PDA

View Full Version : Analysis-Supreme Court 2A Action/Inaction


Paul S
10-17-2013, 8:34 AM
Interesting read ...

"The message that the Supreme Court has seemed to be sendingóat least up until nowóis that it is in no hurry to resolve open questions about how far constitutional gun rights extend. It has not even agreed to spell out in a final way the constitutional test that it will apply to judge the validity of any specific gun control law."


http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-supreme-court-only-willing-fringes-second-101205772.html

selfshrevident
10-17-2013, 10:57 AM
I think the writing on the wall is pretty clear. The court isn't interested. Here are some theories of mine and others out there on what may be going on and who's got cold feet on the Heller 5 side and who may have turned the way of Judas.

Roberts constantly monitors the news and politics. He switched his vote on 0bamacare because of how the media would blast the court. An issue as hot as carrying firearms in public is making him cower in fear of the media. He is deeply and WRONGLY concerned with public perception of the court which affects his judgement.

Could also be Kennedy. Someone mentioned before that the reason Heller left the door WIDE OPEN to restrictions was to get someone who had cold feet about the ruling back over to the conservative side. That person was most likely Kennedy.

Also there could very well be some arm twisting/blackmail going on by 0bama/NSA. The theory is that Roberts acted unethical (perhaps broken the law) in the adoption of his 2 Irish kids. NSA dug up the dirt, threatened to ruin his legacy if he didn't vote the way he did on 0bamacare.

Wolverine
10-17-2013, 11:10 AM
It could also be as simple as the desire by some justices to let more Circuit courts weigh in on the matter first.

selfshrevident
10-17-2013, 11:14 AM
It could also be as simple as the desire by some justices to let more Circuit courts weigh in on the matter first.

They're playing with fire though. They're all pretty old and everyday that goes by is another day they're closer to dying or retiring. I'm sure they know this. Given the 9th's track record of sitting on cases as long as they want I'd say this isn't a very sound strategy for them. But hey, they're the experts and know what they're doing.

I'll just pray for good health.

garand1945
10-17-2013, 3:38 PM
Regardless of the inside baseball, the net effect is that the court is largely ineffectual in protecting our 2a rights. They pick and choose where to defend the constitution and where to attack it. In some regards they are leaving many individual gun issues up to the states, as if this were a states rights issue instead of an enumerated rights issue. The net effect for us is that if we want more gun freedoms we need to move to a more hospitable state, while still participating vigorously in furthering cases that will expand on Heller to fully encompass the right as defined in the construction. We also need to be on our ground game getting our kids, our friends, and our kids friends shooting through the various channels like Appleseed, scouting, CMP.

The truth is the 2a can be restricted in a practical means if the population agrees, just as slavery was accepted by a majority despite its prima face injustice. We need to win with our neighbors as much as in the courts.

press1280
10-18-2013, 2:00 AM
The most plausible explanation to me is that they are waiting for more circuit/state opinions. The Heller 5 are not supposed to be thinking about getting another opinion in before retirement. They'll wait for the issue to simmer before diving in. If you look at other cases that got cert, they were deep deep splits. We don't have it here, and the justices aren't die hards like us (unfortunately).

El Toro
10-18-2013, 7:59 AM
Consider for a moment that Roberts vote on Obamacare wasnt some tinfoil hat conspiracy. Look instead at how he characterized the law as a tax. It is in fact a tax, a huge one. Since the SCOTUS ruled decades ago that congress can levy taxes, they have stayed out of most tax fights instead letting the voters fix the problem. Roberts opinion was one the Liberal Justices couldnt argue about, that Obamacare is a HUGE tax on the American people. Roberts let it stand so that the voters could feel the pain and be reminded at tax time how liberal idealism dealt a blow to the American economy. Hurts dont it? Next time dont vote Socialist leanng Liberals to high office. Thats is Roberts message.

As for 2A cases, I think they will only take LOC cases as they have a long history of allowing concealed to be regulated.

