v. Massachusetts - GVR


hoffmang
10-17-2010, 9:26 AM
Loadholt v. Massachusetts (http://www.socialaw.com/slip.htm?cid=19766&sid=120) was granted, vacated and remanded by the Supreme Court in light of McDonald last week.

SCOTUS Docket here (http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-5211.htm).

That tends to imply to the lower court (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court) that they got it wrong and that the intervening case - here McDonald - counsels a potentially different outcome. If that's true (because it's a class of tea leaf reading, even for the lower court judges) this could be very beneficial as an attitude adjustment for Massachusetts state courts and could imperil the requirement in some states to obtain firearms ownership cards prior to possession of firearms or ammunition.

-Gene

M. D. Van Norman
10-17-2010, 9:29 AM
But my BFSC is good for life. Oh, wait …

Gray Peterson
10-17-2010, 9:48 AM
This is gonna be a really interesting situation. SCOTUS is essentially giving a warning shot to the lower courts: Stop screwing around.

Btw, anyone have .pdf's of the briefs?

-Gray

wilit
10-17-2010, 9:54 AM
Loadholt v. Massachusetts (http://www.socialaw.com/slip.htm?cid=19766&sid=120) was granted, vacated and remanded by the Supreme Court in light of McDonald last week.



Sorry Gene, but my legalese isn't up to snuff. What exactly does that sentence mean?

Gray Peterson
10-17-2010, 10:05 AM
G: means grant of certiorari. Which means that they took the case.
V: Vacate. Means the lower court case is vacated, as if it didn't exist anymore.
R: remand, meaning the lower court is being directed to rewrite it's ruling, basically a direction to the lower court to reverse it's own decision.

I have my doubts that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts will do the right thing.

HisDivineShadow
10-17-2010, 10:08 AM
Sorry Gene, but my legalese isn't up to snuff. What exactly does that sentence mean?

SCOTUS granted the writ of certiorari by the petitioner for his conviction by a Mass. lower court. The state court ruled the 2A did not apply to the state, since this case was heard on appeal before McDonald was decided. The state court declined to incorporate Heller at the time and SCOTUS is telling them to try again, now that McDonald is out.:D

press1280
10-17-2010, 11:12 AM
This isn't exactly a "Snow White" defendant either, so I'm curious. Does SCOTUS do something like this just so the lower court(in this case Mass. supreme court) will remove the dicta about the 2A not applying to the states, or is this for sure a sign that the Mass. registration system is in trouble?

BigDogatPlay
10-17-2010, 11:17 AM
I have my doubts that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts will do the right thing.

I'd have mine as well, all things considered. Which should make the eventual smackdown all the more enjoyable to read.

:)

Knuckle Dragger
10-17-2010, 11:42 AM
This is great. The MA SJC has been almost contemptuous of the Heller decision.

command_liner
10-17-2010, 11:48 AM
Having move away from Massachusetts after decades living there, I have to
council that you cannot understand the depth of the corruption. There is mental
corruption and typical political corruption.

The mental corruption is like that in eastern block countries after communism.
There is a large group of people that simply cannot function under a system that
has freedom. These people have been in city, county, and state governments,
in police forces, and in newspapers for all of living memory. There is no
institutional concept of freedom, at least in eastern Massachusetts.

Then there is the other corruption. The Massachusetts State Police crime lab is
profoundly and irreversibly corrupt. Imagine the LAPD Gun Unit as the only
crime lab in the whole state. It is that bad.

N6ATF
10-17-2010, 11:51 AM
Does SCOTUS ever grant cert twice if the remand doesn't achieve the desired result for the appellant?

hoffmang
10-17-2010, 12:37 PM
Does SCOTUS do something like this just so the lower court(in this case Mass. supreme court) will remove the dicta about the 2A not applying to the states, or is this for sure a sign that the Mass. registration system is in trouble?

Mostly the former and not as much on the latter, but it does start to create some doubt.

-Gene

dfletcher
10-17-2010, 1:13 PM
Having move away from Massachusetts after decades living there, I have to council that you cannot understand the depth of the corruption. There is mental corruption and typical political corruption.



I grew up there, family still lives in Andover and NH, I visit regularly. Whenever I read about "Chicago politics" my first thought is "what amatuers ..." ;)

The FID card has been around forever - I probably still have mine laying about there from 1970 or so. I know FID used to apply to long guns only and LTC for handguns, but I believe that changed a few years back - not 100% on that. Having a court imply it is an infringement is quite a change in the Commonwealth, would be like CA having to drop the BFSC card "times 10".

Bad man + Bryco = good law I suppose.

bulgron
10-17-2010, 1:42 PM
The mental corruption is like that in eastern block countries after communism.
There is a large group of people that simply cannot function under a system that
has freedom. These people have been in city, county, and state governments,
in police forces, and in newspapers for all of living memory. There is no
institutional concept of freedom, at least in eastern Massachusetts.

I'm watching the HBO special on John Adams right now (getting the BluRays from Netflix). It's amazing that the birthplace of American liberty has turned into modern day MA. I mean, Boston was freaking ground zero for the American revolution, and now MA is apparently populated almost entirely by people who would have been quite happy to kowtow to old King George for all of eternity. How does that happen, anyway?

Liberty1
10-17-2010, 4:03 PM
...MA is apparently populated almost entirely by people who would have been quite happy to kowtow to old King George for all of eternity. How does that happen, anyway?

Because the grandchildren studied painting, poetry, and music...

5VsHDfsndac

dfletcher
10-17-2010, 4:54 PM
I'm watching the HBO special on John Adams right now (getting the BluRays from Netflix). It's amazing that the birthplace of American liberty has turned into modern day MA. I mean, Boston was freaking ground zero for the American revolution, and now MA is apparently populated almost entirely by people who would have been quite happy to kowtow to old King George for all of eternity. How does that happen, anyway?

The 495 corridor, parts of the Cape and the western part of the state can be conservative. When I visit I notice CA is socially and fiscally far more liberal - maybe having to use CA is "damning with faint praise" anyway. :o

I think the cycle is this - voters put in office folks who make promises of what they'll do, do often meaning "give to" the voters. Once elected people don't so much lead or govern so much as providing and getting re-elected. Parsing out just enough goodies to make the voters appreciate their gruel. The cycle continues & expands. Alot like working Supply in the military, which I did. Time is spent cutting deals, using your access to supplies to provide extras to your guys, maintain and expand your position. Probably a lousy comparison.

sholling
10-17-2010, 9:47 PM
I'm watching the HBO special on John Adams right now (getting the BluRays from Netflix). It's amazing that the birthplace of American liberty has turned into modern day MA. I mean, Boston was freaking ground zero for the American revolution, and now MA is apparently populated almost entirely by people who would have been quite happy to kowtow to old King George for all of eternity. How does that happen, anyway?
100 years of Progressive control of the education system and the press. The poor saps that live there have been taught all of their lives that handing over their liberty is the right thing to do. Just like California.

press1280
10-18-2010, 4:03 AM
Mostly the former and not as much on the latter, but it does start to create some doubt.

