Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-13-2018, 6:12 PM
capt14k capt14k is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: NJ
Posts: 758
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default NJ Now has 2 CCW Lawsuits Filed

I must admit I have been very frustrated with what little has been done in NJ when it comes to 2A Rights. As I read about the lawsuits and success you guys have had in CA I couldn't understand why the groups in NJ weren't doing the same; until now.

The ANJRPC which our NRA group in NJ is backing one lawsuit which is Rodgers & ANJRPC v Grewal et al which has gotten a little more exposure and is picking up where Drake left off when Cert was denied. However since Cert was denied Wrenn was decided in favor of CCW. The Cheeseman suit which is attacking the no issue CCW that NJ really is from a different angle. Mark Cheeseman was successful last year in overturning NJ law banning stun guns. Hopefully success is found again. I am hoping this is just the start of the lawsuits.


The Cheeseman Suit is being backed by CNJFO and has a Go Fund Me page and is near it's goal. They have not received direct backing of the NRA, but Scott Bach who is with the ANJRPC has donated himself to the case. If any of you guys could spare a donation to put it over the top it would be greatly appreciated. Any lawsuit in the Anti States could be the one that makes it to SCOTUS and restores the rights for all of us stuck behind the lines. For the record I am not associated with the lawsuits, but I believe in them.


https://www.gofundme.com/restore-carry-nj

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Last edited by capt14k; 02-14-2018 at 6:55 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-14-2018, 7:48 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 12,416
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Well, that ought to settle it in about 10 or 20 more years?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-15-2018, 3:39 AM
capt14k capt14k is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: NJ
Posts: 758
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
Well, that ought to settle it in about 10 or 20 more years?
Once Kennedy retires and is replaced next year I think SCOTUS will take a 2A case again. A carry case first and then a so called assault weapons case. Carry they will extend Heller and MacDonald to outside the home and side with Wrenn decision. AWB they will use sporting sporting and apply strict review to put a stop to mag restrictions, evil features, and banned by name.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-15-2018, 7:42 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 12,416
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Roberts calls the shots. Roberts is alergic to controversy.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-26-2018, 3:39 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Rogers case loses at District Court: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...=2&as_sdt=6,49
No surprise since they are bound by precedent. This is good though that they didn't waste any time since there's nothing the District Court could really do. It'll be on to the 3rd Circuit, where it'll lose as well.
Then it'll be denied en banc; even if Trump fills all vacancies, there aren't enough votes.
Then it'll be on to SCOTUS with a split in hand unless another case beats them to it.

Last edited by press1280; 05-26-2018 at 3:43 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-26-2018, 8:05 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,926
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by capt14k View Post
I must admit I have been very frustrated with what little has been done in NJ when it comes to 2A Rights. As I read about the lawsuits and success you guys have had in CA I couldn't understand why the groups in NJ weren't doing the same; until now.

The ANJRPC which our NRA group in NJ is backing one lawsuit which is Rodgers & ANJRPC v Grewal et al which has gotten a little more exposure and is picking up where Drake left off when Cert was denied. However since Cert was denied Wrenn was decided in favor of CCW. The Cheeseman suit which is attacking the no issue CCW that NJ really is from a different angle. Mark Cheeseman was successful last year in overturning NJ law banning stun guns. Hopefully success is found again. I am hoping this is just the start of the lawsuits.
Don't forget Pantano and Almeida, both by attny Evan Nappen....
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=812950
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-26-2018, 10:18 AM
capt14k capt14k is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: NJ
Posts: 758
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Don't forget Pantano and Almeida, both by attny Evan Nappen....
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=812950
Thankfully Nappen isn't involved in these cases. I live in the same town as Ricky Pantano. Nappen talked a big game in the papers when NJ Supreme Court suddenly reversed their decision to hear the case. He said he was taking the case to SCOTUS. He left out the part just as soon as he gets $100k payment. ANJRPC and NRA did nothing to back Pantano and the case died.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-26-2018, 12:46 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Don't forget Pantano and Almeida, both by attny Evan Nappen....
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=812950
Those cases are over. Almeida got his permit, apparently he met "justifiable need" after Governor Christie directed a more relaxed standard. But the new Governor reversed that so it'll be interesting if he keeps the permit upon renewal.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-26-2018, 1:20 PM
wpage's Avatar
wpage wpage is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,277
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Lawyers

