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
  #41  
Old 12-23-2020, 1:04 PM
SandHill's Avatar
SandHill SandHill is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,941
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Umm, last I checked, the First Amendment has no such "shall not be infringed" language. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

To abridge means "to curtail." The fact that the Congress used different words suggests they intended a different meaning.
OK, so let's say I concede that there is a distinction between "abridge" and "infringe" which is meaningful in this context. Let's further assume, arguendo, that "abridge" menas exceptions are permitted, and "shall not be infringed" means "no exceptions."

Where does that lead us in practical terms? Is it your position that the Second Amendment means you can "bear" any weapon, anyplace, any time, with no "exceptions?" Say for example that you wanted to bear an M249 and a couple of drums of ammo while attending an AOC town hall. Is that your right? How about in a federal courthouse while the Ninth Circuit is considering a gun rights case?

If so, as I asserted above, that is not a mainstream view. Even Scalia made it clear that was not what Heller meant. There is no judicial or legislative precedent for the position that the Second Amendment means "no exceptions" and there is 230 years worth of precedent for "exceptions."
__________________
Roza Shanina and Mosin-Nagant. Two of the finest flowers Mother Russia ever conceived. Unfortunately, only one was mass produced.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-23-2020, 1:32 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 10,486
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Wow...this case wasn't on the radar. Doesn't look like its even on the SCOTUS docket yet.
It is now.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/20-843.html
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-23-2020, 1:37 PM
SandHill's Avatar
SandHill SandHill is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,941
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Awesome, OP. Bringing us the news before it happens!
__________________
Roza Shanina and Mosin-Nagant. Two of the finest flowers Mother Russia ever conceived. Unfortunately, only one was mass produced.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-23-2020, 2:23 PM
Citizen_B's Avatar
Citizen_B Citizen_B is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,151
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
They most certainly did not rule on NYSRPA v NYC on legal technicalities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Straight from the horses (SCOTUS) mouth:

"After we granted certiorari, the State of New York amended its firearm licensing statute, and the City amended the rule so that petitioners may now transport firearms to a secondhome or shooting range outside of the city, which is the pre-cise relief that petitioners requested in the prayer for relief in their complaint."

Lesson to the wise:

If you ask for it in your "prayer for relief", and the defendant gives it to you...case can be mooted.

If you don't like the way your case might get mooted, make sure your prayer for relief specifies a "burrito", not a "taco".
Mr. Rabbit and I final agree! NY State gave specifically and exactly what NYSRPA requested. If you follow the letter of the law, the case MUST be mooted. The fact NY State did it right when cert was granted is the gamesmanship part. Personally I hated the fact SCOTUS did that as it sends the message they won't step out of their lane and smack down games, but they did acknowledge the timing of the regulation change as BS.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-23-2020, 2:26 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 940
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SandHill View Post
OK, so let's say I concede that there is a distinction between "abridge" and "infringe" which is meaningful in this context. Let's further assume, arguendo, that "abridge" menas exceptions are permitted, and "shall not be infringed" means "no exceptions."

Where does that lead us in practical terms? Is it your position that the Second Amendment means you can "bear" any weapon, anyplace, any time, with no "exceptions?" Say for example that you wanted to bear an M249 and a couple of drums of ammo while attending an AOC town hall. Is that your right? How about in a federal courthouse while the Ninth Circuit is considering a gun rights case?

If so, as I asserted above, that is not a mainstream view. Even Scalia made it clear that was not what Heller meant. There is no judicial or legislative precedent for the position that the Second Amendment means "no exceptions" and there is 230 years worth of precedent for "exceptions."
You know of course that private ownership of cannon was not uncommon, and for all I know is still legal. (Black powder cannon are legal in California, for example.) Prior to the NFA, ownership of fully automatic weapons was legal, and remained so after the NFA as long as one was willing to undergo a background check and pay a tax. Private ownership of machine guns is still legal, for that matter, as long as the firearm was manufactured prior to a date certain. I understand where Scalia went in Heller, but I have to wonder how much of that was in order to get Roberts to sign on an obtain a majority. Allowing full bore freedom was likely a bridge too far, even if that was the intent of the Amendment. Where we get into trouble is by allowing restrictions of the right as to "time, place and manner" as is the case with the First Amendment cases, as such limitations can be used to justify urban carrying bans and the GFSZA.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-23-2020, 5:01 PM
sulla123 sulla123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 266
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

