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
  #1601  
Old 12-02-2019, 3:03 PM
yacko yacko is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 65
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
I think Sotomayor is talking about hate speech ..
She would know..... EVERYONE HATES HER!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #1602  
Old 12-02-2019, 3:07 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,948
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Chuck Michel predicts Roberts will moot the case.

Reply With Quote
  #1603  
Old 12-02-2019, 3:09 PM
John Browning's Avatar
John Browning John Browning is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 7,445
iTrader: 77 / 100%
Default

I hope this is very stressful for RBG and she joins other tyrants ASAP.
Reply With Quote
  #1604  
Old 12-02-2019, 3:27 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,116
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
I read through the transcript. Mootness aside the two issues that I noticed most are that the case doesn't seem to be about "carrying in public" as in bearing for self-defense so much as possession while traveling to a specific destination. It seems to me a locked and unloaded gun isn't useful for bearing, so why is this case being presented as having an impact on CCW?

On the plus side, and related to mootness, assurances by NYC that they would respect "reasonable and necessary" stops that could violate "continuous and uninterrupted " travel were well questioned by Gorsuch and Alito. I think they realize depending on the forbearance of NYC is insufficient guarantee.
What you missed was the court mentioning that since the law has changed, has public safety been an issue? It’s laying groundwork for upcoming litigation. If New York City prohibited transport before and now they allow it and public safety hasn’t been affected.... now, where do we go from here?
Reply With Quote
  #1605  
Old 12-02-2019, 3:54 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 39,227
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
Of course it’s a guise that the court is hiding its political ambitions behind a veneer of impartiality.

If that weren’t the case, Thomas and Kavanaugh would both be active during orals when the case has a right-leaning political charge. Their being silent is implicit recognition that such activity brings an unwelcome aire to the proceedings, given their respective confirmation hearings.
Thomas is almost always silent at oral arguments; I don't think one may read anything into that here.
Reply With Quote
  #1606  
Old 12-02-2019, 4:02 PM
JCHavasu's Avatar
JCHavasu JCHavasu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: That's classified...
Posts: 321
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
Of course it’s a guise that the court is hiding its political ambitions behind a veneer of impartiality.

If that weren’t the case, Thomas and Kavanaugh would both be active during orals when the case has a right-leaning political charge. Their being silent is implicit recognition that such activity brings an unwelcome aire to the proceedings, given their respective confirmation hearings.
Thomas is widely known for NOT asking questions from the bench, so I don't think you can read anything from the fact that he didn't ask any.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ch-in-10-years
__________________
"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich quick theory of life." - Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #1607  
Old 12-02-2019, 4:06 PM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 955
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Thomas is almost always silent at oral arguments; I don't think one may read anything into that here.
His overall silence was always attributed to being poor and his desire not to be harassed for his Gullah-Geechee upbringing (https://www.usnews.com/news/articles...me-court-bench).

That may have started it, but I do think that opening himself up to his opponents is the reason it continues.
Reply With Quote
  #1608  
Old 12-02-2019, 4:13 PM
JCHavasu's Avatar
JCHavasu JCHavasu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: That's classified...
Posts: 321
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
His overall silence was always attributed to being poor and his desire not to be harassed for his Gullah-Geechee upbringing (https://www.usnews.com/news/articles...me-court-bench).

That may have started it, but I do think that opening himself up to his opponents is the reason it continues.
That may be a part of it, but he has also stated specifically he thinks it is discourteous to pepper the lawyers with questions.

Justice Thomas's explanations for his disengagement from this aspect of the court's work have varied, but he seems to have settled on one in recent years. It is simply discourteous, he says, to pepper lawyers with questions.

" 'I think it's unnecessary in deciding cases to ask that many questions, and I don't think it's helpful,' he said at Harvard Law School in 2013. 'I think we should listen to lawyers who are arguing their cases, and I think we should allow the advocates to advocate.' "
__________________
"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich quick theory of life." - Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #1609  
Old 12-02-2019, 4:27 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,550
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I was wondering what the precedent is for a city or state to regulate what a resident does when out of that cities or state jurisdiction? It would seem this should have been settled long before it made to the supreme court.
Reply With Quote
  #1610  
Old 12-02-2019, 4:29 PM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,849
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Caetano was use of weapon outside the home. Homeless even so premises permit seems a huge burden.