Paladin
10-18-2013, 8:12 AM
From the article:

The court will shortly have two more opportunities to take up a significant Second Amendment case. Both, by coincidence, involve appeals by the National Rifle Association. One is a challenge to a federal law that bans licensed gun dealers from selling handguns to minors. The second one involves a challenge to a series of Texas laws that make it a crime for anyone under age 21 to carry a handgun in public, even for self-defense.

The 2nd case is NRA v. McCraw (CA5). What is the first case referred to above?

Have they both asked for cert?

press1280
10-18-2013, 8:28 AM
They have both asked for cert.The first case is NRA v. BATFE I believe. The McGraw case is a little ahead and should be at a conference very soon.

fr33domfightr
10-18-2013, 9:05 AM
Consider for a moment that Roberts vote on Obamacare wasnt some tinfoil hat conspiracy. Look instead at how he characterized the law as a tax. It is in fact a tax, a huge one. Since the SCOTUS ruled decades ago that congress can levy taxes, they have stayed out of most tax fights instead letting the voters fix the problem. Roberts opinion was one the Liberal Justices couldnt argue about, that Obamacare is a HUGE tax on the American people. Roberts let it stand so that the voters could feel the pain and be reminded at tax time how liberal idealism dealt a blow to the American economy. Hurts dont it? Next time dont vote Socialist leanng Liberals to high office. Thats is Roberts message.

As for 2A cases, I think they will only take LOC cases as they have a long history of allowing concealed to be regulated.

I think it was the wrong decision. Why? Not so much for the penalty/tax reason, but because it forces one into commerce, who otherwise might decide not to buy.

And because I don't believe our founder's ever intended our government to have the power to force us to buy/sell anything under the force of the government.

stag1500
10-18-2013, 11:50 AM
Regardless of the inside baseball, the net effect is that the court is largely ineffectual in protecting our 2a rights.

If that were true, then they could have easily upheld the gun prohibitions in DC and Chicago and ended the 2nd Amendment as we know it. They did the exact opposite.

If they didn't want us to bear arms in public, they could have just said so in DC v Heller or McDonald v Chicago decisions and that would have been the end of it.

Or they could have taken Kachalsky or Woolard and ruled against us. But they didn't.

ChrisC
10-18-2013, 12:14 PM
I think it was the wrong decision. Why? Not so much for the penalty/tax reason, but because it forces one into commerce, who otherwise might decide not to buy.

Just like car insurance. If you don't have it, you can lose your license to drive. Like all those commercials state, You must show proof of insurance.

J.D.Allen
10-18-2013, 12:24 PM
Just like car insurance. If you don't have it, you can lose your license to drive. Like all those commercials state, You must show proof of insurance.

Wrong. You don't want car insurance? Don't buy it. .gov can't do anything about it. You just can't drive. There are many, many people in this country who can't afford to drive or just don't want to and therefore don't buy car insurance. They just walk, ride a bike, get a taxi, a ride from a friend or take the bus.

This law forces you to buy insurance just to draw air. Way, WAY different.

ddestruel
10-18-2013, 12:46 PM
Just like car insurance. If you don't have it, you can lose your license to drive. Like all those commercials state, You must show proof of insurance.



You can operate a vehicle on private property w/o insurance all day long its only on public roads that your are required to carry proof of bond or insurance. So you must consiously engage in the act of operating a motor vehicle on a public road.

With ACA that is nowhere near the case. pay the tax or go buy a product from a private company all just because you breath the air inside our borders…. so much for the freedom of private property, freedom of choice or freedom to those individuals who actively choose to address thier medical needs at home w/o utilizing the system. everything is contingent on income, they can tax income and tack things onto that because you are actively engaging in commerce so thats one way to look at it but …… this debate is far from over and far from being anything close to auto insurance

Maybe a tax on the right to type anything or speak out. Everyone talks, gathers and has differeing opinions but before you can excercize your 1st ammendment rights theres the option to either pay a penalty (tax) or you must carry a general umbrella insurance policy. The cost of police and public services necessary when people speak their minds, act stupidly, meet or through conflicting opinions and open speech incite a disagreement needs to be addressed. it is a burden on society especially when people publicly gather. therefore to cover these costs prior to being able to speak all citizens must carry a policy that will help defer the costs incurred by local communities charged with maintaining the services deemed necessary prior to any free speech being able to occur.