I see the usual windbags are in full throated chest thumping. I'll check back when there's news on the case. Excluding Paladin from the windbag description, of course.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-23-2020, 11:23 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 10,486
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just thinking about what sort of timeline we’re facing:

2020 mid-Dec: request cert; response request, response extensions, Response and Reply
2021 mid-March: distribute then grant cert for next fall; briefs
2021 October: orals
2022 January or later: decision/opinion

A long shot would be a relatively quick GVR with a per curiam opinion ala Caetano. But I doubt that, even with a dissent, because I think Thomas wants to write & sign a magnum opus 2nd A opinion as his legacy.

Last edited by Paladin; 01-10-2021 at 10:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-24-2020, 4:12 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,637
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Just thinking about what sort of timeline we’re facing:

2020 mid-Dec: request cert; then extensions, Response and Reply
2021 mid-March: distribute then grant cert for next fall
2021 October: orals
2022 January or later: decision/opinion

A long shot would be a relatively quick GVR with a per curiam opinion ala Caetano. But I doubt that, even with a dissent, because I think Thomas wants to write & sign a magnum opus 2nd A opinion as his legacy.
I doubt we get a per curiam just based on the fact the court has booted so many of these cases already. Too contentious.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-28-2020, 2:16 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 648
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Straight from the horses (SCOTUS) mouth:

"After we granted certiorari, the State of New York amended its firearm licensing statute, and the City amended the rule so that petitioners may now transport firearms to a secondhome or shooting range outside of the city, which is the pre-cise relief that petitioners requested in the prayer for relief in their complaint."

Lesson to the wise:

If you ask for it in your "prayer for relief", and the defendant gives it to you...case can be mooted.

If you don't like the way your case might get mooted, make sure your prayer for relief specifies a "burrito", not a "taco".

Oh, and as myself and another Calgunner noted before - the whole homeless question was completely ignored by ALL parties - never presented in any way throughout the litigation.

=8-|
Yes I'm sure Roberts, who seemed to have a heavy interest in killing off the case when his power as the court's center was threatened with court packing, would say that plaintiffs received all relief they wanted. That is certainly not the conclusion that the attorney for the plaintiffs showed or what precedent showed

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alito
Thus, in this case, we must apply the well-established standards for determining whether a case is moot, and un-der those standards, we still have a live case before us. It is certainly true that the new City ordinance and the new State law give petitioners most of what they sought, but that is not the test for mootness. Instead, “a case ‘becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any ef-fectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.’” Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U. S. 165, 172 (2013) (emphasis added). “‘As long as the parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation, the case is not moot.’” Ibid. (emphasis added).
Roberts and his fellow activist justices ignored precedent, plaintiffs did not receive the injunction they asked for as relief. The case was not moot, it was dismissed for political reasons.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-08-2021, 8:50 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 10,486
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

NY Solicitor General submitted a request today for a thirty-day extension to file its opposition to granting cert from January 22 to February 22.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...n%20motion.pdf

Last edited by Paladin; 01-08-2021 at 8:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01-09-2021, 4:33 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,637
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
NY Solicitor General submitted a request today for a thirty-day extension to file its opposition to granting cert from January 22 to February 22.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...n%20motion.pdf
This probably won't be the first such request either.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-09-2021, 7:28 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 648
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
This probably won't be the first such request either.