And Justice S. asking why not bring a carry case when SCOTUS blew off Peruta is rich. Her entire set of questions is remarkably disturbing.

Justice Ginsburg just seems hopelessly lost.

I bet moot so they can wash their hands of any real decision. Why rock the boat with constitutional clarity when maintaining status quo is so comfy?
Reply With Quote
  #1611  
Old 12-02-2019, 4:29 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 17,160
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JCHavasu View Post
Thomas is widely known for NOT asking questions from the bench, so I don't think you can read anything from the fact that he didn't ask any.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ch-in-10-years
My opinion of Thomas' silence is that he just rarely has a question of which the lawyers can answer. When he actually has a question, he checks the Constitution and has his staff investigate relevant period documents and case law. A litigant's opinion on those documents doesn't mean anything to Thomas.
Reply With Quote
  #1612  
Old 12-02-2019, 4:40 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,417
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Less than 7 months until a decision!

__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #1613  
Old 12-02-2019, 4:45 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 17,160
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
so why is this case being presented as having an impact on CCW?
The optimists on this believe this case to be an opportunity for the SCOTUS to rule on scrutiny. Currently some courts are applying rational basis masquerading as intermediate scrutiny to pretty much any 2A case outside the home. A ruling on a transport case which used strict scrutiny, or better yet the 2A is above the 3 tier system entirely, would be a game changer for carry and any other outside the home 2A issue.

Additionally, though less likely, is the SCOTUS could approach the case from the perspective of carry, arguing that carry is a constitutional right so laws against transport could be no more strict than carry. Since you have a right to carry almost everywhere, you have a right to transport in those same places.

Last edited by stix213; 12-02-2019 at 4:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1614  
Old 12-02-2019, 4:46 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,417
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
I agree .. I don't think it's not mooted and we will get a decision.
Double negative.

FWIW, my guess is not mooted. I won't guess the rationale used, but the motivation is to discourage moot attempts post granting of cert. Negotiated settlements and moot attempts should be prior to cert. decisions to save judicial resources. Allowing it in this case, contrary to what Breyer was peddling, encourages litigants to NOT attempt settlements until AFTER wasting SCOTUS' time making a cert decision. They really don't want to open those floodgates, now do they?

JMHO
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 12-02-2019 at 4:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1615  
Old 12-02-2019, 4:46 PM
Aragorn's Avatar
Aragorn Aragorn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 228
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Chuck Michel predicts Roberts will moot the case.

The other dynamic in this case that strongly argues against mootness is the outright threats the Court received from Senate Democrats to rule in a politically acceptable manner else they will pack the court.
If the Court refuses to even make a ruling on the merits of this case, they will have been successfully cowed by these Senate Democrats.

SCOTUS cannot allow that to happen regardless of the specific case issues involved. I even offered up a bet to Chuck of a nice dinner at The Derby in Arcadia that the Court will NOT rule this case moot.
__________________

Gun Owners of America, Life Member
2nd Amendment Foundation, Life Member
Arizona Citizens Defense League, Life Member
Lone Star Gun Rights, Member
President of Front Sight, Life Member
Admin. Glendora Concealed Carry
Reply With Quote
  #1616  
Old 12-02-2019, 4:58 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 244
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

From Amy Howe on SCOTUSblog:

“ Wall similarly urged the court to adopt a test that focuses on whether a restriction on gun is consistent with the text, history and tradition of the Second Amendment, describing such a standard as following from the court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. Sotomayor was dubious, dismissing it as a “made-up new standard.”

Interesting....
Reply With Quote
  #1617  
Old 12-02-2019, 5:02 PM
blackrat blackrat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 921
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EM2 View Post
There is a bit of irony in this, in that, in order for Roberts to show us there are no political justices he has to play politics with our case.
On it's face, y'all are discussing just how political the SCOTUS actually is by all the gamesmanship going on instead of just ruling on the merits of the case.
If Roberts really wants to convince us that SCOTUS is not political, all he needs to do is quite with the games, hear the case, deliberate, and decide.
It really is not that complicated, or not supposed to be.
Well said.
Reply With Quote
  #1618  
Old 12-02-2019, 5:03 PM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,849
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
I read through the transcript. Mootness aside the two issues that I noticed most are that the case doesn't seem to be about "carrying in public" as in bearing for self-defense so much as possession while traveling to a specific destination. It seems to me a locked and unloaded gun isn't useful for bearing, so why is this case being presented as having an impact on CCW?

