PDA

View Full Version : Court takes no action on gun case


FreedomIsNotFree
11-13-2007, 7:11 AM
The Supreme Court on Tuesday announced no action on a new case testing the meaning of the Second Amendment. The next date for possible action on it is likely to be November 26, following a pre-Thanksgiving Conference set for November 20.

The Court agreed to hear one new case, on the rate of recovery of the costs of paralegal services when a winning party in a case seeks attorney fees. The issue is whether such services are to be paid at the market rate for such services, or only at the level of their actual cost. The new case is Richlin Security Service v. Chertoff (06-1717).

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-takes-no-action-on-gun-case/


We've waited nearly 70 years....what's a few more days...the next date for possible action is in 2 WEEKS....haha.

aileron
11-13-2007, 7:14 AM
Beat me to it.

Darn.

383green
11-13-2007, 7:15 AM
Does this mean that they neither grant nor refuse to grant cert, and they're just putting off that decision until later?

JawBone
11-13-2007, 7:17 AM
Putting it off...

All these nibbles and no bites. What are they waiting for? The People deserve a ruling on this case. There is disagreement in public, a split in the Circuits, both sides want cert granted, the issue is the meaning and interpretation of one of the first Ten Amendments and it hasn't been touched in 70 years.

Grant cert already - do your job.

chico.cm
11-13-2007, 7:24 AM
:lurk5:

lazuris
11-13-2007, 7:31 AM
If the court does not take the case does that mean the "Heller" stands and the lower courts ruling also stands.

JawBone
11-13-2007, 7:39 AM
If the court does not take the case does that mean the "Heller" stands and the lower courts ruling also stands.

If the Court does not take the case, that means citizens of DC will be able to posses handguns and long guns in their homes. (the stay will be lifted on the DC Circuit opinion).

For the rest of us, the world would not change.

Piper
11-13-2007, 7:40 AM
Talk about stringing people along. Any idea what the reasoning is for dragging this out?

JawBone
11-13-2007, 7:47 AM
Talk about stringing people along. Any idea what the reasoning is for dragging this out?

Ginsburg's clerk wants more time to find that "Militia = National Guard" reference in the founding documents...:p

WokMaster1
11-13-2007, 7:55 AM
Ginsburg's clerk wants more time to find that "Militia = National Guard" reference in the founding documents...:p

LMAO! Granny, heh? I wonder what her stance is.:p

Bizcuits
11-13-2007, 8:14 AM
What are they waiting for?

They're sitting on a political nuclear weapon. They're gonna take their time with it.

It's sad and pathetic American freedoms have become political instead of clear / cut. But its why they're taking their time.

bulgron
11-13-2007, 8:16 AM
How long can they delay taking the case without denying cert? I have a hypothesis that the elections next year, and the timing of hearing this case, may be of concern to them.

EastBayRidge
11-13-2007, 8:34 AM
If the Court does not take the case, that means citizens of DC will be able to posses handguns and long guns in their homes. (the stay will be lifted on the DC Circuit opinion).

For the rest of us, the world would not change.

Yes and no - my understanding is that no cert means that in the future, pretty much all federal gun control laws would be subject to challenge in a circuit with a very pro-individual 2nd Amendment precedent. Even if the SC denies cert, we'll have that as a block on future federal infringements.

tiki
11-13-2007, 8:43 AM
I have a suspicion they are going to "hear the case" amongst themselves over the next few weeks or so and see where they would wind up deciding on the existing questions/arguments presented to the lower courts and the appeal documents. Once they figure out which way they will decide, then they will look at the implications and if they don't like them, they may start rewriting the questions such that they can ultimately grant cert on a question or questions that will allow them to rule in a way that makes them happy politically. That's my take.
I think if there was a sense that they would rule collective, they would have just come out and taken the case, ruled collective and been done with it. This way, the feds could ban the assault weapons and the states would be free to do as they choose.
The delay and the fact that they haven't touched the 2nd Amendment since Miller says to me that ultimately, they would rule individual interpretation and they don't want to do that because it would roll back most of the gun control laws already in effect.
Now, they may be pushed into a corner where they have to take it, so, they need to figure out how to tailor the questions such that they suit the ruling that they want to make.

Piper
11-13-2007, 9:23 AM
I have a suspicion they are going to "hear the case" amongst themselves over the next few weeks or so and see where they would wind up deciding on the existing questions/arguments presented to the lower courts and the appeal documents. Once they figure out which way they will decide, then they will look at the implications and if they don't like them, they may start rewriting the questions such that they can ultimately grant cert on a question or questions that will allow them to rule in a way that makes them happy politically. That's my take.
I think if there was a sense that they would rule collective, they would have just come out and taken the case, ruled collective and been done with it. This way, the feds could ban the assault weapons and the states would be free to do as they choose.
The delay and the fact that they haven't touched the 2nd Amendment since Miller says to me that ultimately, they would rule individual interpretation and they don't want to do that because it would roll back most of the gun control laws already in effect.
Now, they may be pushed into a corner where they have to take it, so, they need to figure out how to tailor the questions such that they suit the ruling that they want to make.