It’s quite normal for the defending party to request an extension. It’s extremely out of the norm for them not to. In any case, this one won’t be heard until Fall, if they even grant cert at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-10-2021, 8:59 PM
NiceGuyInSanJose NiceGuyInSanJose is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 136
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
NY Solicitor General submitted a request today for a thirty-day extension to file its opposition to granting cert from January 22 to February 22.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...n%20motion.pdf
But jan 22 to feb 22 is actually 31 days....
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-12-2021, 5:36 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 10,486
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
NY Solicitor General submitted a request today for a thirty-day extension to file its opposition to granting cert from January 22 to February 22.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...n%20motion.pdf
The motion was granted yesterday.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-18-2021, 10:10 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 10,486
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
There's almost no reason for pessimism in this case.
“Call for KC Brown or Fabio Gets Goosed at the white courtesy phone.”
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-21-2021, 2:36 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 10,486
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Amicus brief by FPC & FPFoundation filed today.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-23-2021, 1:50 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 10,486
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

3 more amicus briefs submitted yesterday.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-23-2021, 3:51 PM
seaweedsoyboy seaweedsoyboy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 129
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Thank you for your updates Paladin!
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-23-2021, 5:36 PM
OCEquestrian's Avatar
OCEquestrian OCEquestrian is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,337
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Amicus brief by FPC & FPFoundation filed today.
And with a simple amicus brief AS USUAL, both organizations claim to be a preeminent supporter of gun rights when soliciting millions of $ from gun owners pissed off at LaPierre's suits...claiming to be as much or more effective as the NRA and the NRA state affiliates that actually PAY for all this litigation.
__________________
“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” ----Sen. Barry Goldwater
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ----Benjamin Franklin

NRA life member
SAF life member
CRPA member

Last edited by OCEquestrian; 01-23-2021 at 10:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-24-2021, 2:06 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 2,348
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SandHill View Post
OK, so let's say I concede that there is a distinction between "abridge" and "infringe" which is meaningful in this context. Let's further assume, arguendo, that "abridge" menas exceptions are permitted, and "shall not be infringed" means "no exceptions."

Where does that lead us in practical terms? Is it your position that the Second Amendment means you can "bear" any weapon, anyplace, any time, with no "exceptions?" Say for example that you wanted to bear an M249 and a couple of drums of ammo while attending an AOC town hall. Is that your right? How about in a federal courthouse while the Ninth Circuit is considering a gun rights case?

If so, as I asserted above, that is not a mainstream view. Even Scalia made it clear that was not what Heller meant. There is no judicial or legislative precedent for the position that the Second Amendment means "no exceptions" and there is 230 years worth of precedent for "exceptions."
Those sound like great ideas.
Being serious. IMHO, even if the Court grants cert and ultimately holds that the 2A guarantees the right of law abiding persons to carry outside of the home and that the states cannot impose good cause, special need or similar conditions on that right, very little will have been gained on a national level. The vast majority of the states are shall issue for residents and many are also shall issue to non-residents. Many of the states that do not issue to non-residents, nonetheless recognize and honor permits from other states. In many CA counties, self-defense is sufficient good cause. So, for these people what, if anything, is gained? While it is a hot button issue for us, might the court consider that since it would only effect CA, NY, MA, CT, NJ, DE, MD & HI and not the other 42 states, it is not of sufficient national importance to grant cert?