On the plus side, and related to mootness, assurances by NYC that they would respect "reasonable and necessary" stops that could violate "continuous and uninterrupted " travel were well questioned by Gorsuch and Alito. I think they realize depending on the forbearance of NYC is insufficient guarantee.
Funny that Justice S. asked why they didn't just bring a carry case!

SCOTUS has been loathe to issue broad ruling instead opting for narrowly tailored ones. So the plaintiffs present a narrowly tailored arguement and case and Justice S. wants a different subject!

Impact on CCW permits is because if the premises permit gets squashed that only leaves CCW as an avenue to bear. No way NY goes permit less carry - that will be a cold day in the netherworld. The noose is slowly tightening to some form of carry outside the home with reasonably light requirements (like a background check) and that prospect scares the bejeebers out of the haters of freedom and their minions.
__________________
CA firearms laws timeline BLM land maps
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931) -Scalia majority opinion in Heller
Reply With Quote
  #1619  
Old 12-02-2019, 5:07 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 674
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
So, if the theater is burning, you can’t alert people?

What if you are an actor and the script calls for you to yell fire? Are you not allowed to perform that line?


The answer is no. You are not allowed to create a panic, which causes harm. Somehow, people don’t understand that part.
I am not sure what you retorted. Yes, you can not use speech to create a dangerous panic. There are many other restrictions on speech and use of words.

Last edited by Offwidth; 12-02-2019 at 5:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1620  
Old 12-02-2019, 5:21 PM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 1,897
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

IMO, if this case is mooted, it sends a clear message to legislatures and municipalities that they can enact whatever draconian measure they can get by, and simply enforce it all along while waiting decades until SCOTUS gets it on the schedule, then simply repeal it at the last minute. Knowing this, they can effect whatever damage they can to the citizenry in the mean time.
As I grow older and more cynical, I have much less respect for laws, authority, government, and those whom continue to push this crap down our throats.
I'm careful of where/what I step in, but I'm at a point in life where I do what I damm well please to the extent I can get away with it.
Reply With Quote
  #1621  
Old 12-02-2019, 5:37 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,948
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aragorn View Post
The other dynamic in this case that strongly argues against mootness is the outright threats the Court received from Senate Democrats to rule in a politically acceptable manner else they will pack the court.
If the Court refuses to even make a ruling on the merits of this case, they will have been successfully cowed by these Senate Democrats.

SCOTUS cannot allow that to happen regardless of the specific case issues involved. I even offered up a bet to Chuck of a nice dinner at The Derby in Arcadia that the Court will NOT rule this case moot.
I really hope you're right.
Reply With Quote
  #1622  
Old 12-02-2019, 5:42 PM
EM2's Avatar
EM2 EM2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Prather, CA
Posts: 2,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by splithoof View Post
IMO, if this case is mooted, it sends a clear message to legislatures and municipalities that they can enact whatever draconian measure they can get by, and simply enforce it all along while waiting decades until SCOTUS gets it on the schedule, then simply repeal it at the last minute. Knowing this, they can effect whatever damage they can to the citizenry in the mean time.
As I grow older and more cynical, I have much less respect for laws, authority, government, and those whom continue to push this crap down our throats.
I'm careful of where/what I step in, but I'm at a point in life where I do what I damm well please to the extent I can get away with it.
Agreed, I also came to this realization a few years ago.
It seems to me that the government has no respect for the law, therefor why should we?
__________________
Quote:
"The 'Spray and Pray' system advances triumphantly in law enforcement. In a recent case in a southwestern city...a police officer, when threatened with a handgun, emptied his 15 shot pistol at his would-be assailant, achieving two peripheral hits. The citizen was charged with brandishing a firearm, but the cop was not charged with anything, lousy shooting not being a diciplinary offense."
--- Jeff Cooper, June 1990