Follow the money attorneys...
Quote:
Originally Posted by capt14k View Post
Thankfully Nappen isn't involved in these cases. I live in the same town as Ricky Pantano. Nappen talked a big game in the papers when NJ Supreme Court suddenly reversed their decision to hear the case. He said he was taking the case to SCOTUS. He left out the part just as soon as he gets $100k payment. ANJRPC and NRA did nothing to back Pantano and the case died.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
__________________
God so loved the world He gave His only Son... Believe in Him and have everlasting life.
John 3:16

United Air Epic Fail Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u99Q7pNAjvg
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-27-2018, 9:38 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,926
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Rogers case loses at District Court: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...=2&as_sdt=6,49
No surprise since they are bound by precedent. This is good though that they didn't waste any time since there's nothing the District Court could really do. It'll be on to the 3rd Circuit, where it'll lose as well.
Then it'll be denied en banc; even if Trump fills all vacancies, there aren't enough votes.
Then it'll be on to SCOTUS with a split in hand unless another case beats them to it.
I'd guess it will take 1.5 to 2.5 years for the 3-judge panel of CA3 to decide the Rogers case. Being conservative, that means we can have a sandwich and nap until 2021 Jan 01....

0.25 years for denial of CA3 en banc.

2022 June for SCOTUS decision, if cert. granted?
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 05-27-2018 at 9:48 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-27-2018, 2:01 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I'd guess it will take 1.5 to 2.5 years for the 3-judge panel of CA3 to decide the Rogers case. Being conservative, that means we can have a sandwich and nap until 2021 Jan 01....

0.25 years for denial of CA3 en banc.

2022 June for SCOTUS decision, if cert. granted?
It really shouldn't take long. No matter who the 3 judge panel is they are bound by the Drake decision. There's not a whole lot for them to do. I wonder if there would even be oral arguments.

I'll say it could be complete in a few months.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-28-2018, 7:54 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,926
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
It really shouldn't take long. No matter who the 3 judge panel is they are bound by the Drake decision. There's not a whole lot for them to do. I wonder if there would even be oral arguments.

I'll say it could be complete in a few months.
While it isn't controlling for them, they can't just ignore and neglect dealing with Wrenn. They'll have to analyze it and distinguish it or explain why they think it was wrongly decided. That's what appellate judges get paid to do and it's what SCOTUS expects/wants them to do.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-28-2018, 8:03 AM
capt14k capt14k is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: NJ
Posts: 758
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
It really shouldn't take long. No matter who the 3 judge panel is they are bound by the Drake decision. There's not a whole lot for them to do. I wonder if there would even be oral arguments.

I'll say it could be complete in a few months.
There are some aspects that differ from Drake and they are arguing Wrenn though not a 3rd Circuit case was correct. This should setup the perfect case for a SCOTUS with Kennedy's replacement.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-28-2018, 3:02 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,546
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
While it isn't controlling for them, they can't just ignore and neglect dealing with Wrenn. They'll have to analyze it and distinguish it or explain why they think it was wrongly decided. That's what appellate judges get paid to do and it's what SCOTUS expects/wants them to do.


Oh yes they can. They might not, but they CAN.

After all this time, you guys STILL haven’t figured out that courts can do whatever they damned well please without consequence to themselves?!? Astonishing...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-28-2018, 7:39 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,926
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Oh yes they can. They might not, but they CAN.

After all this time, you guys STILL haven’t figured out that courts can do whatever they damned well please without consequence to themselves?!? Astonishing...
I was talking practically.

Even the antis on SCOTUS want to hear what lower court antis have to say re. Wrenn because they don't want to miss any possible anti arguments and to help them develop their own anti arguments.

Of course, if the antis feel that Wrenn is invulnerable, they'll go right ahead an ignore it. But if Trump gets to replace Kennedy or an anti (I consider Kennedy to be a mugwump re. the 2nd A), this, hopefully, is all academic.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-29-2018, 2:22 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,546
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I was talking practically.

Even the antis on SCOTUS want to hear what lower court antis have to say re. Wrenn because they don't want to miss any possible anti arguments and to help them develop their own anti arguments.
Whatever FOR??? They’re on SCOTUS. If they’re in the majority then whatever decision they issue is final and arguments become irrelevant. If they’re in the minority then their purpose is to define how the lower courts should defy the majority opinion, the way Stevens and Breyer did in Heller. Either way, the arguments of the lower court are of no use to them.