Last edited by BAJ475; 01-24-2021 at 2:14 PM.. Reason: Add comment
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 01-26-2021, 7:11 AM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 146
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
Those sound like great ideas.
Being serious. IMHO, even if the Court grants cert and ultimately holds that the 2A guarantees the right of law abiding persons to carry outside of the home and that the states cannot impose good cause, special need or similar conditions on that right, very little will have been gained on a national level. The vast majority of the states are shall issue for residents and many are also shall issue to non-residents. Many of the states that do not issue to non-residents, nonetheless recognize and honor permits from other states. In many CA counties, self-defense is sufficient good cause. So, for these people what, if anything, is gained? While it is a hot button issue for us, might the court consider that since it would only effect CA, NY, MA, CT, NJ, DE, MD & HI and not the other 42 states, it is not of sufficient national importance to grant cert?
First, a decision could have national importance if the court goes after “intermediate scrutiny”. They could change the standard of review for all gun control laws.
Second, those 8 states represent more than a quarter of the people living in this country. I’d say that meets the bar for “national importance”.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 01-26-2021, 8:11 AM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 146
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So, will SCOTUS take the case? On paper they should. They granted cert to a 2A case last year only to find it moot. However, 4 justices basically said “it’s time to take a 2A case”. Looking at the history of his dissents, we also know Thomas seems to have a particular interest in right-to-carry cases.
While they did decline to take several 2A cases last spring, it was only after weeks of deliberation. There is no other reasonable conclusion except that Roberts was not seen a a reliable vote or he outright threatened to join the liberals. With ACB on the bench, Roberts doesn’t matter anymore.
HOWEVER, court packing remains a threat. I don’t think they would have support today to pack the court, but a high profile controversial decision on guns or abortion could change that.
In, “the switch in time that saved nine”, we’ve seen the court act to preserve the institution itself by compromising on “New Deal” programs. So, do they take this case (we know they have 4 votes for cert and very likely have a majority) or do they defer until the packing threat had passed even though the clock may be ticking on Thomas?
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 01-26-2021, 12:04 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 2,348
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
First, a decision could have national importance if the court goes after “intermediate scrutiny”. They could change the standard of review for all gun control laws.
Second, those 8 states represent more than a quarter of the people living in this country. I’d say that meets the bar for “national importance”.
I probably should not have used the phrase “national importance.” My point was merely that it would not effect the majority of us who live in areas where we are not even asked for a reason or, if asked, self defense is sufficient good cause.

I agree that if the court grants cert and goes after “intermediate scrutiny” that would be monumental. I hope Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett see this case as their opportunity to put an end to any interest balancing approach in 2A cases.

For fun, let's assume that the court takes this case and holds that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry in public. The next question will be: can one state bar law-abiding citizens of another state from exercising their Second Amendment rights in that state? If the answer is no, we won't need Congress to enact national reciprocity laws. I can see it now. John Doe, a resident of the state of Idaho versus the State of California.

Then, for icing on the cake would be an opinion that the Second Amendment protect all weapons commonly possessed for lawful purposes, such as AR15s.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 01-26-2021, 1:19 PM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 146
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
For fun, let's assume that the court takes this case and holds that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry in public. The next question will be: can one state bar law-abiding citizens of another state from exercising their Second Amendment rights in that state? If the answer is no, we won't need Congress to enact national reciprocity laws. I can see it now. John Doe, a resident of the state of Idaho versus the State of California
My best guess is that SCOTUS affirms a right to carry, but doesn’t knock down permitting. In other words, “must issue” becomes the law of the land, but they don’t go so far as “constitutional carry” (ie no permit needed).

States like the ones you mention above (CA, NY, NJ, HI etc) will implement crazy permit requirements; you must pass Marine Scout Sniper school, carry $1 million in liability insurance, take a gun safety class that doesn’t exists because we’ll refuse to certify instructors and then you may carry a musket on your birthday.

These states will know that you can’t deny a constitutional right to those from another state or treat them differently (equal protection clause), but they will say “you need a permit issued by our state to carry in our state”. CA isn’t going to recognize out of state permits