Quote:
Originally Posted by EM2
Put you link where your opinion is.
Reply With Quote
  #1623  
Old 12-02-2019, 6:01 PM
LBDamned's Avatar
LBDamned LBDamned is offline
Made in the USA
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Free in AZ!!! yes, it's worth the Pain to make it happen!
Posts: 11,011
iTrader: 51 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by splithoof View Post
IMO, if this case is mooted, it sends a clear message to legislatures and municipalities that they can enact whatever draconian measure they can get by, and simply enforce it all along while waiting decades until SCOTUS gets it on the schedule, then simply repeal it at the last minute. Knowing this, they can effect whatever damage they can to the citizenry in the mean time.
As I grow older and more cynical, I have much less respect for laws, authority, government, and those whom continue to push this crap down our throats.
I'm careful of where/what I step in, but I'm at a point in life where I do what I damm well please to the extent I can get away with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EM2 View Post
Agreed, I also came to this realization a few years ago.
It seems to me that the government has no respect for the law, therefor why should we?
I agree.

When those who are making rules and creating restrictions - are the same ones breaking rules with no restrictions... It's hard for me to take it seriously.

Live life - and leave others alone... Then all will be fine.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MachineGuntongue View Post
Music is magic - Wisdom is golden - Learning to navigate life better as we age is amazing and a choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
It only has as much power as you give it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LBDamned
I know some things about a lot of things - and a lot of things about some things - but I don't know everything about anything
-----------------------------
"RIGHT POWER!"
http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w558/LBDamneds/Misc/III_zpsofbisb36.jpg
-----------------------------
Dignity, Respect, Purpose - Live It!
Reply With Quote
  #1624  
Old 12-02-2019, 6:11 PM
glbtrottr's Avatar
glbtrottr glbtrottr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: By the Beach, Baby!
Posts: 3,524
iTrader: 48 / 87%
Default

You should because if you don’t you’re far more likely to get arrested and convicted than say...Hilary, Comey, Page, Strzok, and the rest of the deep state idiots. Some animals are just more equal than others.

I don’t hold out hope for Roberts. Between his epilepsy, his flawed moral compass and compromise, the decisions around Obamacare, I see him as more dangerous than Breyer and every other facetious RINO Supreme that betrayed conservative values and constitutionalism. He’s a sellout, a hypocrite and a liar..and I did just say that about a Supreme Court Justice. After Sotomayor and RBG, the bar to be a Supreme Court Justice is clearly in the gutter, and Roberts does not disappoint in that regard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
On hold....
Reply With Quote
  #1625  
Old 12-02-2019, 6:34 PM
Citizen_B's Avatar
Citizen_B Citizen_B is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,021
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Read the transcript.. Interesting. I don't know which way Roberts will go on mootness, but I think the case against mootness was stronger.

The important exchange for me was on the Gorsuch/Dearing discussion on whether a controversy still exists:

Gorsuch: But you're asking us to say that there is no controversy now. So I am trying to just nail down exactly what is the delta, if any, remaining in the relief that might have been sought and the relief you've provided.

Dearing: ... In short what I'm saying is this is not relief that was ever sought. There may be a controversy here, but it's a new controversy, it would need to be litigated in a new case.

Dearing admits there "may" be a controversy here, so how exactly can he claim at the same time that the plaintiffs got everything they asked for? If he wants to claim the plaintiffs got everything they asked for, his answer must be there is no controversy left in order to justify mootness. Saying there may still exist controversy but it needs to be litigated in a new case is an exact reason not to moot the current case and address the controversy.
Reply With Quote
  #1626  
Old 12-02-2019, 6:49 PM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,849
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Clements rebuttal very clearly explained there is plenty of controversy remaining.
Reply With Quote
  #1627  
Old 12-02-2019, 6:57 PM
bragmardo bragmardo is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 72
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
I am not sure what you retorted. Yes, you can not use speech to create a dangerous panic. There are many other restrictions on speech and use of words.
Yeah, not. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), the source of denying First Amendment protection to “a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic”, was overturned in the relevant sense by the per curiam ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), that “the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Shout fire anywhere all you want.
Reply With Quote
  #1628  
Old 12-02-2019, 7:03 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,115
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
.
.
.

I bet moot so they can wash their hands of any real decision. Why rock the boat with constitutional clarity when maintaining status quo is so comfy?
But if they really wanted to moot it they could have done that well before today.