Quote:
Of course, if the antis feel that Wrenn is invulnerable, they'll go right ahead an ignore it. But if Trump gets to replace Kennedy or an anti (I consider Kennedy to be a mugwump re. the 2nd A), this, hopefully, is all academic.

They could well ignore it anyway. The ONLY reason for them not to is to provide other courts with “reasoning” to use in support of upholding carry bans.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-29-2018, 7:17 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I was talking practically.

Even the antis on SCOTUS want to hear what lower court antis have to say re. Wrenn because they don't want to miss any possible anti arguments and to help them develop their own anti arguments.

Of course, if the antis feel that Wrenn is invulnerable, they'll go right ahead an ignore it. But if Trump gets to replace Kennedy or an anti (I consider Kennedy to be a mugwump re. the 2nd A), this, hopefully, is all academic.
The 3 judge panel is bound by precedent since no SCOTUS opinion has since said otherwise. If we get a good panel, there may be some discussion and possibly an agreement with Wrenn. Result will be the same.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-29-2018, 12:11 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,926
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Whatever FOR??? They’re on SCOTUS.
I was talking about the 3 judge panel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
If they’re in the majority then whatever decision they issue is final and arguments become irrelevant. If they’re in the minority then their purpose is to define how the lower courts should defy the majority opinion, the way Stevens and Breyer did in Heller. Either way, the arguments of the lower court are of no use to them.
You assume the antis on SCOTUS will dismiss what arguments antis on federal CAs may make without you even know what those arguments are?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
They could well ignore it anyway. The ONLY reason for them not to is to provide other courts with “reasoning” to use in support of upholding carry bans.
I believe I agree with you here, regardless if "they" are antis on the CA3 panel or antis in the minority on SCOTUS. But the latter would have a harder ignoring Wrenn since I assume that a pro 2nd A majority on SCOTUS would address it. But that's just a reasonable assumption on my part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
The 3 judge panel is bound by precedent since no SCOTUS opinion has since said otherwise. If we get a good panel, there may be some discussion and possibly an agreement with Wrenn. Result will be the same.
Yes, Wrenn is not controlling on them, but when a sister appellate court came to an opposite conclusion, just pretending it doesn't exist is for B or C students....
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 05-29-2018 at 12:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-29-2018, 1:10 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,546
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default NJ Now has 2 CCW Lawsuits Filed

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I was talking about the 3 judge panel.
Oh. You said “the antis on SCOTUS”. That’s what I was responding to.

I realize that you are primarily discussing what the 3 judge panel will say, but you were talking about their justification for addressing Wrenn, with one of those justifications being that the antis on SCOTUS would be interested in it. That is what I dispute here. The antis on SCOTUS have no reason at all to be interested in what the lower courts have to say as regards Wrenn, because if the antis are a majority then they will simply say there is no right to carry and that’s that. And if the antis are a minority then they will be interested only in showing lower courts how to ignore the majority decision, something that a lower court decision obviously cannot address. Neither option can possibly make use of anything the lower courts have to say.


Quote:
You assume the antis on SCOTUS will dismiss what arguments antis on federal CAs may make without you even know what those arguments are?
Yes, because their position of power makes those arguments irrelevant in the case where the antis comprise a majority, and the lower courts’ arguments are of no use in the event they are a minority since you can’t know how best to thumb your nose at a majority opinion without first knowing what that opinion states.


Quote:
I believe I agree with you here, regardless if "they" are antis on the CA3 panel or antis in the minority on SCOTUS. But the latter would have a harder ignoring Wrenn since I assume that a pro 2nd A majority on SCOTUS would address it. But that's just a reasonable assumption on my part.
A pro 2A majority would certainty address it. But the minority won’t be concerned with how to counter Wrenn in that case, they’ll be concerned with how to instruct lower courts to ignore the majority opinion. That’s a VERY different thing.

Either way, the point is that SCOTUS provides no logical justification for the lower courts to address Wrenn at all, at least when issuing an anti-carry decision (a pro-carry decision will, of course, use Wrenn for support, but that’s not the situation we’re discussing here).


Quote:
Yes, Wrenn is not controlling on them, but when a sister appellate court came to an opposite conclusion, just pretending it doesn't exist is for B or C students....

If there were some real danger of a divided and uncertain upper court fielding the case, this would be true. But there is no such danger here. SCOTUS will not be divided in that way. It is NOW, and we know exactly what happens under those circumstances: it denies cert.