-Gene

So now, the Mass. court must do a thorough "analysis" of the 2A and determine whether the registration violates it? Flesh out the law or something like that?

Mulay El Raisuli
10-18-2010, 7:03 AM
Does SCOTUS ever grant cert twice if the remand doesn't achieve the desired result for the appellant?


That's a real good question.


The Raisuli

masameet
10-18-2010, 7:07 AM
So a felon with a history of firearms violations (https://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=bdihja&searchTerm=hZeT.cSQa.ZCaS.KaaL&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW#top) gets a second crack, courtesy of the SCOTUS, at trial because he was found allegedly to have (1) one live hollow-point round in his pocket during a search warrant, (2) told the arresting officer where his handgun was, and (3) claimed ownership of said handgun before being Miranda-ized -- and his motion to suppress at the lower level court should have been granted initially?

Great. Felons at the vanguard of the RKBA movement. :rolleyes:

dfletcher
10-18-2010, 9:05 AM
So a felon with a history of firearms violations (https://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=bdihja&searchTerm=hZeT.cSQa.ZCaS.KaaL&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW#top) gets a second crack, courtesy of the SCOTUS, at trial because he was found allegedly to have (1) one live hollow-point round in his pocket during a search warrant, (2) told the arresting officer where his handgun was, and (3) claimed ownership of said handgun before being Miranda-ized -- and his motion to suppress at the lower level court should have been granted initially?

Great. Felons at the vanguard of the RKBA movement. :rolleyes:

I have sort of the same reaction. Would be nice if an upstanding citizen were the basis for decisions but that's often not the case. I've a few cop/former cop friends & when talking about work, testifying, one recounted being asked about a fellow who witnessed a shooting @ 7th & Hoover @ 4am. The witness was a loser (loaded & dealing) & when his "character" was questioned the cop recounted saying "well who the F do you think is up around there at 4am - Boy Scouts ....?" :(

wash
10-18-2010, 9:06 AM
Great. Felons at the vanguard of the RKBA movement. :rolleyes:
I don't care how it happens.

Too many innocent people are victimized by unconstitutional laws for the ballence to ever tilt the other way.

dantodd
10-18-2010, 9:42 AM
I suspect this is more than just "do your analysis over, with incorporated 2A. After all, at the time if the decision the 2A didn't apply so that wasn't an error. The issue must be with the outcome and not the process by which the decision was made. IMNSHO

wash
10-18-2010, 9:48 AM
Actually, the second amendment has fully applied against the states since the 14'th amendment was ratified, it has just been a bunch of bad legal judgements that have denied this right to the people.

This is more of a slap to the head-"what were you thinking?"-write it again type of thing.

dantodd
10-18-2010, 11:42 AM
No, the 2nd did not apply against the states until McDonald.

Gray Peterson
10-18-2010, 12:24 PM
No, the 2nd did not apply against the states until McDonald.

Practically yes. What is supposed to happen=/what is going to happen.

Nick Justice
10-18-2010, 1:01 PM
The lower court is instructed to re-do its opinion. They will probably say that since the defendant has two prior violent crimes on his record, 2A does not apply to him, and the conviction can stand. But the opinion was silent as to what the prior crimes were. If they were felonies, firmer grounds upon which to stand to affirm. If MD's, harder to say.

We already have appeal court cases that say so.

These will be a very hard-fought victories, but they will be worth it.

As for MA being ground zero for the Revolution, that is correct. but remember, only 1/3 were secretly or openly loyal to the new republic, 1/3 were secretly or openly loyal to the British crown, the the other 1/3 did not care.

wash
10-18-2010, 1:05 PM
Ignoring the constitution does not mean it didn't apply.

There were just a whole lot of civil rights violations between ratification of the 14'th and McDonald.

dantodd
10-18-2010, 1:58 PM
Ignoring the constitution does not mean it didn't apply.


No, but Slaughter-house did. Don't confuse what the law was intended to do vs. what it actually did. (Otherwise we may not have OLLs in CA right now.)

wash
10-18-2010, 2:05 PM
A bad prescedent isn't the same as a constitutional amendment.

The constitution says we've had the second since ratification of the 14'th.

Scott Connors
10-18-2010, 2:33 PM
So a [[snippage]
Great. Felons at the vanguard of the RKBA movement. :rolleyes:

Look at it this way: if the antis attempt to use the actions of criminals to make bad case law that affects all of us, then we either acquiesce out of fear of being lumped together with defendants we find repugnant, or we stand on principle and fight.

dantodd
10-18-2010, 4:36 PM
A bad prescedent isn't the same as a constitutional amendment.

The constitution says we've had the second since ratification of the 14'th.

I will assume that you are merely being obstinate and you actually understand that you had no 2A protection from state action until McDonald.

wash
10-18-2010, 4:51 PM
I'm saying that with good enough lawyers and the right judges, I had it the whole time.

It's a fundamental civil right, the government didn't grant it and they can't legally take it away.

They don't have that power and never did. Saying that I didn't have the second amendment until McDonald v. Chicago is giving them power that they never had. I won't do that.

N6ATF
10-18-2010, 5:18 PM
God giveth, man taketh away. God shrugs.

Mulay El Raisuli
10-19-2010, 7:01 AM
So a felon with a history of firearms violations (https://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=bdihja&searchTerm=hZeT.cSQa.ZCaS.KaaL&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW#top) gets a second crack, courtesy of the SCOTUS, at trial because he was found allegedly to have (1) one live hollow-point round in his pocket during a search warrant, (2) told the arresting officer where his handgun was, and (3) claimed ownership of said handgun before being Miranda-ized -- and his motion to suppress at the lower level court should have been granted initially?

Great. Felons at the vanguard of the RKBA movement. :rolleyes:


I can live with that. After all, a major felon (Ernesto Miranda) was the vanguard of the 5th. Amendment. That doesn't mean that result wasn't a good one.


The Raisuli

Purple K
02-27-2011, 9:29 AM
The docket shows: "Nov. 15, 2010, Mandate issued." What was the mandate?

jpigeon
02-27-2011, 10:12 AM
God giveth, man taketh away. God shrugs.

Amen

1JimMarch
02-27-2011, 10:21 AM
I'm making a bit of a guess here, but I think the US Supremes just set a massive trap for the MA state courts.

First, I think this guy will still be screwed. The state court will have to write an opinion along the lines of "this guy is hosed because of his past misconduct, therefore no violation of the 2A".

But what about anybody else?

If the permit rules don't apply to this guy because of his misconduct, fine, what about people with no record? Would THEY be shafted?

I think the USSC just grabbed the ear of the MA state court system and led them, very forcibly, to deal with that question. And the answer isn't one they're going to like.

Put another way: I'm an AZ resident these days, and have an AZ CCW. What happens when I go to MA on a brief visit? At present, if I haven't done all the MA paperwork ahead of time and gotten a discretionary-issuance permit somehow, I'm forcibly disarmed. Will that stand?

