|
National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#803
|
||||
|
||||
Two thoughts: (1) remember that "Gay wedding cake" case this term? It was scheduled for discussion for months and months and then, finally, in mid June, they just GVR'ed it. (I posted the relevant timeline somewhere earlier in this forum, IIRC.) SCOTUS pushes off controversial cases until the end of their term. In a controversial move, RBG already identified another Gay case (employment?) and Guns as the big controversial cases for next term. Also, remember, just because a case is not "moving" on the docket does not mean that justices aren't working on it or aren't having their clerks work on it.
(2) They could be waiting for NYC's merits brief (due Aug 05) (and NYSRPA's optional Reply brief?), before deciding whether and when to schedule it for orals. (If not, they might moot the case or per curiam it w/o orals.) Again, just EDC pepper spray, follow the 4-Stupids Rules and enjoy your summer while we all await the Long Conference at the end of Sept (Rogers, Pena and Gould are still await cert decisions). ETA: If people want to do something while waiting... if you live in/near Sonoma Co, get the word out (ranges, gun shops, IDPA/USPSA clubs, etc) the new sheriff is regularly issuing CCWs. If you live in/near Yolo Co, show up to support CCWs when Lopez has public meetings, to encourage him to liberalize issuance. Also hit ranges, gun shops and IDPA/USPSA clubs to get their customers and members active. If you live in/near CoCoCo, do the same (ranges, gun shops, IDPA/USPSA clubs, etc), sharing my CoCoCo CCW Advice thread (stickied at the top of the Counties CCW Info forum), so that more people apply and get issued. https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1482924 If you live in LA Co and have solid GC (prior reported attacks or credible threats, are a target due to work related matters (valuables, drugs, dangerous items, etc)), spend the $10 and apply and have your GC evaluated to see if you can get a CCW and let us (or at least me via PM (kept in strict confidence)), know how it goes. The new sheriff has said he's issuing more CCWs than his predecessor.
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Last edited by Paladin; 07-27-2019 at 8:09 PM.. |
#804
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
At 70, I'm damn tired of "waiting" for all these suits to offset the F'n avalanche of Unconstitutional laws we get more buried under every "summer". I'm quickly running out of "summers"................. In the once great state of Ca. that I grew up in. At 13 I went to swap meets and garage sales and bought guns. Could drive around with a loaded pistol on the seat of my 59 Impala. Only waiting period, was waiting for ANY local hardware or Five n Dime store to ring up my gun or ammo purchase. Now 50 some yrs later. I'm a F'n criminal if I walk from my front door to the car in the driveway without my shotgun being cased and out of sight. Anybody remember the old cartoon of 2 buzzards in the dead snag tree? One looks at the other and says. "Patience be Damned, I'm gonna Kill something". |
#805
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Best thing is for folks NOT to make the same mistake over and over again. We counted on Nordyke and were disappointed. We counted on Heller/McDonald and SCOTUS has, so far, allowed it's "law" to be restricted to it's holding by the Circuit Courts of Appeal. The only pleasant surprise we've gotten was Caetano and that was minor, but important (so far, has helped with, IIRC, tasers, stun guns and pepper or mace sprays). Best not to wait on the Courts, but keep busy at the county level while waiting. In my previous post above, I gave suggestions for 4 different counties. I'm sure there's work to be done in other counties too. The more CCWs we get issued statewide, the safer our streets get and the more CCWs that will be issued (and the weaker the antis' arguments become). We've come a long way over the past 10 years without a Carry Case win at SCOTUS. Now is not the time to sit on our hands while waiting for SCOTUS once again...
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Last edited by Paladin; 07-18-2019 at 11:24 PM.. |
#806
|
|||
|
|||
I'm in LA Cnty, and no matter what color Baggs puts on his map. LA will remain DARK MAROON IN REALITY. Until SCOTUS says otherwise.
Which is less likely all the time to happen before I run out of "summers". And those maps don't come anywhere close to representing just how F,d the 2nd is in this state. Mag Bans, 3 levels of AW bans, ammo registration, fees, waiting periods, handgun roster, on, and on, and on. Legislature makes the rules. They know full well they can pass multiple anti 2A laws in weeks. Prop-63 example, and it takes us tens of yrs to fight each one. While they continue the "Bill Mill" grinding away full tilt. Last edited by pacrat; 07-18-2019 at 11:50 PM.. |
#807
|
||||
|
||||
The optimist in me wants to believe SCOTUS has recognized this and will hand down a rule on scrutiny. Not doing so will require them to keep swatting down innumerable unconstitutional laws like flies... one by one. Time to put down the fly-swatter and bring out the flamethrower.
|
#808
|
|||
|
|||
I think this is an important issue in the timing of the case being heard. I may not be thinking exactly as you are, but I believe you identified the key.