Then, it’s back to the courts
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 02-08-2021, 12:51 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,637
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
So, will SCOTUS take the case? On paper they should. They granted cert to a 2A case last year only to find it moot. However, 4 justices basically said “it’s time to take a 2A case”. Looking at the history of his dissents, we also know Thomas seems to have a particular interest in right-to-carry cases.
While they did decline to take several 2A cases last spring, it was only after weeks of deliberation. There is no other reasonable conclusion except that Roberts was not seen a a reliable vote or he outright threatened to join the liberals. With ACB on the bench, Roberts doesn’t matter anymore.
HOWEVER, court packing remains a threat. I don’t think they would have support today to pack the court, but a high profile controversial decision on guns or abortion could change that.
In, “the switch in time that saved nine”, we’ve seen the court act to preserve the institution itself by compromising on “New Deal” programs. So, do they take this case (we know they have 4 votes for cert and very likely have a majority) or do they defer until the packing threat had passed even though the clock may be ticking on Thomas?
If the court decides to take this case then likely we won't have an opinion until June 2022, right before the midterms. That's a really bad time for the Dems to start talking about court packing.
It's a great case for them to take up, the only downside is this case is CCW-only. A case from NJ or MD leaves the OC/CC controversy out of the mix and thus may be easier for the court to decide.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 02-22-2021, 11:37 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,539
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Bumped . . .

. . . because someone couldn't be bothered to scroll halfway down the Index and see the obvious.

=8-(
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 02-22-2021, 3:56 PM
sulla123 sulla123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 266
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default Court packing

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
If the court decides to take this case then likely we won't have an opinion until June 2022, right before the midterms. That's a really bad time for the Dems to start talking about court packing.
It's a great case for them to take up, the only downside is this case is CCW-only. A case from NJ or MD leaves the OC/CC controversy out of the mix and thus may be easier for the court to decide.
Most liberal sheep have no idea what that is, or would see anything wrong with it.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 02-22-2021, 3:59 PM
sulla123 sulla123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 266
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

I did an awful job raising my kids. Of the four, only one is mildly center. The other three are full throated progressive windbags that I am seriously considering kicking out of my house the second college is over so they can begin paying the ridiculous taxes espoused by the idiots they voted for.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 02-22-2021, 7:06 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 10,486
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Please keep this thread on topic...
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 02-22-2021, 7:54 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,742
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

So did the NY SG get his opposition brief filed? Today was the deadline, correct?

Edit: question answered in the first post link to the docket.

Last edited by Sputnik; 02-23-2021 at 1:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 02-26-2021, 9:15 PM
cbruno3333 cbruno3333 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think this is the last stand for carry outside the home in blue America. If they deny cert here, I'm not sure what legal vehicle could take down "may issue". I think the reply brief was written well enough to convince Roberts to deny cert, and strongly played to his desires to not rock the apple cart. ACB still a wildcard...
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 02-26-2021, 10:45 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 10,486
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cbruno3333 View Post
I think this is the last stand for carry outside the home in blue America. If they deny cert here, I'm not sure what legal vehicle could take down "may issue"....
Young, Nichols or Flanagan....
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 02-26-2021, 11:40 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,052
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cbruno3333 View Post
I think this is the last stand for carry outside the home in blue America. If they deny cert here, I'm not sure what legal vehicle could take down "may issue". I think the reply brief was written well enough to convince Roberts to deny cert, and strongly played to his desires to not rock the apple cart. ACB still a wildcard...
Robert’s is a no. I suspect 4 wouldn’t vote for cert unless they thought they had the votes. Kavanaugh and ACB, they’ve had some strong 2A opinions, but if they will extend that to carry, I’m not sure.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 02-28-2021, 3:51 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,637
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Robert’s is a no. I suspect 4 wouldn’t vote for cert unless they thought they had the votes. Kavanaugh and ACB, they’ve had some strong 2A opinions, but if they will extend that to carry, I’m not sure.
Kavanaugh joined Thomas on the dissent of the NJ carry case after NYSRPA was mooted. So I think he's good. ACB and Alito, who hasn't said a word on any of the public carry cases, are unknowns along with Roberts.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 02-28-2021, 10:36 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,539
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Kavanaugh joined Thomas on the dissent of the NJ carry case after NYSRPA was mooted. So I think he's good. ACB and Alito, who hasn't said a word on any of the public carry cases, are unknowns along with Roberts.
Thomas = Pro 2A / Pro Heller
Alito = Pro 2A / Pro Heller
Kavanaugh = Pro 2A AND Pro Establishment / Pro Heller

Roberts = Pro Establishment / Pro Heller

Gorsuch = Pro Establishment / Recognizes Heller as Precedent
Barrett = Pro Establishment / Recognizes Heller as Precedent
Kagan = Pro Establishment / Recognizes Heller as Precedent
Sotomayor = Pro Establishment / Recognizes Heller as Precendent

Breyer = Pro Establishment / Anti-Heller

It's 3-6 folks, and you can see the fundamental reason why.

