|
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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Malpasso v Pallozzi
Malpasso v Pallozzi SCOTUS Cert Petition Filed (9-26-2019)
MD case, Paul Clement for the 2A. If won, would strike the “good and substantial” MD restrictions on carrying a handgun outside the home for self-defense. Probably would also eliminate Cal.’s similar requirements. https://www.msrpa.org/wp-content/upl...tion-FINAL.pdf. Sorry, I cannot get the link to work. // from the petition The question presented is: Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit typical, law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense in any manner. // Librarian // also, fixed the link (took me a while to figure out what Ceros notes!) Last edited by Librarian; 09-30-2019 at 9:10 AM.. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
https://www.msrpa.org/wp-content/upl...tion-FINAL.pdf is the correct link, they abbreviated the link by putting ... in it to shorten it, instead of highlighting it with your mouse and copy/pasting you need to right click it and copy link that way.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Cool!
It's in the 4th circuit which leans more liberal than our own 9th circuit. Trump hasn't yet reshaped that court. This case will lose at the circuit level but if the issue hasn't already been resolved at SCOTUS then eventually this case could be at that level Edit: When I wrote that I didn't realize it was already at the cert stage.
__________________
"Weakness is provocative." Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024 Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered. Last edited by CCWFacts; 09-30-2019 at 8:24 PM.. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Amusing that Mal Paso is also the name of Clint Eastwood's production company.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malpaso_Productions |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
This case is now pending (cert. Petition) before the Supreme Court.
Saw this elsewhere, seems to sum it up: Re. NYR&PA V. New York & Malpasso V. Pallozzi “Let us hope Justice Thomas writes the controlling opinion and kicks the butt of those progressive judges, and justices who have evaded (by sidestepping) the settled law of Heller and McDonald for over ten years" |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The office of the Chief Justice is one that is filled by the justice who is nominated for that position at the time of nomination. Unlike at the lower courts, the Chief Justice is the Chief Justice for the entire term of his appointment. Currently that is Roberts and will remain so until he leaves the bench.
__________________
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
SAF JOINS AMICUS BRIEF SUPPORTING CHALLENGE TO MARYLAND GUN LAW
Quote: BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has joined four other organizations in an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a challenge to Maryland’s restrictive gun control law requiring applicants for concealed carry permits to provide a “good and substantial reason” to exercise their right to bear arms. SAF is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. (“FPC”), Firearms Policy Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation and the Madison Society Foundation. Their brief is submitted to the high court by Sacramento attorney Joseph G.S. Greenlee. The case is known as Malpasso v. Pallozzi. Plaintiffs are Brian Kirk Malpasso and the Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association. “This case could have far-reaching ramifications,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “At issue is Maryland’s restrictive requirement but the outcome, if the Court agrees to hear this case, could define the parameters of bearing arms outside the home, and that will impact restrictive laws in several states where carry permits or licenses are strictly regulated, which translates to nearly impossible to get.” The amicus brief asks the high court to determine “to what extent the right to bear arms applies beyond the home,” because the question “has deeply divided lower courts.” The 27-page brief notes that the D.C. and Seventh Circuits held that the right applies just as strongly outside the home as inside the home, while the First and Second Circuits determined that the right likely applies outside the home, but in a weaker form. Meanwhile, the Third and Fourth Circuits declined to decide whether the right exists outside the home and the Ninth and Tenth Circuits held that the right to bear arms does not protect concealed carry. “Clearly,” Gottlieb said, “the lower courts need definitive guidance on this important constitutional issue. What other constitutionally-enumerated fundamental right applies only within the confines of the home? It is time the high court takes up this issue to determine whether the Second Amendment vigorously protects a right, or allows states to treat it as a regulated privilege.” https://www.saf.org/saf-joins-amicus...yland-gun-law/ I hope the link works. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
ETA: I realize I may be holding onto a view of the 9th that may well be out of date. There are more conservative judges there now than in recent years so we may very well be surprised by some good judgements from the 9th in the future. Fingers crossed. Last edited by Sputnik; 11-01-2019 at 7:05 PM.. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
A coalition of 21 attorneys general from shall-issue states have filed an amicus brief in favor of granting cert on Malpasso.
This article contains a link to the entire brief. https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2019/1...yland-gun-law/ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Reply of Brian Kirk Malpasso, et al. submitted.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/19-423.html https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...ly%20FINAL.pdf |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Malpasso is set for Jan 24 Conference, the Friday after MLK Day, so I don't believe they'll take it for orals this term. However, if they plan to per curiam GVR it (no orals, like in Caetano), it could be disposed this term.
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
The question presented in Malpasso is:
Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit typical, law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self defense in any manner. Seems like kind of an important point, doesn't it? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
..oh... Wait...It does not say that.... |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
That discussion is off-topic for this thread. Drop it.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
No such thing as 'required reading'; impossible to enforce. Posting mere links to case opinions is useless - look, I can do that, too: what is the law in California about 'assault weapons'?If you want to use a court opinion to make a point, the way to do that comes in the form of statementThat's unenforceable, too, as a moderator thing. But you do get entirely valid pushback from other members for your deficient arguments. And, we are NOT having that discussion in THIS thread. ETA - if you want to talk about Heller, that's on topic for this forum - start your own thread. But if you persist in your 'read the opinion' schtick, don't expect much participation.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. Last edited by Librarian; 01-11-2020 at 1:55 PM.. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Baiting? Nice projection.
Here is your post. “ Another state that refuses to make a distinction between concealable and non-concealable handguns thereby relegating an entire class of firearm to a ban without permit?” I pointed it out to you that there is no such distinction in the 2A itself and it is not what this case is about. You followed up with your usual nonsensical pdf link of an opinion. Last edited by Offwidth; 01-12-2020 at 10:00 AM.. |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Aaaaaand now mrrabbit and offwidth can take that discussion to PM.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
It's going to be stayed just like the rest of the carry cases. It will be the fifth case currently in front of USSC. If the other four were not granted cert then there is no reason to expect this one to be it. We won't see any real action on the rest of these cases until NYSRPA has it's opinion published.
|
#25
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
So there are three different "bear" cases against NJ being held. How would this work? Take one hold two for possible GVR? Roll all three into one case?
Or does everything just get denied and save me speculating? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
They could be consolidated (oral arguments for all 3 plaintiffs) or the court just goes with 1 and holds the other 2 for a GVR.
Yea they can also all be denied but my suspicion is that scotus would deny ALL held cases if that happens. I don’t see them hearing a case and booting others. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|