For that matter, California is even worse, banning me from even applying for a carry permit NOT based on any misconduct I've done, but my out-of-state residency. You guys in-state are "probably" each screwed for CCW right now ('cept for a few counties) but I'm 100% guaranteed hosed. Is that discrimination legal at all? Short answer, hell no...see also Ward v. Maryland 1870 and Saenz v. Roe 1999 (both USSC).

Knuckle Dragger
02-27-2011, 10:46 AM
There's some history here. And yes, this won't make a difference in the end for Mr. Loadholt.

Following the Heller decision the MA SJC very aggressively sought out cases where defendants were making a 2A claim and uniformly ruled that there was no individual right as applied to the states. In a more recent gun related case we have the justices saying things like "We don't exactly follow Supreme Court jurisprudence" and "the second amendment guarantees an individual right..or at least the Supreme Court says it does".

ke6guj
02-27-2011, 11:13 AM
For that matter, California is even worse, banning me from even applying for a carry permit NOT based on any misconduct I've done, but my out-of-state residency. You guys in-state are "probably" each screwed for CCW right now ('cept for a few counties) but I'm 100% guaranteed hosed. Is that discrimination legal at all? Short answer, hell no...see also Ward v. Maryland 1870 and Saenz v. Roe 1999 (both USSC).

which I think is the reasoning for Gray Peterson's CCW case against CO, IIRC.

CalBear
02-27-2011, 12:02 PM
I'm watching the HBO special on John Adams right now (getting the BluRays from Netflix). It's amazing that the birthplace of American liberty has turned into modern day MA. I mean, Boston was freaking ground zero for the American revolution, and now MA is apparently populated almost entirely by people who would have been quite happy to kowtow to old King George for all of eternity. How does that happen, anyway?
The contempt for RKBA is especially ridiculous considering Boston's history with General Gage effectively seizing all of Boston's arms by lying to their faces. Any Bostonian from those days would be utterly mortified by the idea of the State government imposing arms registration and permit requirements.

In Boston and some other East Coast areas, they're in a situation where being urban for a longer period has led to high levels of corruption. We're seeing more and more of that in CA these days. It's still been way worse at times there. They've essentially created a hereditary system of two classes there.

There was actually a funny incident when my Grandparents came out to CA from MA. Basically, my Grandfather got pulled over by CHP, and he tried to bribe the officer. The CHP officer told him we don't do that around here, and he's lucky he isn't going to jail. At least 20/30 years ago, bribing police officers (at least locals, maybe not State Police) was apparently a fairly common practice in MA. I've heard other stories as well that show exactly how corrupt their society is.

Sgt Raven
02-27-2011, 12:47 PM
There's some history here. And yes, this won't make a difference in the end for Mr. Loadholt.

Following the Heller decision the MA SJC very aggressively sought out cases where defendants were making a 2A claim and uniformly ruled that there was no individual right as applied to the states. In a more recent gun related case we have the justices saying things like "We don't exactly follow Supreme Court jurisprudence" and "the second amendment guarantees an individual right..or at least the Supreme Court says it does".

Then SCOTUS needs to B**** Slap them into 2011. :cool:

Librarian
02-27-2011, 1:28 PM
There was actually a funny incident when my Grandparents came out to CA from MA. Basically, my Grandfather got pulled over by CHP, and he tried to bribe the officer. The CHP officer told him we don't do that around here, and he's lucky he isn't going to jail. At least 20/30 years ago, bribing police officers (at least locals, maybe not State Police) was apparently a fairly common practice in MA. I've heard other stories as well that show exactly how corrupt their society is.

Seems to have been a common idea among the populace; my uncle in Indiana long ago (mid 1960s) told me he kept a $50 bill folded inside his driver license (apparently IN had paper folding-card licenses) in case of a traffic stop.

pointedstick
02-27-2011, 2:02 PM
Seems to have been a common idea among the populace; my uncle in Indiana long ago (mid 1960s) told me he kept a $50 bill folded inside his driver license (apparently IN had paper folding-card licenses) in case of a traffic stop.

Many moons ago, my grandfather successfully bribed a judge in New York. Got a pretty serious charge thrown out, too. Just another day in the northeast… :rolleyes:

Dreaded Claymore
02-27-2011, 6:08 PM
There's some history here. And yes, this won't make a difference in the end for Mr. Loadholt.

Following the Heller decision the MA SJC very aggressively sought out cases where defendants were making a 2A claim and uniformly ruled that there was no individual right as applied to the states. In a more recent gun related case we have the justices saying things like "We don't exactly follow Supreme Court jurisprudence" and "the second amendment guarantees an individual right..or at least the Supreme Court says it does".

If I heard things like that uttered in my presence I'd straight up smack them. Hard.

Nodda Duma
02-27-2011, 8:36 PM
I'm watching the HBO special on John Adams right now (getting the BluRays from Netflix). It's amazing that the birthplace of American liberty has turned into modern day MA. I mean, Boston was freaking ground zero for the American revolution, and now MA is apparently populated almost entirely by people who would have been quite happy to kowtow to old King George for all of eternity. How does that happen, anyway?

When I see Massachusetts license plates up here and read the "Spirit of America" line that's printed on them, I always say to myself, God I hope not.

-Jason

JRob
02-27-2011, 11:01 PM
No, the 2nd did not apply against the states until McDonald.

I was once told (or read, can't remember) that unless SCOTUS wrote something like "we once held x, but now hold y" in a Decision, that a SCOTUS Decision means that the Constitution had *always* meant what the new Decision held.

?

oni.dori
02-27-2011, 11:08 PM
No, the 2nd did not apply against the states until McDonald.

Incorrect, the 2nd Amendment DID apply since the ratification of the 14th Amendment; it just wasn't "officially" recognized until Heller vs. DC, and subsequently, McDonald vs. Chicago.

dantodd
02-27-2011, 11:18 PM
I was once told (or read, can't remember) that unless SCOTUS wrote something like "we once held x, but now hold y" in a Decision, that a SCOTUS Decision means that the Constitution had *always* meant what the new Decision held.

?

Slaughterhouses said it didn't apply against the states, McDonald says it does.

otalps
02-27-2011, 11:18 PM
It applied even before the 14th. Look at the argument in Heller and the decision in Dred Scott.

dantodd
02-27-2011, 11:20 PM
Incorrect, the 2nd Amendment DID apply since the ratification of the 14th Amendment; it just wasn't "officially" recognized until Heller vs. DC, and subsequently, McDonald vs. Chicago.

Irrelevant the CA AWB is unconstitutional as is 12031(e) check. Try violating either of those and see what happens to you. "Officially" recognized means the right can be relied upon, until that happened you could and would be tried and convicted if you violated the gun bans at question in each case.

oni.dori
02-27-2011, 11:28 PM
Irrelevant the CA AWB is unconstitutional as is 12031(e) check. Try violating either of those and see what happens to you. "Officially" recognized means the right can be relied upon, until that happened you could and would be tried and convicted if you violated the gun bans at question in each case.