The only way SCOTUS grants cert to a loss for us is when it is NOT uncertain, one way or the other. And in that case, it is irrelevant what the lower court says. SCOTUS will issue the decision it wishes to issue, and that’s that. Welcome to the outcome-oriented political judiciary we have today.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 05-29-2018 at 2:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-30-2018, 3:01 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If it's any indication, the District Court did address Wrenn. And, plaintiffs are specifically asking to re-assess in light of Wrenn, even though they can't change the outcome.
Could they flat out ignore Wrenn? I guess so, however, it would seem to be in bad practice. Even a passing mention of Wrenn in the opinion will go much farther with SCOTUS than plaintiffs simply saying it in their cert. brief.

Last edited by press1280; 05-30-2018 at 3:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-30-2018, 3:42 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,546
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
If it's any indication, the District Court did address Wrenn. And, plaintiffs are specifically asking to re-assess in light of Wrenn, even though they can't change the outcome.

Could they flat out ignore Wrenn? I guess so, however, it would seem to be in bad practice. Even a passing mention of Wrenn in the opinion will go much farther with SCOTUS than plaintiffs simply saying it in their cert. brief.


It would certainly be very bad form for them to ignore Wrenn under those circumstances. That doesn’t put it beyond the realm of possibility, of course. We’ve seen the 9th circuit do similar things without consequence.

My only real objection was with the notion that the court “has to” address Wrenn. It obviously doesn’t and doesn’t even have a lot of incentive to do so, save perhaps for avoiding some kind of procedural grounds for SCOTUS review. But even that isn’t really applicable here. SCOTUS has been going out of its way to avoid taking ANY 2A cases. Caetano is the only one that was compelling enough to cause them to do so, and their reasons had nothing to do with anything present in these carry cases.

You really need to disabuse yourself of the notion of going further with SCOTUS in all this. The nature of the political situation is such that the lower courts can behave about as badly as they want and SCOTUS will not lift a finger to correct that when there are firearms involved, and that’s basically that. When the balance on the court changes, then the outcome may change but the behavior of the lower courts, whether good or bad, STILL won’t change the outcome.

To illustrate, let me ask plainly: do you really think a pro-2A SCOTUS would uphold an anti-2A opinion, no matter how well the lower court argues, or overturn a pro-2A opinion no matter how badly the lower court argues it? Similarly, do you really think an anti-2A SCOTUS would overturn an anti-2A decision no matter how egregious the behavior of the lower court, or uphold a pro-2A one no matter how well argued? Obviously the answer is “no” to all of that. But that clearly means that there is no path in which the behavior of the lower court is relevant to the outcome. Which means there IS no going further with SCOTUS as regards the outcome.

Note that I’m not talking about a fractured SCOTUS in the above, which is what we have now. What we have now guarantees cert denial for all but a case like Caetano, where a “non lethal” weapon, a heart-wrenching plaintiff in a criminal case, and direct and complete contravention of explicitly-stated precedent are all simultaneously involved.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-30-2018, 3:48 PM
capt14k capt14k is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: NJ
Posts: 758
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I believe Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch are comping at the bit for a 2A case. Roberts won't take on one til Kennedy is replaced for fear of losing. Once Kennedy is replaced SCOTUS will take on 2A cases. Certainly if RBG kicks the bucket and is replaced by a GOP POTUS they will as well. I think Kennedy will retire very soon.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-31-2018, 3:48 PM
JeffC's Avatar
JeffC JeffC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 426
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by capt14k View Post
I believe Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch are comping at the bit for a 2A case. Roberts won't take on one til Kennedy is replaced for fear of losing. Once Kennedy is replaced SCOTUS will take on 2A cases. Certainly if RBG kicks the bucket and is replaced by a GOP POTUS they will as well. I think Kennedy will retire very soon.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Kennedy is better on gun rights then Roberts and Altito
__________________
I want gay married couples to be able to protect their marijuana plants with guns
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-31-2018, 4:39 PM
capt14k capt14k is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: NJ
Posts: 758
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffC View Post
Kennedy is better on gun rights then Roberts and Altito
I don't know about that. Alito dissented on Hughes Amendment case. Also said his 2A rulings will be based on what would Scalia do. Roberts is a wild card, but not as bad as everyone thinks. He wrote the majority and the dissent on Obamacare proving he changed his mind last minute. I still think he was blackmailed into doing so. They say over his illegally adopted Irish children.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:05 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.