Your implications border on acusing SCOTUS of treason or at least collusion. If that indeed were to happen, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito would lose credibility, given their open opinions that the 2A is an individual right. Considering that even liberal legal scholars like Tribe and Amar agree that the 2A is an individual right, my take on any delay is that they are reading this, comparing notes with the founders, figuring out how to write this so that everyone is happy and deciding who is going to write the opinion. But what do I know?

Bizcuits
11-13-2007, 9:44 AM
Your implications border on acusing SCOTUS of treason or at least collusion. If that indeed were to happen, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito would lose credibility, given their open opinions that the 2A is an individual right. Considering that even liberal legal scholars like Tribe and Amar agree that the 2A is an individual right, my take on any delay is that they are reading this, comparing notes with the founders, figuring out how to write this so that everyone is happy and deciding who is going to write the opinion. But what do I know?

Ding ding ding we have a winner...

They don't want to drop a political A-Bomb and piss off one entire party. IMO, they're gonna examine this like it was nudes of Grace Park.

tiki
11-13-2007, 10:02 AM
Now, they may be pushed into a corner where they have to take it, so, they need to figure out how to tailor the questions such that they suit the ruling that they want to make.

Piper, I didn't use the term "make everyone happy", but essentially, thats what I meant.
It would be nice for them to just come out and say individual rights, now lets move on, but, I don't think they will do that because the implications would be too broad. I feel that if they felt it was a collective right, they wouldn't have too much trouble ruling that way with no delay.
So, to "make everyone happy", I think they will come out with a ruling on it as individual rights, which as you said they have already indicated that in past statements, but, after they modify the questions before them, which, they can and probably will do so that the final rulling doesn't just open the floodgates. But, i'm just an engineer who only had one law class in my MBA program so, i'm certainly no expert, but, thats the feeling I get from what I have been reading.

megavolt121
11-13-2007, 10:10 AM
Ding ding ding we have a winner...

They don't want to drop a political A-Bomb and piss off one entire party.

So what if you piss off the whole party? IIRC from my legal studies class, a Supreme Court Justice is appointed for life so there's no worry about backlash from political parties...

JawBone
11-13-2007, 10:13 AM
The delay still makes no sense. This is a textbook "grant cert" situation.

They have 8 months to write the opinion to defuse; placate the masses or completely punt on the standing issue.

My money says they will rule it as an individual right. Outright bans would be clearly unconstitutional, the rest of the regulations will be given a standard of review (hopefully "strict scrutiny" as we are dealing with a fundamental right).

It will take ten years or more for all the current regs. to go up the chain for review. I don't foresee any riots in the streets on Opinion Day either way.

hoffmang
11-13-2007, 10:16 AM
SCOTUS can sit on this for a long time. No cert is a smaller win for our side as all Federal gun laws would be challengeable in DC.

I find it interesting that the order list was relatively brief. I'm speculating that they spent a lot of time on this case in private conference. One of the pre-issues here is that its not usual to have an appellant(DC) be so disingenious with the question presented. As such, this will have sparks flying at this round more so than it should normally.

Also, be very careful assuming either that Ginsburg is against guns or that Kennedy will be the swing vote on this issue.

My personal wild a** bet is that there is a debate between Roberts and Thomas about how widely to redraw the question. I'm speculating that the debate is whether to stay with a narrow question of Individual rights and let the appellate ruling stand or to expand to rule directly on the scope of the right. My tea leaf reading says we have 5 for a broad ruling and 6 for a narrow ruling. Which is best is a very interesting and open question that Justices who would be on our side of the issue would have reasonable disagreements about.

-Gene

JawBone
11-13-2007, 10:24 AM
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the decision came down unanimous for an individual right. This branch of government actually reads the constitution.

I am much more concerned about the level of review they choose. If it goes 5-4 for a "rational basis" test not much will change (except for the few locales with complete bans).

Rob P.
11-13-2007, 10:52 AM
I agree mostly with Gene. They are going to redraw the question/issue during these 2 weeks of sitting on the case.

Where I differ form Gene is that I believe that they are going to redraw the question to avoid the the issue as much as possible. I think they are going to try to word it somewhere along the lines of "is the DC handgun regulation an unreasonable intrusion into the privacy rights of individuals inside the home?"

This avoids the whole 2A militia/individual right issue, incorporation issue, and changes the whole outcome from gun rights to privacy rights. Which is a lot less politically divisive.