Their hearing the case with arguments regarding mootness suggests to me that they want something like:
  • They are confused about current law and wanted it explained so that they could decide whether to hear the case. I rather doubt this is the case. . .
  • Hearing the arguments on mootness gives them something to have orals about. If they don't argue about mootness then New York's collapse on the merits by killing the ordnance in question might make the case rather boring. I kinda doubt this one is the reason.
  • Some on the court want to not only address the question asked of the court on the 2A issue but also want to set a proper precedent on mooting/mootness. Since simply withdrawing cert would have served to cement the position taken by NY - hearing the case on mootness would suggest they would be clarifying mootness in a manner that NY would not like. Orals let the Justices elicit the arguments the Justices want law students to study.
  • Hearing the mootness is the result of bargaining. This is the more worrisome one. They got 4 to vote for cert and they would not have done that unless they thought they could get 5 votes in favor of their position. Since the change on the court was Kavanaugh instead of Kennedy and Kennedy was the one who wanted the precedent effectively limited to having the firearm in the home, Kavanaugh is expected to expand the 2A. But it could be that the 5th vote (likely Roberts) is truly conflicted on mootness. If this is right, then Roberts may or may not vote for mootness.
  • I think it most likely that there are 5 votes which are exasperated by the lack of respect for the right to self-defense and are also annoyed by the mootness game. So they plan to stomp on governmental institutions which are playing mootness and other games. The fascists on the court may not even vote for mootness if they think they can limit the scope on this case and still have the other 2A cases go away.

It may be useful to remember that there are other self-defense cases which are just sorta being held. The logical argument is that they are being held until this case sets new precedent which will allow SCOTUS to vacate the appeals court opinion and remand it to the lower court for decision. But since the other cases which are being held are not limited to the narrow idea of transporting a firearm they must be planning a rather expansive ruling on the RKBA or the planned precedent wouldn't apply to the other cases.

Now if I were one of the four (or more) who voted for cert for the case and I thought there was a pretty good chance of the case being recognized as mooted, then I'd go with mooting before the case is officially heard and I'd move up one of the other cases for decision and thus as the vehicle for setting the needed precedent.

So I think the best guess is that the case will not be seen as mooted and that the ruling on the question(s) will be broad enough to provide precedent for deciding other (pending) cases.


OK, I've no inside information and I'm not at all a lawyer so I could be very wrong.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.

Last edited by OleCuss; 12-02-2019 at 7:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1629  
Old 12-02-2019, 7:07 PM
homelessdude homelessdude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: inland empire
Posts: 1,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You have to give Clements credit. When ask to support a statement he can tell you the page and paragraph. He had his ducks in a row. My gut tells me mootness fails.
Reply With Quote
  #1630  
Old 12-02-2019, 7:07 PM
Mayor McRifle's Avatar
Mayor McRifle Mayor McRifle is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 6,706
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bragmardo View Post
Yeah, not. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), the source of denying First Amendment protection to “a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic”, was overturned in the relevant sense by the per curiam ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), that “the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Shout fire anywhere all you want.
Criminal solicitation, defamation, false advertising, fraud, obscenity, inciting a riot, fighting words, terrorist threats, perjury, etc. . . .
__________________
Anchors Aweigh

Reply With Quote
  #1631  
Old 12-02-2019, 7:13 PM
MEGSDAD's Avatar
MEGSDAD MEGSDAD is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 214
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by splithoof View Post
IMO, if this case is mooted, it sends a clear message to legislatures and municipalities that they can enact whatever draconian measure they can get by, and simply enforce it all along while waiting decades until SCOTUS gets it on the schedule, then simply repeal it at the last minute. Knowing this, they can effect whatever damage they can to the citizenry in the mean time.
As I grow older and more cynical, I have much less respect for laws, authority, government, and those whom continue to push this crap down our throats.
I'm careful of where/what I step in, but I'm at a point in life where I do what I damm well please to the extent I can get away with it.
Dont think for a second the Idiots in Excremento arent watching this. Newscum would slobber all over himself if he could sign a statewide ban on the transportation and use of firearms.
Reply With Quote
  #1632  
Old 12-02-2019, 7:59 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County, Idaho
Posts: 2,046
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