Also, Kavanaugh just like Bill Barr is Hillary's cleanup guy from Arkansas, he will not allow any criminal prosecution to make it past SCOTUS unscathed.

Barrett is Bush's cleanup lady in Florida, and she will cover for the Bush family when necessary.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 02-28-2021, 10:50 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,539
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Young, Nichols or Flanagan....
The District Court judge for Flanagan already called out Flanagan for being a concealed carry case and made it crystal clear - they're not getting a Peruta redo.

So Flanagan is pretty much dead, especially since the conflicted NRA lawyer couldn't make the necessary argument due to his involvement in another case in which he argues exactly the opposite.

So it's really:

Young and Nichols

Young = Ball artfully place in Hawaii's hands: "Give us something!"

Nichols = CA Penal Code + Strike Through Pen


If you really think about it, Mr. Nichols and Mr. Beck together have put CA9 in something of a pickle - even with any kind of moot action by Hawaii or California.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 03-01-2021, 2:26 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,059
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If course, here he is. The internet expert. All the judges and lawyers just don't know.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 03-05-2021, 7:16 PM
ja308 ja308 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 11,034
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sulla123 View Post
I did an awful job raising my kids. Of the four, only one is mildly center. The other three are full throated progressive windbags that I am seriously considering kicking out of my house the second college is over so they can begin paying the ridiculous taxes espoused by the idiots they voted for.
Pretty tough winning against a stacked deck !
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 03-06-2021, 7:00 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,637
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Thomas = Pro 2A / Pro Heller
Alito = Pro 2A / Pro Heller
Kavanaugh = Pro 2A AND Pro Establishment / Pro Heller

Roberts = Pro Establishment / Pro Heller

Gorsuch = Pro Establishment / Recognizes Heller as Precedent
Barrett = Pro Establishment / Recognizes Heller as Precedent
Kagan = Pro Establishment / Recognizes Heller as Precedent
Sotomayor = Pro Establishment / Recognizes Heller as Precendent

Breyer = Pro Establishment / Anti-Heller

It's 3-6 folks, and you can see the fundamental reason why.

Also, Kavanaugh just like Bill Barr is Hillary's cleanup guy from Arkansas, he will not allow any criminal prosecution to make it past SCOTUS unscathed.

Barrett is Bush's cleanup lady in Florida, and she will cover for the Bush family when necessary.


=8-|
Not sure if you're talking about this case or some other future SCOTUS case???
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 03-06-2021, 7:06 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,637
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
The District Court judge for Flanagan already called out Flanagan for being a concealed carry case and made it crystal clear - they're not getting a Peruta redo.

So Flanagan is pretty much dead, especially since the conflicted NRA lawyer couldn't make the necessary argument due to his involvement in another case in which he argues exactly the opposite.

So it's really:

Young and Nichols

Young = Ball artfully place in Hawaii's hands: "Give us something!"

Nichols = CA Penal Code + Strike Through Pen


If you really think about it, Mr. Nichols and Mr. Beck together have put CA9 in something of a pickle - even with any kind of moot action by Hawaii or California.

=8-|
CA9 put themselves in this pickle with Peruta. With Young you have a jurisdiction that doesn't issue permits (OC or CC) to citizens, and another in Nichols where the county doesn't issue OC permits. With CCW off limits in Peruta, the court has to capitulate on OC, rule the right is homebound (and split w/Moore), or overrule Peruta and opt for the state to choose an obtainable method for carry (likely shall issue CCW).
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 9:34 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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 2002-2020, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.
Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Tactical Gear Military Boots 5.11 Tactical