I REALLY hope I'm wrong but I have this feeling.......

JALLEN
11-13-2007, 11:02 AM
If the Court does not take the case, that means citizens of DC will be able to posses handguns and long guns in their homes. (the stay will be lifted on the DC Circuit opinion).

For the rest of us, the world would not change.

At least until DC gets around to re-writing the current gun law which is struck down. They can come up with something else drawn to avoid the aspects that resulted in unConstitutionality, and still be fairly onerous.

I'm surprised that they didn't do that, actually. I guess even if the SC upholds the Circuit Court, the DC lawmakers can still impose whatever regulations they can come up with, and here it goes all over again.

bulgron
11-13-2007, 11:04 AM
I agree mostly with Gene. They are going to redraw the question/issue during these 2 weeks of sitting on the case.

Where I differ form Gene is that I believe that they are going to redraw the question to avoid the the issue as much as possible. I think they are going to try to word it somewhere along the lines of "is the DC handgun regulation an unreasonable intrusion into the privacy rights of individuals inside the home?"

This avoids the whole 2A militia/individual right issue, incorporation issue, and changes the whole outcome from gun rights to privacy rights. Which is a lot less politically divisive.

I REALLY hope I'm wrong but I have this feeling.......

Uh, can they really redraw the question that far out of shape? Really? That doesn't seem right.

Is there an historical example of this sort of thing happening?

bulgron
11-13-2007, 11:07 AM
I'm surprised that they didn't do that, actually. I guess even if the SC upholds the Circuit Court, the DC lawmakers can still impose whatever regulations they can come up with, and here it goes all over again.

They'll just offer up a firearm licensing law (for keeping a loaded gun in the home) and they'll gate it with good cause. As anyone from a non-rural CA county knows, good cause cannot be met by ordinary citizens. Then someone will sue over good cause requirements and then, maybe, finally, we'll have that thrown out on constitutional grounds.

What can I say, it's a dream of mine.

Rob P.
11-13-2007, 11:28 AM
Uh, can they really redraw the question that far out of shape? Really? That doesn't seem right.

Is there an historical example of this sort of thing happening?

They can address any issue that was raised in the lower courts. That means that they can address the "reasonable regulation" question as that was part of the lower courts opinion and was raised by both parties in Heller in their application for cert.

Reasonable regulation has been the issue in many cases. One such was the New England case banning the use/possession of contraceptives in the home. SCOTUS struck that one on the grounds of invasion of privacy which eventually lead to the decision in Roe v. Wade and the creation of an unwritten right called "privacy" in the 4th amendment. SCOTUS could very easily change the focus from the 2nd to the 4th and avoid the whole controversy.

The big question is "will they?" I hope not but the courts do things and they please and not as we would like them to.

JawBone
11-13-2007, 11:37 AM
Some theories from an update on www.scotusblog.com :


...The Court, of course, does not explain the inaction. But among the possible reasons for delaying the case are these: one or more Justices simply asked for more time to consider the two cases; the Court may be rewriting the question or questions it will be willing to review — especially in view of the disagreement between the two sides on what should be at issue; the Court may have voted initially to deny review of one or both cases and one or more Justices are writing a dissent from the denial. The appeal in 07-290 (District of Columbia v. Heller) raises the key issue about the Second Amendment’s meaning — that is, whether it guarantees an individual right to have a handgun for private use, at least in one’s home — and the appeal in 07-335 (Parker v. District of Columbia) poses a question about who may bring lawsuits to challenge laws before they are actively enforced. Together, the cases thus present a somewhat complex mix for the Court, and it perhaps was not much of a surprise that no order issued on Tuesday. At no point is there likely to be an answer as to what happened to bring about the delay. Both cases are expected to be re-listed for the Nov. 20 Conference...

The one about one or more justices wanting time to write a dissent from the denial of cert is bothersome...

FreshTapCoke
11-13-2007, 11:39 AM
May I chime in that this is a misleading thread title? It came up in my text browser and it sounded like the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

chico.cm
11-13-2007, 12:48 PM
So the narrow view v. broad view?

What are the implications of each (in brief)?

hoffmang
11-13-2007, 1:44 PM
Narrow:
Easier to get a larger majority for the core right. Leaves a lot more questions on the table that have to be answered by future litigation. Leaves the risk that we have to get back to a less favorable SCOTUS in the future to decide incorporation or Assault Weapons.

Broad:
Harder to get a broader majority and that may "tarnish" the individual rights interpretation some. Makes the next set of cases around the country much easier for the pro-gun side and limits the likelihood that we all get back to SCOTUS.

-Gene

Ford8N
11-13-2007, 6:17 PM
The Court agreed to hear one new case, on the rate of recovery of the costs of paralegal services when a winning party in a case seeks attorney fees. The issue is whether such services are to be paid at the market rate for such services, or only at the level of their actual cost. The new case is Richlin Security Service v. Chertoff (06-1717).