Tincon
10-18-2013, 1:03 PM
Just like car insurance. If you don't have it, you can lose your license to drive. Like all those commercials state, You must show proof of insurance.

It's not "just like car insurance" at all. It is however, just like UI, SS, and everything else you don't want that you have to pay a tax for "just because you breath the air inside our borders" (and have an income).

Wolverine
10-18-2013, 1:11 PM
I think it was the wrong decision. Why? Not so much for the penalty/tax reason, but because it forces one into commerce, who otherwise might decide not to buy.

And because I don't believe our founder's ever intended our government to have the power to force us to buy/sell anything under the force of the government.

I don't disagree with you, but this is not the first time someone is coerced via taxes to enter into commerce. The most common and obvious case is the home interest deduction, another is college tuition deduction/credit. For all of these including the health insurance mandate/tax, you pay higher taxes if you don't buy something and lower taxes if you do. All three are structured differently, but that is the bottom line.

Mitch
10-18-2013, 4:22 PM
Roberts constantly monitors the news and politics. He switched his vote on 0bamacare because of how the media would blast the court.

He switched his vote? Did he make some kind of announcement about this, or did he mention it in the majority decision?

kf6tac
10-18-2013, 4:26 PM
He switched his vote? Did he make some kind of announcement about this, or did he mention it in the majority decision?

It's been reported a few times in the media that he originally was going to vote to strike it down, then changed his mind. The sources were allegedly two unidentified individuals with knowledge of the deliberations, but I don't think it's ever been made public who they are.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/

curtisfong
10-18-2013, 9:01 PM
If that were true, then they could have easily upheld the gun prohibitions in DC and Chicago and ended the 2nd Amendment as we know it. They did the exact opposite.

If they didn't want us to bear arms in public, they could have just said so in DC v Heller or McDonald v Chicago decisions and that would have been the end of it.

Or they could have taken Kachalsky or Woolard and ruled against us. But they didn't.

While I appreciate your glass half full approach, this is cold comfort, since it basically says that Incorporation of the 2A against the states means nothing... which, IMO, defeats the entire purpose of the bill of rights. It simply lets the states pass whatever laws they please with absolutely no restrictions.

Their inaction is equivalent to ruling against us.

M. D. Van Norman
10-18-2013, 10:34 PM
Itís actually worse. Judicial inaction gives the right-to-arms camp nothing to rally around politically. With no legal solutions to be had, the frustration will build until some folks start shooting. Then we will have a war we didnít want at a time we didnít choose.

fizux
10-19-2013, 5:14 AM
Very few people in history "want" a war; usually they are compelled by circumstances beyond their control that reach a certain breaking point (or the war is started by the adverse party).

Battles, yes, try to be the one that picks the time, place, and circumstances.

There are effectively 42 Right-to-Carry states (including de-facto shall issue that have may issue laws). I think there are 40 states that allow possession of suppressors as long as one jumps through the appropriate NFA hoops.

Realistically, the majority of people who reach their personal breaking points in Anti states are going to move rather than shoot. The calculus of weighing roots in one state due one's home or job changes drastically once you add "I'm willing to die for this cause" as a factor -- most folks would rather move to a free state and start over economically. Each person will have their own threshold; some people have already reached it and moved, others will soon.

BobB35
10-20-2013, 7:45 AM
He switched his vote? Did he make some kind of announcement about this, or did he mention it in the majority decision?

You didn't know he switched his vote. I can understand single issue voters, but sometimes I am at a complete loss of the knowledge of the electorate. It was reported in the news that he switched his vote. The decision were written like he voted the opposite and so on. He will never admit it, but with the outcome he has destroyed any credibility he ever had in the Supreme Court.

Which is why I laugh at the people who are still running under the assumption that there are still "Judicial Options". The justice system is corrupt beyond belief, the only way to win is not to play. They will drag their feet and rule against gun rights while they continue to build the police state. Keep dreaming.