I do agree that they are unconsititutional. I'm not discounting that. But the fact of the matter was that it DID apply, but was easily IGNORED. Being "officially" recognized does not mean it DIDN'T apply, it just means it can't be as EASILY IGNORED any more.

Andy Taylor
02-27-2011, 11:46 PM
So where does this stand? Have the MA Justices re-written the decision?

Gray Peterson
02-27-2011, 11:50 PM
Commonwealth v. Jason Loadholdt (http://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/display_docket.php?dno=SJC-10461)

01/05/2011 #19 Pursuant to the order of the United States Supreme Court dated October 12, 2010, this case will be heard at the court's May 2011 sitting. The parties shall file supplemental briefs addressing the effect, if any, of the Supreme Court's holding in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S.__(2010), on the defendant's convictions. Supplemental brief for the defendant appellant is due on or before March 4, 2011. Brief for the Commonwealth is due on or before April 4, 2011

nobody_special
02-28-2011, 12:14 AM
If the permit rules don't apply to this guy because of his misconduct, fine, what about people with no record? Would THEY be shafted?

I think the USSC just grabbed the ear of the MA state court system and led them, very forcibly, to deal with that question. And the answer isn't one they're going to like.

Put another way: I'm an AZ resident these days, and have an AZ CCW. What happens when I go to MA on a brief visit? At present, if I haven't done all the MA paperwork ahead of time and gotten a discretionary-issuance permit somehow, I'm forcibly disarmed. Will that stand?

You're conflating two distinct issues here. The non-issuance of non-resident permits or licenses has nothing to do with this case.

The MA court is not going to overturn their permit requirement. They are going to look at MacDonald, then go back and conduct a cursory 2nd amendment analysis that changes absolutely nothing, because Heller did not strike down any permitting or licensing requirements. They may not even have to go that far, since the appellant has previous convictions for violent crimes (I presume felonies).

Knuckle Dragger
09-15-2011, 3:57 PM
The Mass SJC finally got around to rehearing this case last week. Sadly, appellant's counsel wasn't much better than the one representing Williams before the MD Court of Appeals. The justices opened up some pretty big door's but Loadholt's attorney failed to use the opportunities well.

I'm struck by the lack of comprehensive that the attorneys and even the justices have of MA firearms law. A competent attorney could have done a much better job of 'educating' and informing the justices.

Loadholt's attorney utterly failed to frame a key question for the court. MA law requires that one have a state issued permit for the possession of ammunition as well as for almost any firearm. If this licensing scheme is indeed constitutional, the court is going to have to address the extent to which the state can criminalized the unlicensed exercise of a fundamental right.

The issue at hand was the appellant's only remaining conviction - unlawful possession of ammunition resulting from his failure to prove he possessed the requisite state license.

Docket (http://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/display_docket.php?dno=SJC-10461)
Video (mms://192.138.214.175/archives/SJC_10461_2.wmv)

Mulay El Raisuli
09-16-2011, 7:55 AM
The Mass SJC finally got around to rehearing this case last week. Sadly, appellant's counsel wasn't much better than the one representing Williams before the MD Court of Appeals. The justices opened up some pretty big door's but Loadholt's attorney failed to use the opportunities well.

I'm struck by the lack of comprehensive that the attorneys and even the justices have of MA firearms law. A competent attorney could have done a much better job of 'educating' and informing the justices.

Loadholt's attorney utterly failed to frame a key question for the court. MA law requires that one have a state issued permit for the possession of ammunition as well as for almost any firearm. If this licensing scheme is indeed constitutional, the court is going to have to address the extent to which the state can criminalized the unlicensed exercise of a fundamental right.

The issue at hand was the appellant's only remaining conviction - unlawful possession of ammunition resulting from his failure to prove he possessed the requisite state license.

Docket (http://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/display_docket.php?dno=SJC-10461)
Video (mms://192.138.214.175/archives/SJC_10461_2.wmv)


So, is this just for fun? Is the real effort coming later?


The Raisuli

Knuckle Dragger
10-18-2011, 8:00 PM
So, is this just for fun? Is the real effort coming later?


The Raisuli

Apparently this was just for fun:
There is no reason to alter our conclusion set forth in Commonwealth v. Loadholt, supra at 434-435, pertaining to the defendant's convictions under G.L. c. 269, § 10 (h ) (1), and this conclusion is to be reinstated.

So ordered.

http://www.universalhub.com/2011/commonwealth-vs-jason-loadholt

Apocalypsenerd
10-18-2011, 9:00 PM
So the case was GVR'ed and they don't alter their ruling?

Caladain
10-18-2011, 9:11 PM
Soo...what now, back to SCOTUS asking for a smackdown?

Purple K
10-18-2011, 9:21 PM
Soo...what now, back to SCOTUS asking for a smackdown?

One can only hope! :facepalm:

Meplat
10-18-2011, 10:04 PM
It's a fundamental civil right, the government didn't grant it and they can't legally take it away. They don't have that power and never did. Saying that I didn't have the second amendment until McDonald v. Chicago is giving them power that they never had. I won't do that.

You are correct. It never ceases to amaze me how difficult it is for some people to grasp the basic principles concerning rights. Rights can not be granted or withheld they just exist. And by virtue of the fact of your existence they accrue to you. Is that such a difficult concept?

mdimeo
10-18-2011, 10:46 PM
So a felon with a history of firearms violations (https://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=bdihja&searchTerm=hZeT.cSQa.ZCaS.KaaL&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW#top) gets a second crack, courtesy of the SCOTUS, ... Great. Felons at the vanguard of the RKBA movement. :rolleyes:

Well, the court is going to rewrite their decision to say the second amendment is a right of law abiding people, and that it doesn't apply to the defendant. Then he'll appeal, and scotus will refuse to grant cert, and he'll sit in jail.

To me, this GVR just means SCOTUS is paying attention. Other than that, it's no big deal.

ccmc
10-19-2011, 6:19 AM
which I think is the reasoning for Gray Peterson's CCW case against CO, IIRC.

A lot of smart people think that. My non-lawyer prediction is even if the case is successful (and I have my doubts) it will not have an impact on California, but rather to states like Oregon that are shall issue and only provide a way for certain nonresidents to legally carry concealed. Both Oregon and Colorado allow all nonresidents legal open carry with the exception of certain cities like Denver, Portland, Salem, etc. So IMHO the courts will ask why some nonresidents may legally carry concealed (in CO it's the ones from states that have reciprocity with CO, in OR it's only residents of bordering states who are allowed to apply for an OR LTC), rather than why no nonresidents may legally carry concealed. My prediction is in CO the defense will be portrayed as an inability for CO and WA to come to an acceptable reciprocity agreement, and the court will say work it out between yourselves. Again my non-lawyer take.

Mulay El Raisuli
10-19-2011, 7:12 AM
Apparently this was just for fun:


http://www.universalhub.com/2011/commonwealth-vs-jason-loadholt


OTOH, while I have no problem with a felon being the vanguard of the 2A, this particular felon maybe isn't a good choice.

