PDA

View Full Version : Petition of the Day: Lane v. Holder


Southwest Chuck
10-11-2013, 12:05 PM
Listed on yesterday's Petition of the Day :punk: . Thanks to Krucam over at MDShooters.
Lane was listed as yesterday's 'Petition of the Day'....

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/10/petition-of-the-day-489/

3 cases' fates being decided today...Woollard, Lane & Abramski.

I couldn't fine the current Lane v. Holder thread .... :shrug:

It's going to be a big day on Tuesday!

press1280
10-12-2013, 3:59 AM
We hope it will be. For Lane it's simply a matter of getting standing so the lower courts will actually make a ruling on the merits.

CCWFacts
10-12-2013, 10:45 AM
I'm praying this weekend! There is little hope for us in California beyond these cert petitions.

penguin0123
10-12-2013, 11:58 AM
If I'm reading this right, this has the potential to end the roster?

strongpoint
10-12-2013, 4:44 PM
If I'm reading this right, this has the potential to end the roster?

what are you reading that led you to believe that?

Wolverine
10-12-2013, 5:03 PM
what are you reading that led you to believe that?

The only thing I can think of is that if SCOTUS rules that consumers have standing to bring a lawsuit challenging a law that constrains dealers, then this would open up access to the courts for consumers to challenge the roster.

Of course, I don't know if standing is a problem with challenging the roster or not. Anybody know?

press1280
01-30-2014, 3:47 PM
Sort of a non update here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-1401.htm

Lane went to SCOTUS' conference on October 11th and hasn't been heard from since. My guess is they are "holding" it for another case for a possible GVR(grant,vacate,remand).

Al Norris
01-31-2014, 11:08 AM
That's the general consensus.

wireless
02-05-2014, 7:32 PM
If scotus rules in the favor of holder, does that mean if someone bought a gun in Arizona via private party it would be legal to buy with a CA license. I know it's illegal to bring into the state but the transfer itself would be legal?

Al Norris
02-07-2014, 6:20 AM
wireless, the issue before the SCOTUS, in Lane, is whether or not Ms. Lane has standing to sue. The Lower court(s) ruled she did not.

That's the only issue that the Court will look at in this case, should they decide to grant cert.

The two NRA case from the CA5, NRA v. BATF and NRA v. McCraw, have been placed before the Court on their Feb 21 conference date. Since Standing is also at issue in those cases, Lane has been relisted for that conference also.

ddestruel
02-08-2014, 7:32 AM
so the more likely is the Grant, address standing then kick it back to the lower court

press1280
02-08-2014, 8:29 AM
so the more likely is the Grant, address standing then kick it back to the lower court

But the NRA cases ruled the plaintiffs did have standing. Is that a possible outcome, that SCOTUS takes the cases and ONLY rules on standing? That would be a HUGE letdown.

strongpoint
02-08-2014, 9:06 AM
But the NRA cases ruled the plaintiffs did have standing. Is that a possible outcome, that SCOTUS takes the cases and ONLY rules on standing? That would be a HUGE letdown.


read the petition for certiorari. standing is the only question being asked, so that's the question that will be answered. that's how it works at SCOTUS.

what's more, lane hasn't even been adjudicated at lower levels because of the ruling on standing, so there's no other decision for SCOTUS to review.