I think Roberts in particular does not want to have this case become a bigger factor in the 2020 election than necessary. If the court is viewed as having timed the orals or the decision in a manner which would affect the election, it will be considered by many to be a political court which is trying to interfere where it should not. And if the orals occur prior to the election in the next session you will have people arguing that the SCOTUS is trying to affect the election. So I expect Roberts (maybe others as well) would argue for distancing this case from the election and I'd guess that January is the earliest they'd hear the case. Because I expect the language to be hard-fought-over I'm guessing it gets heard no later than March. So I'm guessing/speculating that the case is heard in the January to March time frame.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#809
|
|||
|
|||
I am with you only a few years behind.
Quote:
|
#810
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
JMO
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Last edited by Paladin; 07-19-2019 at 9:43 AM.. |
#811
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Do note that I wrote "bigger factor". Orals and/or a decision would inflate the issue. But even that would not be the Roberts' direct reason to delay. He will want to keep the timing away from the election for the good of the court more than for the good of the country (it would not surprise me if he figures that whatever is good for the court IS good for the country). If he schedules orals in February or March it will mean that the SCOTUS will not be quite as much of an issue in the election. I'm pretty sure Roberts will believe this is a good thing.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). Last edited by OleCuss; 07-19-2019 at 10:58 AM.. |
#812
|
|||
|
|||
The date of orals will not be the issue. Instead, the issue will be the timing of the issuance of its decision. As you are probably aware, the Court issues all of its decisions at the end of a term, which is June. Further, I surmise that there is no set period of time that the Court must issue its decision (as is the case with the Circuit courts)after oral arguments, and the decision cold be held for another year after orals, i.e., until after the next election. that would not surprise me at all if it is a real block buster that fully recognizes the right as just as important as all the others.
|
#813
|
|||
|
|||
A BETTER ? FOR NYSRP V NEW YORK
Even if it goes our way and all the wide ranging pro 2A speculations bantered here come to pass.
WILL IT MAKE ONE DAMN BIT OF DIFFERENCE IN CRAPOFORNIA? For all the hoopla with Heller 11 yrs ago. And McDonald 9 yrs ago. Neither made one damn bit of difference, here behind enemy lines in Crapofornia. The Chit Flood of anti 2A legislation out of the Excremento Bill Mill continues to flow unchecked like a broken sewer line. Considering this vid was made AFTER both Heller-McDonald. https://youtu.be/rG5xWcV412E |
#815
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
In the past it would have made little difference. We had an overwhelming preponderance of fascist District and Circuit judges who would approve pretty much any idiotic unconstitutional thing the Sacramento fascists could dream up. Trump has changed things quite significantly (might argue for using the word dramatically but I'd not go quite that far). We are getting an influx of judges who will actually try to follow the Constitution. I don't think they can be called "conservative" because they will still rule against us if they think that is what the Constitution and relevant precedent demand. If we get a really good and explicit ruling out of SCOTUS regarding this NYSRPA case things will be much, much different and Sacramento will likely start to worry about the effect of what they do. The scenario I envision goes something like this:
Winning at the District level means that the law doesn't go into force. Losing at the District level would not be good, but there is a decent chance of a win at the Circuit level which is then precedential at the District level and could be kicking the stuffing out of bad law in places like Hawaii, Washington, etc. If we lose at the Circuit level we have the opportunity for a win at SCOTUS and in a closely divided 9th Circuit you might find some respect for precedent. Give Trump a second term along with a Republican Senate and therefore more appointments and Sacramento could literally fear passing legislation to stomp on our right to self-defense. We keep invoking Heller and McDonald as if they are strong decisions for the right to self-defense. I think that is mostly wrong. I think that especially in the context of what followed we should view them as rather weak in some regards. Pretty much all they did was to incorporate the 2nd Amendment against the states and against DC. Then they left it up to the states and the lower courts to figure out what that meant. Well, the fascists stole the march on that one. They did a good job of selecting judges and circuits to set up a sort of two-step shuffle to pretty much ignore the guts of the freedom and established it as accepted judicial practice. Since we didn't have a SCOTUS with the make-up to actually correct the states and lower courts in this regard SCOTUS allowed the violation of rights to continue and one could argue that by refusing cert to many cases the SCOTUS endorsed the accepted judicial practice of destroying our rights. I still think Trump is a narcissistic jerk but we need to understand that he is doing more to secure liberty than has anyone in literally decades. If we get a second term and a few more Trump appointments to SCOTUS and a bunch of District and Circuit appointments - we will be far better off. Right now we are under the situation where our right to self-defense is acknowledged but limited to pretty much whatever level the states want. This will likely be changing in the next few years.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#816