And the MA Supremes are right about the claim by Loadholt that requiring a license is unconstitutional on it face. SCOTUS didn't strike down licenses for guns in either Heller or McDonald. kcbrown was opining in another post ("Grenade Walking???") that this is a strong hint that SCOTUS won't bar the requirement of a license to "and bear" guns. I'm hoping he's wrong.


The Raisuli

Caladain
10-19-2011, 8:17 AM
OTOH, while I have no problem with a felon being the vanguard of the 2A, this particular felon maybe isn't a good choice.

And the MA Supremes are right about the claim by Loadholt that requiring a license is unconstitutional on it face. SCOTUS didn't strike down licenses for guns in either Heller or McDonald. kcbrown was opining in another post ("Grenade Walking???") that this is a strong hint that SCOTUS won't bar the requirement of a license to "and bear" guns. I'm hoping he's wrong.


The Raisuli


Let us not also forget that kcbrown is a pessimist. (I love that about you btw :D).

His hopes are permanently dashed, and he sees the worst outcome, and prepares for it, in everything.

This is a very pragmatic approach and "A Good Thing" :D

When him and Gene get going, it makes for interesting reading :D

yellowfin
10-19-2011, 8:52 AM
So the case was GVR'ed and they don't alter their ruling?
Hence why I for one think that GVR'ing is a mistake w/ 2A matters because it puts it right back in the hands of the court that couldn't be trusted to rule the correct way the first time around. It's more than irritating to see SCOTUS' lack of engagement on this issue.

OleCuss
10-19-2011, 9:05 AM
But couldn't the case be fast-tracked back up to the SCOTUS when the lower court says, "SCOTUS vacated our judgment and we don't see any reason for that so we're going to re-instate the vacated judgment?".

I'm not giving an answer or making a statement - I'm asking a question.

Glock22Fan
10-19-2011, 9:11 AM
You are correct. It never ceases to amaze me how difficult it is for some people to grasp the basic principles concerning rights. Rights can not be granted or withheld they just exist. And by virtue of the fact of your existence they accrue to you. Is that such a difficult concept?

I think the argument that has gone on here re. this subject line forgets that we have two phrases that sum up the situation, "De facto" and "De Jure," definitions here (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/de+jure).

The fact that a right is, de facto, not recognized does not mean that that right does not, de jure, exist.

The Constitution is a de jure recognition of the fact that the RKBA is a basic right. Slaughterhouse was a de facto denial of that right, as are most California gun laws.

Crom
10-19-2011, 9:28 AM
The Mass SJC finally got around to rehearing this case last week. Sadly, appellant's counsel wasn't much better than the one representing Williams before the MD Court of Appeals. The justices opened up some pretty big door's but Loadholt's attorney failed to use the opportunities well.

I'm struck by the lack of comprehensive that the attorneys and even the justices have of MA firearms law. A competent attorney could have done a much better job of 'educating' and informing the justices.

Loadholt's attorney utterly failed to frame a key question for the court. MA law requires that one have a state issued permit for the possession of ammunition as well as for almost any firearm. If this licensing scheme is indeed constitutional, the court is going to have to address the extent to which the state can criminalized the unlicensed exercise of a fundamental right.

The issue at hand was the appellant's only remaining conviction - unlawful possession of ammunition resulting from his failure to prove he possessed the requisite state license.

Docket (http://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/display_docket.php?dno=SJC-10461)
Video (mms://192.138.214.175/archives/SJC_10461_2.wmv)

If Loadholt's attorney was as bad as you said he was, then perhaps that is why the court came to the same conclusion and reinstated its previous order/opinion?

Thanks for keeping us up to date on this case btw.

loather
10-19-2011, 9:49 AM
Let's hope that when this case is re-appealed to SCOTUS that they'll actually take it and write the opinion for MA, as they seem incapable of doing it properly themselves. Regardless of how poorly the attorney performed, the highest court in the nation told the lower court that their conclusion was wrong and that they needed to re-examine the case. They came to the same conclusion and ruled the same way as they did when the case was first escalated to SCOTUS. Incomprehensible.

I hate corrupt government. And it's getting more and more corrupt by the day. I fear for the future of our once-great country.

Gray Peterson
10-19-2011, 11:36 AM
A lot of smart people think that. My non-lawyer prediction is even if the case is successful (and I have my doubts) it will not have an impact on California, but rather to states like Oregon that are shall issue and only provide a way for certain nonresidents to legally carry concealed. Both Oregon and Colorado allow all nonresidents legal open carry with the exception of certain cities like Denver, Portland, Salem, etc. So IMHO the courts will ask why some nonresidents may legally carry concealed (in CO it's the ones from states that have reciprocity with CO, in OR it's only residents of bordering states who are allowed to apply for an OR LTC), rather than why no nonresidents may legally carry concealed. My prediction is in CO the defense will be portrayed as an inability for CO and WA to come to an acceptable reciprocity agreement, and the court will say work it out between yourselves. Again my non-lawyer take.

Not to derail the Loadholt thread, but.....

Since when was a fundamental right subject to the ability of two state governments to come to a mutual agreement on behalf of each other's citizens?

Since when was a fundamental right subject to the ability of a state to run a background check on a person out of state, when they freely allow felons from Alabama with AL Pistol Permits to carry in their state?

These are the basic questions that the Colorado Attorney General must answer to the Supreme Court if Peterson is granted cert (either we appeal a loss or the state appeals a win by us).

The Supreme Court is not adverse to answering multiple questions on gun issues. Remember that the Heller court was asked to strike down three different DC statutes: The ban on registration of handguns (therefor disallowing further ownership to those who moved into the city post-'76), the requirement that there be a trigger lock or disassembled/unusable, and the refusal of the city to allow him to carry said handgun inside of his home. The McDonald court was asked & answered one simple question: does Heller apply to the states and localities? This is why they reversed/remanded McDonald rather than striking down the statutes directly as they did in Heller.

Patrick Aherne
10-19-2011, 12:08 PM
The Constitution protects even the turds of society; it wasn't just written for upstanding, tax-paying citizens.

yellowfin
10-19-2011, 12:12 PM
But couldn't the case be fast-tracked back up to the SCOTUS when the lower court says, "SCOTUS vacated our judgment and we don't see any reason for that so we're going to re-instate the vacated judgment?".

I'm not giving an answer or making a statement - I'm asking a question.The problem is that the fast track doesn't skip past the links in the chain that don't want the result to be changed. They can slow things down by so many different measures as they want as such that it never gets done. Look at Palmer and Muller, for example, or the really hideous example of Nordyke. These guys are WAY too good at denial of justice by delay.

Purple K
10-19-2011, 12:32 PM
Once again, "Justice delayed is justice denied."

BlindRacer
10-19-2011, 12:49 PM
I think the argument that has gone on here re. this subject line forgets that we have two phrases that sum up the situation, "De facto" and "De Jure," definitions here (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/de+jure).

The fact that a right is, de facto, not recognized does not mean that that right does not, de jure, exist.