Here is a good example of the court system you expect to uphold your rights:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-19/new-york-drowning-bribes-and-corruption

speedrrracer
10-20-2013, 7:58 AM
Which is why I laugh at the people who are still running under the assumption that there are still "Judicial Options". The justice system is corrupt beyond belief, the only way to win is not to play.

Corrupt as in broken, yes, but bribery is not indicated as an influencing factor at the SCOTUS level, and SCOTUS is the topic of this thread. Some may be surprised to learn that the law / Constitution is not a determining factor in SCOTUS decisions, either. The best predictor of SCOTUS outcome is a simple measurement of the political preferences of the Justices themselves at the time the decision is made.

Therefore, one can still "win", one merely needs a context which finds political support from 5 Justices, regardless of the Constitution, popular opinion, historical precedent or media pressure.

Hoop
10-20-2013, 8:41 AM
The most plausible explanation to me is that they are waiting for more circuit/state opinions.

I'd like to think they are waiting for the 'right case' but we'll see. The Supreme Court may not touch the 2nd Amendment for another 100 years at which time it'll be The Plasma Blaster Shooter's Association vs. The People's Communist Republic of New York.

Frustrating but we really have no control over what they do.

Only way to win, and to keep winning, is to get pro-gun politicians in office, or at least keep enough democrats out of office to where they can't do too much damage to our rights.

BobB35
10-20-2013, 8:45 AM
Corrupt as in broken, yes, but bribery is not indicated as an influencing factor at the SCOTUS level, and SCOTUS is the topic of this thread. Some may be surprised to learn that the law / Constitution is not a determining factor in SCOTUS decisions, either. The best predictor of SCOTUS outcome is a simple measurement of the political preferences of the Justices themselves at the time the decision is made.

Therefore, one can still "win", one merely needs a context which finds political support from 5 Justices, regardless of the Constitution, popular opinion, historical precedent or media pressure.

Corrupt as in not functioning as it should. The example I gave is indicative of ALL courts in the us from the local traffic or Family court all the way to the SCOTUS. You don't think there is bribery at the SCOTUS? What do you call changing your opinion (and changing the law you are ruling on to do it) as a result of how you fear you will be viewed by the media.

This began under FDR with the court packing plan and there has been and will be no going back. The path is set and whether it is is today, tomorrow, next week, year or Decade the US is done and something will replace it. That is my point. My fear is that it is only going to get worse, before it gets better.

Look around, REALLY look around sometime and ask your self. It it better now that it was 5, 10, 15, 30 years ago? Take off the ideological blinders, the wheel only ratchets only way....to more control and as the country has move to more and more Mobacracy with no restrictions on voting, the die has been cast and the path set. What is not know is how long it will take to play out. What is certain thought is that when it does it will happen extremely fast (think weeks or months) and the Police state will be complete.

BobB35
10-20-2013, 8:46 AM
I'd like to think they are waiting for the 'right case' but we'll see. The Supreme Court may not touch the 2nd Amendment for another 100 years at which time it'll be The Plasma Blaster Shooter's Association vs. The People's Communist Republic of New York.

Frustrating but we really have no control over what they do.

Only way to win, and to keep winning, is to get pro-gun politicians in office, or at least keep enough democrats out of office to where they can't do too much damage to our rights.

The FREE **** ARMY will keep outnumbering you until the game is over.....

M. D. Van Norman
10-20-2013, 8:52 PM
Very few people in history ďwantĒ a war.Ö

The history of the last 12 years suggests otherwise.

RRangel
10-20-2013, 10:56 PM
Just like car insurance. If you don't have it, you can lose your license to drive. Like all those commercials state, You must show proof of insurance.

Driving your vehicle on public roads is why you need insurance. Doing so is a privilege. Otherwise it's not necessary. Mandating insurance because you're alive is completely different altogether.

BobB35
10-21-2013, 5:37 AM
Driving your vehicle on public roads is why you need insurance. Doing so is a privilege. Otherwise it's not necessary. Mandating insurance because you're alive is completely different altogether.