Jeez...what a great US Constitutional issue to take up SCOTUS time.

Take it to small claims court or just pay the damn bill.:nopity:

subdjoe
11-13-2007, 6:30 PM
I'm still not sure if I want the USSC to take this case or not. Lord knows how it would shake out. They just might support the collectivists view.

tgriffin
11-13-2007, 7:36 PM
I'm still not sure if I want the USSC to take this case or not. Lord knows how it would shake out. They just might support the collectivists view.

One way or another this is the most important case to be heard in the last decade. Either way, it will have its benefits and consequences. Its just a matter of time to find out which path we take next.

Piper
11-13-2007, 9:10 PM
In 1997, Clarence Thomas wrote this:

“This court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment.........Perhaps, at some future date, the court will have the opportunity.”

I'm thinking Clarence Thomas is looking forward to this case.

In 1996, Judge Samuel Alito cast the lone dissenting vote among his fellow Third Circuit Court of Appeals judges when they upheld the authority of Congress to ban fully automatic machine guns.

John Roberts to date has not expressed an opinion about the second amendment.

Surprisingly, this is what Antonin Scalia said about the second amendment. “I think the framers’ intent was to see to it that [through] militias, states as sovereign entities had a right to arm themselves. To me, it’s not about individuals—it’s about groups.”

So that's the conservative part of the court.

JawBone
11-13-2007, 9:19 PM
Also keep in mind it only takes the votes of four Justices to grant cert. So who is holding up the show?

FreedomIsNotFree
11-14-2007, 12:38 AM
Jeez...what a great US Constitutional issue to take up SCOTUS time.

Take it to small claims court or just pay the damn bill.:nopity:


Uh...That was not a post by me....not sure where you found it, but I know I didn't write it.

FreedomIsNotFree
11-14-2007, 12:44 AM
May I chime in that this is a misleading thread title? It came up in my text browser and it sounded like the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.


That was the exact message posted from the SCOTUS blog... SCOTUS neither granted nor denied cert.. They took no action.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-takes-no-action-on-gun-case/

tgriffin
11-14-2007, 8:41 AM
Also keep in mind it only takes the votes of four Justices to grant cert. So who is holding up the show?

As others have mentioned, this is a political thermal nuclear device.

I really dont get why everyone feels that this delay is a bad thing. For all we know, it is the 6 justices we believe in our favor that are holding the process back strategically in order to insure that it has the best chance possible of winning in the way we want it to.

THIS IS NOT A PROCESS THAT WE WANT OR NEED TO BE RUSHED.

Patience is a virture my friends.

dustoff31
11-14-2007, 9:44 AM
As others have mentioned, this is a political thermal nuclear device.

I really dont get why everyone feels that this delay is a bad thing. For all we know, it is the 6 justices we believe in our favor that are holding the process back strategically in order to insure that it has the best chance possible of winning in the way we want it to.

THIS IS NOT A PROCESS THAT WE WANT OR NEED TO BE RUSHED.

Patience is a virture my friends.


I agree. I tend to think that the thought process of the pro 2A justices might be along the lines of "Let's not take the case. It's still a win for gunnies, and we can avoid stepping on any political landmines. With the lower courts ruling in place, we are sure to see this again and can take it up without an election looming."

mblat
11-14-2007, 9:51 AM
I agree. I tend to think that the thought process of the pro 2A justices might be along the lines of "Let's not take the case. It's still a win for gunnies, and we can avoid stepping on any political landmines. With the lower courts ruling in place, we are sure to see this again and can take it up without an election looming."

I disagree. They have to realize that if they won't take the case six month (year? two) from now they will be case that argues unconstitutionality of NFA/GCA of 1968. Because in combination they have driven price of full autos so high that it is amounts into defacto prohibition for majority of population. Plus outright prohibition on production of new weapons.... Isn't that a ban that DC court ruled is unacceptable? If they won't take this case they will have to deal with many more very soon.
And dealing with full autos in entire country is much bigger land mine than with gun ban in one city.

dustoff31
11-14-2007, 10:16 AM
I disagree. They have to realize that if they won't take the case six month (year? two) from now they will be case that argues unconstitutionality of NFA/GCA of 1968. Because in combination they have driven price of full autos so high that it is amounts into defacto prohibition for majority of population. Plus outright prohibition on production of new weapons.... Isn't that a ban that DC court ruled is unacceptable? If they won't take this case they will have to deal with many more very soon.
And dealing with full autos in entire country is much bigger land mine than with gun ban in one city.

I understand your point. Perhaps I'm just jaded by having worked for too many years in the gov't system where the motto has become never do today what you can put off until tomorrow, or blame on someone else.