The Constitution is a de jure recognition of the fact that the RKBA is a basic right. Slaughterhouse was a de facto denial of that right, as are most California gun laws.

Perfectly stated. I think both parties in this discussion knew what they were talking about, but were coming from opposite sides of the issue.

ccmc
10-19-2011, 4:52 PM
Not to derail the Loadholt thread, but.....

Since when was a fundamental right subject to the ability of two state governments to come to a mutual agreement on behalf of each other's citizens?

Since when was a fundamental right subject to the ability of a state to run a background check on a person out of state, when they freely allow felons from Alabama with AL Pistol Permits to carry in their state?

These are the basic questions that the Colorado Attorney General must answer to the Supreme Court if Peterson is granted cert (either we appeal a loss or the state appeals a win by us).

The Supreme Court is not adverse to answering multiple questions on gun issues. Remember that the Heller court was asked to strike down three different DC statutes: The ban on registration of handguns (therefor disallowing further ownership to those who moved into the city post-'76), the requirement that there be a trigger lock or disassembled/unusable, and the refusal of the city to allow him to carry said handgun inside of his home. The McDonald court was asked & answered one simple question: does Heller apply to the states and localities? This is why they reversed/remanded McDonald rather than striking down the statutes directly as they did in Heller.

Now we're looking beyond the outcome of the case to a SCOTUS appeal, and as Williams v Maryland showed, SCOTUS sometimes ignores fundamental rights. I'm not saying the points you've outlined aren't fundamental rights. But I've never met a lawyer who expressed (at least not publicly) any doubts about the legal correctness of their case. And my take as a non-lawyer who's been involved on occasion in commercial litigation on both sides is that court decisions are pretty darned hard to predict. My take on your case is a broad overview based on my own life experiences. Personally I'd love it if all the smart people here are right and this leads to all states being forced to allow nonresidents a way to legally carry. But what happens to your case if tomorrow CO and WA announce a reciprocity agreement?

Gray Peterson
10-20-2011, 12:37 AM
Now we're looking beyond the outcome of the case to a SCOTUS appeal, and as Williams v Maryland showed, SCOTUS sometimes ignores fundamental rights. I'm not saying the points you've outlined aren't fundamental rights.

The more correct statement is: It sometimes ignores fundamental rights when the party doesn't follow their preferred process.

But I've never met a lawyer who expressed (at least not publicly) any doubts about the legal correctness of their case.

Just to make clear: I am not a lawyer.


And my take as a non-lawyer who's been involved on occasion in commercial litigation on both sides is that court decisions are pretty darned hard to predict.

Commercial litigation tends to turn on fact specificity and contractual issues. Constitutional litigation, specifically strategic litigation in said field, does not turn on the concepts of fact specificity or contracts. Though it's simpler, it's more difficult to do correctly.

My take on your case is a broad overview based on my own life experiences. Personally I'd love it if all the smart people here are right and this leads to all states being forced to allow nonresidents a way to legally carry. But what happens to your case if tomorrow CO and WA announce a reciprocity agreement?

That's not going to happen. Earlier this year, there was the possibility of a Arizona-style carry law passing in Colorado, which put a specter of a mooting of my case (though I believe Denver would have litigated to keep their carry ban without CHL). The House passed it, and it didn't even get a hearing in the Senate, and the Governor would have vetoed it anyway.

In order to allow for a reciprocity agreement, one of two things would have to happen: Washington would have to remove their mental health background check requirement in the Washington State Reciprocity Law, or Colorado would have to pass specific statutory language to add a mental health background check step in the law (this is already done by the CBI fingerprint check, but Washington state wants the language specifically in statute, not by just custom).

Washington state legislature will never remove the mental health background requirements (take a look at our legislature, plus it makes for bad politics, especially post-Seal Beach), and RMGO/Dudley Brown essentially wholly owns the gun issue in the State House of Representatives, and he will not allow a specific mental health background check language for numerous reasons.

Colorado chose to fix their own state residents getting out of state carry licenses (and therefor avoiding the local process) using an overbroad method of only allowing resident licenses, rather than following the example of AZ, WA, and KS fixing the issue by stating their own state residents must get an in-state license. Yet, they still recognize the licenses of people from other states which can issue to felons by the language of their laws (AL is but one example). My lawyer from Georgia can carry while in Denver, but I can't. These are facts of law, not the recounting of conversation and determinations of liability.....

Mulay El Raisuli
10-20-2011, 5:46 AM
Let us not also forget that kcbrown is a pessimist. (I love that about you btw :D).

His hopes are permanently dashed, and he sees the worst outcome, and prepares for it, in everything.

This is a very pragmatic approach and "A Good Thing" :D

When him and Gene get going, it makes for interesting reading :D


He does suffer from BGOS. And, yes, the talks between Gene & him are VERY interesting.


The Raisuli

Kharn
10-20-2011, 10:09 AM
We need a BGOS sub-forum for those discussions.

command_liner
10-20-2011, 10:11 AM
A year and 3 days ago I wrote that the average person cannot understand
the depth and breadth of the corruption.

The MA court simply cannot come to a conclusion that people have rights.
The corruption and perversion the political class *really is* that profound.
This decision by the MA courts did not surprise me.
That is one of the reasons I moved away -- and my family was in politics in
MA.

Can the US SJC take such a massive insult from a lower court? What is
the right response when your subordinate directly and repeatedly ignores
instructions? I do not know the procedural rules, but this is an odd one.

ccmc
10-20-2011, 10:49 AM
The more correct statement is: It sometimes ignores fundamental rights when the party doesn't follow their preferred process.


What is their preferred process, and how did Williams run afoul of it?

Just to make clear: I am not a lawyer.


If you had said you were I would have believed you, but I didn't mean to imply that you are.


Commercial litigation tends to turn on fact specificity and contractual issues. Constitutional litigation, specifically strategic litigation in said field, does not turn on the concepts of fact specificity or contracts. Though it's simpler, it's more difficult to do correctly.


Contracts can be incredibly complex/convoluted, and fact specificity is often subject to interpretation. Isn't the Constitution a contract between the government and its citizens, and isn't the Constitution fact specific?

That's not going to happen. Earlier this year, there was the possibility of a Arizona-style carry law passing in Colorado, which put a specter of a mooting of my case (though I believe Denver would have litigated to keep their carry ban without CHL). The House passed it, and it didn't even get a hearing in the Senate, and the Governor would have vetoed it anyway.

In order to allow for a reciprocity agreement, one of two things would have to happen: Washington would have to remove their mental health background check requirement in the Washington State Reciprocity Law, or Colorado would have to pass specific statutory language to add a mental health background check step in the law (this is already done by the CBI fingerprint check, but Washington state wants the language specifically in statute, not by just custom).

Washington state legislature will never remove the mental health background requirements (take a look at our legislature, plus it makes for bad politics, especially post-Seal Beach), and RMGO/Dudley Brown essentially wholly owns the gun issue in the State House of Representatives, and he will not allow a specific mental health background check language for numerous reasons.