Plus you don't need insurance if you are wealthy enough to deposit a bond with the state. Don't mix up a privilege with a right.

dustoff31
10-21-2013, 5:59 AM
Just like car insurance. If you don't have it, you can lose your license to drive. Like all those commercials state, You must show proof of insurance.

It's not at all like car insurance. The state requires one to carry liability insurance to cover damages that they may cause to other people or their property. If you want coverage for yourself and your property, you can buy it. But the state does not require it.

strlen
10-21-2013, 5:19 PM
Couple of things:

- Gura himself had mentioned is that the reason SCOTUS didn't take up Woolard is because Drake is in the works and/or they may prefer to see more circuit splits.

[Off-topic, but needs to be said. ]

- SCOTUS did not uphold a mandate on insurance as a law requiring health insurance. It upheld it as an income tax (authorized by a constitutional amendment that has -- unfortunately -- been passed) with very significant limits that effectively make it worthless (the most that can be done is that future tax returns may be withheld, but most people who will "opt out" will probably not have a tax return in the first place).

Furthermore, given states have opted out of ACA subsidies (as a result of the same ruling!), therre's now a case against individual mandate penalties in those statres on equal protection grounds. Given majority of the country lives in those states, it's another nail in the coffin.

This is just, but given there's no longer a rule against pre-existing conditions (and prior to this, medicare for elderly, medic aid for poor, and use of emergency rooms in place of doctor visits) you can expect higher costs (which in turn means it might even become cheaper for individuals to opt out than to buy a plan on the exchanges).

- Completely off topic: health insurance is nothing like car insurance, unless it's the catastrophic health insurance that ACA has prohibited. My car insurance has a huge deductible and protects against serious unpredictable accidents; it does not cover gas, oil changes, and tire rotations. On the other hand, most people rely on health insurance to cover routine visits, flu shots, etc.. As a result patients have no reason to shop around for the best deal, leading to high medical costs. The fact that they don't usually shop around for insurance either (most are covered by their employers) means impact isn't directly visible leading to higher insurance prices. This is great news for insurance companies and doctors, but terrible news for anyone else.

How I'd fix this: provide universal tax credits for HSAs, replace medicaid/medicare/subsidies with vouchers, and make individual mandate only require high-deductible catastrophic insurance (since it's unlikely that entitlement programs or rules prohibitiong pre-existing condition causes will be repealed).

(I'll gladly continue this in the OT topic.)

ddestruel
10-28-2013, 9:18 AM
Iím curious if Iíve got this right.

in Kalchansky the CA ruled that open carry of long arms in NY created enough access to 2nd amendment to deny the permitting scheme

In woollard were they dealing with something similar where the state of Maryland has permits for handguns and any form of carry with them but does not do it with long arms.

Moore the state of IL banned any form of carry and thus we got the 7CA ruling....

CA bans all open carry of long arms or handguns without a permit from a system that is open to using the discretion of a government official.... does this not differentiate a CA challenge asking for any kind of access to the right from NY and Marylandís cases?

Could it be SCOTUS is looking for a state or situation similar to IL where they could rule broadly that carry has to be available but not addressing hand gun vs long arm, open carry or CCW.... following course with vague and open ruling that allow the courts to hash it further out? Is CA the next beneath IL?

press1280
10-28-2013, 1:49 PM
Iím curious if Iíve got this right.

in Kalchansky the CA ruled that open carry of long arms in NY created enough access to 2nd amendment to deny the permitting scheme

In woollard were they dealing with something similar where the state of Maryland has permits for handguns and any form of carry with them but does not do it with long arms.

Moore the state of IL banned any form of carry and thus we got the 7CA ruling....

CA bans all open carry of long arms or handguns without a permit from a system that is open to using the discretion of a government official.... does this not differentiate a CA challenge asking for any kind of access to the right from NY and Marylandís cases?
IMO it's basically the same. The difference will be if we win at CA9, then we'll have a real split.