For those more informed than myself, what about the issue of the correct standard of review? Is this something that can be dispensed with based on mootness?
Reply With Quote
  #1633  
Old 12-02-2019, 8:00 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is online now
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 1,078
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by splithoof View Post
IMO, if this case is mooted, it sends a clear message to legislatures and municipalities that they can enact whatever draconian measure they can get by, and simply enforce it all along while waiting decades until SCOTUS gets it on the schedule, then simply repeal it at the last minute. Knowing this, they can effect whatever damage they can to the citizenry in the mean time.
As I grow older and more cynical, I have much less respect for laws, authority, government, and those whom continue to push this crap down our throats.
I'm careful of where/what I step in, but I'm at a point in life where I do what I damm well please to the extent I can get away with it.
Or it sends a clear message to those challenging laws on constitutional grounds to tack on “damages for past violation of rights” in their request for relief (mindlessly, as congress does with the interstate commerce clause) to avoid this nonsense.
Reply With Quote
  #1634  
Old 12-02-2019, 8:19 PM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 161
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen_B View Post
Read the transcript.. Interesting. I don't know which way Roberts will go on mootness, but I think the case against mootness was stronger.

The important exchange for me was on the Gorsuch/Dearing discussion on whether a controversy still exists:

Gorsuch: But you're asking us to say that there is no controversy now. So I am trying to just nail down exactly what is the delta, if any, remaining in the relief that might have been sought and the relief you've provided.

Dearing: ... In short what I'm saying is this is not relief that was ever sought. There may be a controversy here, but it's a new controversy, it would need to be litigated in a new case.

Dearing admits there "may" be a controversy here, so how exactly can he claim at the same time that the plaintiffs got everything they asked for? If he wants to claim the plaintiffs got everything they asked for, his answer must be there is no controversy left in order to justify mootness. Saying there may still exist controversy but it needs to be litigated in a new case is an exact reason not to moot the current case and address the controversy.
I think this was the most powerful part.

The evasive circular argument game that Dearing played reminded me of arguing with my toddler. He would state, "we changed the law, to satisfy the plaintiff, so the case is moot", then he would be reminded that the new law has the same "cup of coffee" or "visit your mother" problem as the old law, so he would shift to we can't discuss the new law, as this case is about the old law. And around and around we go.
Reply With Quote
  #1635  
Old 12-02-2019, 9:06 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,639
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
I am not sure what you retorted. Yes, you can not use speech to create a dangerous panic. There are many other restrictions on speech and use of words.
My point is the restrictions on free speech are based on what forms of speech cause harm to another person. The equivalent of that for gun rights is you can't shoot someone or hit them with the gun. Banning certain guns or barrel lengths or calibers is not the same as banning speech that harms another person.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1636  
Old 12-02-2019, 10:16 PM
TFA777 TFA777 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 188
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
My point is the restrictions on free speech are based on what forms of speech cause harm to another person. The equivalent of that for gun rights is you can't shoot someone or hit them with the gun. Banning certain guns or barrel lengths or calibers is not the same as banning speech that harms another person.
This^....

The whole issue of "you can't use speech to create panic" is a nonsensical argument (yes I know the court used "fire in a crowded theater" as an example). You absolutely can (which is not the same as saying you SHOULD). It does also come with consequences, but just because you shouldn't does not mean the government can pre-empt your speech because u 'might' cause a panic.

So to your point the equivalent is the government should not be able to pre empt our ownership of firearms simply because they may be used maliciously to cause harm.
Reply With Quote
  #1637  
Old 12-02-2019, 10:39 PM
scbauer's Avatar
scbauer scbauer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 907
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AKSOG View Post
MSM gonna MSM.

Grain of salt
hahaha, sad but true.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1638  
Old 12-02-2019, 10:45 PM
USMCM16A2 USMCM16A2 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,989
iTrader: 109 / 100%
Default

Teres hanges. A2
Reply With Quote
  #1639  
Old 12-02-2019, 10:50 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
For those more informed than myself, what about the issue of the correct standard of review? Is this something that can be dispensed with based on mootness?
If the case is moot, the question of standard of review doesn't get considered.
Reply With Quote
  #1640  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:05 PM
scbauer's Avatar
scbauer scbauer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 907
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Less than 7 months until a decision!

Not cool.
__________________
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 10:39 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.