Colorado chose to fix their own state residents getting out of state carry licenses (and therefor avoiding the local process) using an overbroad method of only allowing resident licenses, rather than following the example of AZ, WA, and KS fixing the issue by stating their own state residents must get an in-state license. Yet, they still recognize the licenses of people from other states which can issue to felons by the language of their laws (AL is but one example). My lawyer from Georgia can carry while in Denver, but I can't. These are facts of law, not the recounting of conversation and determinations of liability.....

Appreciate that info on why WA and CO don't have reciprocity. I can carry in Denver, but not in Portland. It's reversed for you so if a successful outcome of your case leads to us both being able to legally carry in both of those cities, well that's already a big plus for me. If it goes even further than that, icing on the cake.

IGOTDIRT4U
10-20-2011, 12:00 PM
G: means grant of certiorari. Which means that they took the case.
V: Vacate. Means the lower court case is vacated, as if it didn't exist anymore.
R: remand, meaning the lower court is being directed to rewrite it's ruling, basically a direction to the lower court to reverse it's own decision.

I have my doubts that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts will do the right thing.

Me too. Mass courts are about as bad as Chicago when it comes to freedoms of this nature. They will try to wiggle around the wording so as to make it appear they re-wrote it, but in reality it will be a trick of the eyes.

kcbrown
10-20-2011, 12:13 PM
He does suffer from BGOS.


Actually, I don't. My involvement with firearms is actually a relatively recent thing.

The approach I take and the viewpoints I carry are ones that I apply to all aspects of my life. I've taken the stance I have with respect to RKBA because it's the stance I take with respect to everything. I take that stance because real life and observation demand that I do. I'm a realist (or, at least, I try to be). I go where the evidence leads, I form hypotheses about how things work, I discard the ones the evidence contradicts and keep the ones that remain consistent with the evidence. Which is to say: I attempt to apply the scientific method to everything.

I take the approach I take because the real world demands it. When I fail to do so, I usually get burned in some way. This should come as no surprise, for even the very fabric of the universe itself is arrayed against us -- that's what entropy is, after all.


And the evidence is that the courts will rule as they want to, not as the Constitution or even the Supreme Court demands. This is because judges at all levels wield power and are used to doing so. They are accustomed to getting their way, and there are no real checks in the system to tame their expectations, at least none that those who are in a position to make use of them have thus far demonstrated a willingness to use.

Judges are a ruling class in and of themselves, and behave like it. And guns (and, therefore, RKBA) scare judges far more than any other singular issue brought before them. That means they will issue rulings to their liking with a tenacity we've never seen before.

The above is true of even the Supreme Court justices (though some, such as Thomas, are more principled than others). SCOTUS' handling of Williams is a prime example of this: they decided to let his conviction stand simply because enough of them didn't like him. They denied justice to Williams on that basis alone, eschewing their duty to apply the supreme law of the land fairly to all. They had the option of granting cert and then holding the case pending the next round of 2A cases, or instructing the lower court to do the same, but they didn't even bother to do that. They threw Williams under the bus for no reason other than that they didn't like him. That is consistent with the behavior of a spoiled ruler who believes himself to be above the common people.



And, yes, the talks between Gene & him are VERY interesting.


I do enjoy those quite a lot. I get frustrated sometimes because it's not uncommon for Gene to simply ignore the fundamental logic I bring forth; to attempt to wave away my arguments without really addressing them. When that happens, I generally presume at that point that I'm correct, for if he could properly refute those arguments, why wouldn't he? :D

kcbrown
10-20-2011, 12:24 PM
Can the US SJC take such a massive insult from a lower court? What is
the right response when your subordinate directly and repeatedly ignores
instructions? I do not know the procedural rules, but this is an odd one.

"Stop, or I shall say 'stop' again, only more sternly, with a determined look. I may even shake my finger at you!"


Honestly, has the Supreme Court ever had to deal with what amounts to a judicial rebellion? My bet is that they haven't, but I've not gone looking for the answer to that question, either.

They've had to deal with government officials defying their will, but that's not the same thing at all, for the defiance in that case was with respect to orders issued by the court targeting the officials in question, not with respect to deliberate misinterpretation or defiance by a lower court of a SCOTUS ruling.

kcbrown
10-20-2011, 12:35 PM
Let us not also forget that kcbrown is a pessimist. (I love that about you btw :D).


Actually, I try to be a realist, but I also try to err on the side of caution. Technically, I suppose that makes me a pessimist (though I like to claim that I'm actually an optimist, since when I make a prediction, things usually turn out even worse than I predicted. :D ).



His hopes are permanently dashed, and he sees the worst outcome, and prepares for it, in everything.


Well, let's just say that my hopes are kept firmly in check, and that when I don't do that myself, the real world does it for me! :D

M. D. Van Norman
10-20-2011, 1:14 PM
I get frustrated sometimes because it’s not uncommon for Gene to simply ignore the fundamental logic I bring forth; to attempt to wave away my arguments without really addressing them.

I think this is an artifact of the game at hand. The “right people” must presume that the system is inherently just and act accordingly to credibly execute their legal strategy.

Caladain
10-20-2011, 1:22 PM
I do enjoy those quite a lot. I get frustrated sometimes because it's not uncommon for Gene to simply ignore the fundamental logic I bring forth; to attempt to wave away my arguments without really addressing them. When that happens, I generally presume at that point that I'm correct, for if he could properly refute those arguments, why wouldn't he? :D

Outsiders perspective: Generally you're both talking about seperate things...you're both correct, but since you're not actually talking about the same thing, you both get frustrated.

X: His shoe is untied
Y: His jacket is undone
X: But what about his *SHOE*?
Y: But what about his *JACKET*?

Me: :popcorn:

hoffmang
10-20-2011, 5:15 PM
I do enjoy those quite a lot. I get frustrated sometimes because it's not uncommon for Gene to simply ignore the fundamental logic I bring forth; to attempt to wave away my arguments without really addressing them. When that happens, I generally presume at that point that I'm correct, for if he could properly refute those arguments, why wouldn't he? :D

Usually these are places where you're trying to apply CS style logic to inherently human and political systems. They aren't susceptible to the logic in question. Query how many internal contradictions any party platform both written and as applied actually is and you'll start to understand what I'm saying.

Beta should have beaten VHS on every obvious logical standard, but... In hindsight, there were a couple of key drivers that helped VHS but those are not logical ex ante. On a purely logical basis ex ante, OLL's should have had the same outcomes as UOC, but there were unique mixes of political and regulatory factors that drove different outcomes that some of us can see and predict.

-Gene

kcbrown
10-20-2011, 6:01 PM
Usually these are places where you're trying to apply CS style logic to inherently human and political systems. They aren't susceptible to the logic in question. Query how many internal contradictions any party platform both written and as applied actually is and you'll start to understand what I'm saying.


There is some of that, and for those things that involve politics to that degree, I have essentially thrown in the towel. The reason is that the evidence in those cases contradicts the hypotheses I'd been using and the resulting predictions thereof. The evidence there demands different hypotheses, ones which I am unable to formulate.