Could it be SCOTUS is looking for a state or situation similar to IL where they could rule broadly that carry has to be available but not addressing hand gun vs long arm, open carry or CCW.... following course with vague and open ruling that allow the courts to hash it further out? Is CA the next beneath IL?
The next similiar one would be Palmer v. DC. It's certainly possible SCOTUS wants this kind of case over a may-issue one. I think the long guns issue is simply a red herring thrown out there for confusion.

desert dog
10-28-2013, 2:34 PM
He switched his vote? Did he make some kind of announcement about this, or did he mention it in the majority decision?

He did, after it looked as if Obamacare was going to be ruled an unconstitutional fee, he led the court in the direction of calling it a tax (which the authors of the bill publically stated it was not).

But I don't believe Roberts did it as a result of some conspiracy theory. I think he did it to establish a legacy; he is an egomaniac that wants to cement his place in the history books of every law school, have bronze monuments and a building made in his honor at Harvard, and be one of the 1st justices to become a household name. He will rule on things he feels will make him popular among the scum at Harvard.

Kharn
10-28-2013, 2:51 PM
Something is cooking in Lane (12-1401), it hasn't been relisted for a future conference. Pur curiam opinion, GVR, dissent from denial of cert or held for Abramski are possible outcomes.

M. D. Van Norman
10-28-2013, 3:20 PM
I think he did it to establish a legacy; he Ö wants to cement his place in the history books.Ö

A ruling on the right to bear arms in public would be a truly historic decision.

Paladin
10-28-2013, 8:06 PM
I’m curious if I’ve got this right.

in Kalchansky the CA ruled that open carry of long arms in NY created enough access to 2nd amendment to deny the permitting scheme

In woollard were they dealing with something similar where the state of Maryland has permits for handguns and any form of carry with them but does not do it with long arms.

Moore the state of IL banned any form of carry and thus we got the 7CA ruling....

CA bans all open carry of long arms or handguns without a permit from a system that is open to using the discretion of a government official.... does this not differentiate a CA challenge asking for any kind of access to the right from NY and Maryland’s cases?

Could it be SCOTUS is looking for a state or situation similar to IL where they could rule broadly that carry has to be available but not addressing hand gun vs long arm, open carry or CCW.... following course with vague and open ruling that allow the courts to hash it further out? Is CA the next beneath IL?

I posted the below in another thread 5 days before your posting above. If you/others want to comment on it, plz do in that other thread.

This raises something I have been thinking about for a few weeks, but dared not post about. Gura doing this just 3 months after his motion makes me think he's thinking along the same lines.

What if the antis are right? What if some of the Heller 5 -- not necessarily back in Heller days or in the Heller opinion, but now -- believe that they did not say the 2nd A protects a RKBA in public? IOW, some of them (cough, Kennedy, cough, Roberts, cough), may have changed their mind/s.

Since we (unfortunately?), won against the ONLY "No Issue" concealed carry and no OC state (IL), we are not able ask for cert. with a state case against a total carry ban. Thus, Gura has to go back to his roots, back to D.C., the only place in the entire US that has a total ban on all carry, both OC and CC.

Let's say we win a RKBA in public in Palmer. (I won't speculate what they'll say re. unlicensed vs permitted LOC, LCC, or both being required.) The question then is, since D.C. is a federal enclave, does "ol' McDonald" incorporate it, or do we need a new state case to incorporate Palmer's RKBA in public? If the latter, what kind of state case? Since ALL states now (or soon will) issue CCWs or better, it has to be a May Issue or better state. Would a May Issue w/unequal standards across the state and a total ban on LOC case work (i.e., Richards-Peruta in CA)? If so, will CA9 be slow enough in releasing its opinion that Palmer could get cert. ahead of it, or that SCOTUS could hold Richards-Peruta (next fall) for Palmer asking cert. later in that term? (This also brings up the discussion of skipping the CA level entirely and trying to go directly to SCOTUS, or just skipping requesting a rehearing/en banc.)

Or does SAF/NRA/CGF have to file a new state carry case in federal court? (Probably wise to do anyway just to cover our bases given the way things have been going.)

ddestruel
10-29-2013, 8:02 PM
just curious which one. i was thumbing through a litany of your postings