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Here in Crapofornia. And all other ANTI 2a blue states. It historically changes for the worse. SO HOW WILL A FAVORABLE RULING in NY ACTUALLY HELP US? This NY case has been slogging through courts for 6 yrs.. How many Anti 2A laws have been passed nationwide in the interim? Quote:
Reggie Sawyer Jones's vid I linked, is representative of how every "D" legislator in SacOcrapmento sees the Constitution. Listen to Newscum speak, listen to our illustrious AG speak. Hell listen to anyone associated with the Dems speak. They could care less about the Constitution or SCOTUS. They own this state. And are untouchable for their malfeasances due to legislative immunity. So they are free to piss on the constitution as much as they want. Their Immunity driven Hubris is limitless. They get paid with our money to F us. And after decades of practice. They are damn good at it. As much as I'd like to be proven wrong. Due to the extremely narrow focus of the NY suit complaint in regard to a city ordinance. I don't see "NYSRPA v NY" actually doing one damn little thing to improve the 2A tyranny in Ca. Any more than Heller/McDonald did. PS.....I agree with you on Trump's realignment of the courts. But that only helps us in Ca. If they are ruling favorably on Ca relevant cases. But that is a separate topic from my question. Last edited by pacrat; 07-20-2019 at 3:12 AM.. |
#817
|
|||
|
|||
|
#818
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Next key date is NYC's "brief on the merits" due on Aug 05 --
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#820
|
|||
|
|||
I though they weren't going to produce a "brief on the merits" since they believe the rule change has mooted the case and that is the end of it.
|
#821
|
||||
|
||||
I'm going off of what SCOTUS' docket for the case is telling them to do. ("The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 5, 2019.") Whether they obey it or not (or whether SCOTUS changes it or not) is a different question.
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#822
|
|||
|
|||
The brief will probably be a rehash of their earlier letters to the court.
|
#823
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#824
|
|||
|
|||
|
#826
|
||||
|
||||
New York City filed two documents today:
1) Something entitled "Suggestion of Mootness"; and 2) A request for an extension to file its response until September 30, 2019
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c |
#827
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
NY is seriously being obtuse. |
#828
|
||||
|
||||
NY's "Suggestion of Mootness" TOTALLY fails to address the issue of interstate travel in the grant of Cert. Nor is it a "motion" as required under the rules.
The extension of time has a 50/50 chance. I'm hoping they get B-slapped because they deserve it.
__________________
Some random thoughts: Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far. Evil doesn't only come in black. Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise! My Utubery |
#829
|
|||
|
|||
I would be completely OK if this case is moot. "Fine, NY, we agree, this case is moot. Now we're going to grant cert to the NJ carry case, see what you think about that one."
__________________
"Weakness is provocative." Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024 Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered. |
#830
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#831
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
NY certainly had not counted on the make-up of SCOTUS starting to lean to our favor, and are now in panic mode. If the above is true, it really shows that elections matter. |
#832
|
|||
|
|||
The last few sentences in their letter seem to say they want an extension so the court can think over how they want to proceed if at all. Isn't that thoughtful of them. Just a bunch of givers.
|
#833
|
||||
|
||||
I'm glad they're asked SCOTUS today to decide re. mootness ASAP vs. waiting until Aug 08 when their Response is due. Saves us 2 weeks.
Exactly. Let's get a true, clean Carry Case before SCOTUS ASAP! I don't care if we win SI CCW permits first or a right to LOC first -- I can start doing either tomorrow! (actually tonight... )
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#834
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#835
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#836
|
|||
|
|||
What are you talking about? Suggestions of mootness are explicitly contemplated by Supreme Court Rule 21.2(b), and the city has complied with the dictates of Rule 33.1. Trust me, Jeffrey Fisher knows what he's doing. There won't be any more procedural errors.
|
#837
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It's hair splitting, but still... Then there's the issue of "more" procedural errors. My crystal ball is broken, can I borrow yours? Finally, as I said, the "suggestion of mootness" fails to address all of the issues raised by the certified question. Which is probably why they didn't make an actual motion to dismiss on the basis of mootness.
__________________
Some random thoughts: Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far. Evil doesn't only come in black. Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise! My Utubery |
#838
|
|||
|
|||
NYSRPA has responded to NYC's motion to put off the due date for their brief.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...er%20FINAL.pdf Quote:
|
#839
|
|||
|
|||
“...Had the Court granted certiorari a few weeks earlier, this case would already have been briefed, argued, and decided, and respondents would not have had time to try to moot the case in lieu of briefing it....”
We were so close! This wait is agonizing. |
#840
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Will SCOTUS let these pipsqueaks get away with jerking them around? I know Federal District Court Judges would not.
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA." Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|