But the implications of rulings, such as Nordyke, and the general behavior of the courts, have not yet yielded such contradictory evidence (the only real example that has is the district court tasked with handling Ezell, but it occurs to me that it's possible the judge in that court on that case ruled the way she did most recently in order to thread the needle between the need for control over the case and whatever need there may be to keep it away from the 7th Circuit).


Nevertheless, that doesn't explain why you seem to be relatively consistent in refusing to knock down my logic either by showing an error in it or by bringing contradictory evidence to bear. That is, rather than doing either of those things, you become silent. That's your right, of course. I just find it interesting. :D

Sgt Raven
10-20-2011, 8:58 PM
"Stop, or I shall say 'stop' again, only more sternly, with a determined look. I may even shake my finger at you!"


Honestly, has the Supreme Court ever had to deal with what amounts to a judicial rebellion? My bet is that they haven't, but I've not gone looking for the answer to that question, either.

They've had to deal with government officials defying their will, but that's not the same thing at all, for the defiance in that case was with respect to orders issued by the court targeting the officials in question, not with respect to deliberate misinterpretation or defiance by a lower court of a SCOTUS ruling.

Well SCOTUS has dealt pretty severely with the 9th Circuit and Death Penalty cases, to name one.

kcbrown
10-20-2011, 9:53 PM
Well SCOTUS has dealt pretty severely with the 9th Circuit and Death Penalty cases, to name one.

Are you referring to Wong v Belmontes (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/17/nation/na-court-death-sentence17)?

If so, I see nothing there about SCOTUS "dealing severely" with the 9th Circuit. In fact, they remanded that case back to the 9th Circuit again. That makes it the fourth time the case has been under the purview of the 9th Circuit.

(SCOTUS' ruling can be found here (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1263.pdf))


Yeah, SCOTUS is dealing really severely with the 9th Circuit here. I'm sure the 9th Circuit is quaking in its proverbial boots. Maybe the next time, SCOTUS will shake its finger at the 9th Circuit in a stern manner. :rolleyes:

Crom
10-20-2011, 10:24 PM
Are you referring to Wong v Belmontes (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/17/nation/na-court-death-sentence17)?

If so, I see nothing there about SCOTUS "dealing severely" with the 9th Circuit. In fact, they remanded that case back to the 9th Circuit again. That makes it the fourth time the case has been under the purview of the 9th Circuit.

(SCOTUS' ruling can be found here (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1263.pdf))


Yeah, SCOTUS is dealing really severely with the 9th Circuit here. I'm sure the 9th Circuit is quaking in its proverbial boots. Maybe the next time, SCOTUS will shake its finger at the 9th Circuit in a stern manner. :rolleyes:

Good informative post. The sarcasm in your last part of your post is very funny too. :laugh:

Mulay El Raisuli
10-21-2011, 6:05 AM
"Stop, or I shall say 'stop' again, only more sternly, with a determined look. I may even shake my finger at you!"


Honestly, has the Supreme Court ever had to deal with what amounts to a judicial rebellion? My bet is that they haven't, but I've not gone looking for the answer to that question, either.

They've had to deal with government officials defying their will, but that's not the same thing at all, for the defiance in that case was with respect to orders issued by the court targeting the officials in question, not with respect to deliberate misinterpretation or defiance by a lower court of a SCOTUS ruling.


I don't know about that. Weren't lower courts & govt officials pretty recalcitrant in re those other civil rights back in the 60s?

RE: your other post, your approach may be correct (realistic vs. pessimistic) instead of you suffering from BGOS. My view is colored & I may have projected that onto you. Still, I have hope that Gene is basically correct.


The Raisuli

OleCuss
10-21-2011, 6:39 AM
I think there may be a bit of a mis-communication or mis-understanding.

I don't know that there is a logical difference so much as a knowledge base difference.

CGF board members (perhaps several more than the others) have access to information which I will never have. There are communications with courts, with lawyers, and with politicians to which most of us are not privy. There are also court cases which are in progress which they work on and we don't know about - some of them apparently fairly irrelevant to furthering our RKBA but still give some sense as to where the courts are moving.

To go further, they are also talking to other activists across the nation and getting a perspective on the progress of RKBA and how we are affecting their situation and getting ideas about how what they are doing will affect ours.

I cannot duplicate the particular knowledge base which Gene, Brandon, Bill, and the other CGF board members have. I'm not so sure I'd even want to have that knowledge. So on matters of RKBA jurisprudence and politics/legislation I have to admit that they are just plain better at it than I am - and maybe better at it than anyone else.

kcbrown
10-21-2011, 10:28 AM
I don't know about that. Weren't lower courts & govt officials pretty recalcitrant in re those other civil rights back in the 60s?


Government officials certainly were. I get the impression that the federal district and appellate courts weren't. But I may be wrong about that.



RE: your other post, your approach may be correct (realistic vs. pessimistic) instead of you suffering from BGOS. My view is colored & I may have projected that onto you. Still, I have hope that Gene is basically correct.


I hope Gene is basically correct as well. But I keep my hopes and my expectations completely separated from each other, and try not to let the former influence the latter.

So it is certainly my hope that we will have shall-issue LTC throughout the state within 24 months, and that we will have LOC of handguns in a few years. But that is most certainly not my expectation -- my expectation is that it will take quite a lot longer than that: many years to several decades, in large part because of judicial misbehavior.

sreiter
10-21-2011, 12:30 PM
Me too. Mass courts are about as bad as Chicago when it comes to freedoms of this nature. They will try to wiggle around the wording so as to make it appear they re-wrote it, but in reality it will be a trick of the eyes.O had a case in Ma where the cop admitted on the stand he did not do the steps outlined by law (traffic law check speed by pacing for a prescribed distance, as well as about 5 other things) The judge didn't care.

Knuckle Dragger
10-21-2011, 12:35 PM
O had a case in Ma where the cop admitted on the stand he did not do the steps outlined by law (traffic law check speed by pacing for a prescribed distance, as well as about 5 other things) The judge didn't care.That's actually pretty common, especially in cases involving guns.

sreiter
10-21-2011, 12:36 PM
Usually these are places where you're trying to apply CS style logic to inherently human and political systems. They aren't susceptible to the logic in question. Query how many internal contradictions any party platform both written and as applied actually is and you'll start to understand what I'm saying.

Beta should have beaten VHS on every obvious logical standard, but... In hindsight, there were a couple of key drivers that helped VHS but those are not logical ex ante. On a purely logical basis ex ante, OLL's should have had the same outcomes as UOC, but there were unique mixes of political and regulatory factors that drove different outcomes that some of us can see and predict.

-GeneIsn't that usually a marketing based issue. people not voting for limiting lawyer fee's a few years back comes to mind.

Curtis
10-21-2011, 2:11 PM
"Stop, or I shall say 'stop' again, only more sternly, with a determined look. I may even shake my finger at you!"

Sounds like the UN.

sreiter
10-21-2011, 4:27 PM
That's actually pretty common, especially in cases involving guns.

Common yes

Abuse of their position? Absolutely