Calguns.net  

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

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-30-2019, 4:40 AM
wjackcooper wjackcooper is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 9
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default 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..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-30-2019, 5:37 AM
Ceros_X Ceros_X is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 20
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-30-2019, 7:13 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,150
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

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..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-30-2019, 7:32 AM
Fedora Fedora is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 107
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Amusing that Mal Paso is also the name of Clint Eastwood's production company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malpaso_Productions
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-30-2019, 2:20 PM
wjackcooper wjackcooper is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 9
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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"
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-30-2019, 3:33 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The case's page on the Supreme Court website
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-01-2019, 10:16 AM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 3,334
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wjackcooper View Post
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"
Oh we can dream... correct me if my information is incorrect but Justice Thomas is now the Chief Justice after Scalia's death?
__________________
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-01-2019, 10:23 AM
rplaw's Avatar
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,706
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
correct me if my information is incorrect but Justice Thomas is now the Chief Justice after Scalia's death?
No.

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
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-01-2019, 3:46 AM
wjackcooper wjackcooper is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 9
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-01-2019, 2:11 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,847
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wjackcooper View Post
SAF JOINS AMICUS BRIEF SUPPORTING CHALLENGE TO MARYLAND GUN LAW

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.

https://www.saf.org/saf-joins-amicus...yland-gun-law/
Not only has the Ninth held that there is no right to concealed carry outside3 the home, it has deftly avoided answering the question it left hanging in Peruta as to the existence and scope of a right to openly carry firearms outside the home, which is currently illegal under California law in areas where the need for self defense is at its highest--in our urban areas. (personally, if forced to acknowledge a right to openly carry arms, I think the Ninth will conclude that the right exists only in those areas outside of currently designated as "sensitive places."(Which areas include the 1000' exclusion zone around schools.)
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-01-2019, 7:01 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,969
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Not only has the Ninth held that there is no right to concealed carry outside3 the home, it has deftly avoided answering the question it left hanging in Peruta as to the existence and scope of a right to openly carry firearms outside the home, which is currently illegal under California law in areas where the need for self defense is at its highest--in our urban areas. (personally, if forced to acknowledge a right to openly carry arms, I think the Ninth will conclude that the right exists only in those areas outside of currently designated as "sensitive places."(Which areas include the 1000' exclusion zone around schools.)
No doubt. Calif and the 9th will "creatively interpret" almost any judgement to make the right to carry as minimal and difficult as possible to exercise. This will be a long fight and there will be many more lawsuits in the future.

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..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-09-2020, 12:01 AM
Ceemack Ceemack is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 148
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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/
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-09-2020, 3:45 AM
wjackcooper wjackcooper is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 9
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-09-2020, 10:06 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,285
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-09-2020, 1:50 PM
Fedora Fedora is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 107
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-10-2020, 1:15 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,212
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Similar to Roger's?

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?

=8-|
How could they. When the Constitution so clearly says "..to keep and openly bear non concealable arms.."

..oh... Wait...It does not say that....
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-10-2020, 7:52 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,212
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Says absolutely nothing about that that is binding to any court in the land. I suggest you actually read it, and if you already did (seems unlikely) - understand it, just like every professional federal judge did.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-10-2020, 8:16 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,422
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
That's your common non-responsive response.

That discussion is off-topic for this thread.

Drop it.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"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."

- Marcus Aurelius
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.



Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-11-2020, 3:23 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 3,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wjackcooper View Post
Distributed for the 1/24 conference. Likely it'll join the other 2A cases in limbo waiting for NYSRPA.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-11-2020, 11:39 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,422
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
1. Offwidth made the snide off-comment, not I. So please address him. (2nd time in just 3 weeks for your information - rplaw already addressed it.)


2. The Heller v. DC link is an appropriate response, AND it is also the [b]public record[b].


So is MacDonald v. City of Chicago

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf


And likewise Caetano v. Massachusetts

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...10078_aplc.pdf



Caetano v. Massuchusetts is the last decisive action we have on 2A related matters by SCOTUS - and it affirmed Heller v. DC, MacDonald v. City of Chicago and clarified without a doubt that they meant what they said in Heller v. DC in particular that the 2A did not "preclude" future arms suitable for self-defense. (Stun guns).


3. As to the current case of this thread AND the Rogers' case in New Jersey, it irritates me to no end the games that States will play as a policy matter in which they display their arrogance via their refusal to make even an iota of an effort to make distinctions.

They refuse purposely to make any distinction between concealable and non-concealable thereby banning an ENTIRE CLASS of firearm and relegating them all subject to the firewall known as a permit with a "just cause" goalpost.

Scalia is on record:

You cannot ban an entire class of firearm.


Scalia AND SCOTUS is on record:

Handguns are the preferred weapon of choice for personal self-defense.


Scalia AND SCOTUS is on record:

Handguns like many other firearm are commonly held and in use and suitable for personal self-defense.


4. This forum has no "Required Reading" sticky.

You are more than capable Librarian of creating a sticky - that includes the links to "Heller v. DC" , "MacDonald v. City of Chicago" and "Caetano v. Massachussetts" and of course an update should we get a decision soon in NYSRPA v. NYS.

I think it would be awesome that you would be an advocate for requesting that participants in the 2nd Amend Litigation Updates and Legal Discussion and National 2nd Amend. Political and Legal Discussion forums be familiar with the public record and position of SCOTUS at this point in time.


=8-)
In reverse order ...

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'?

Here, read http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...nal+Code+-+PEN
If you want to use a court opinion to make a point, the way to do that comes in the form of
statement

precise quote from court case supporting 'statement'
That'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

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"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."

- Marcus Aurelius
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..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-12-2020, 9:54 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,212
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-12-2020, 10:25 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,422
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

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

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"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."

- Marcus Aurelius
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.



Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-18-2020, 10:27 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,285
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
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.
We should find out if it is granted, denied, redistributed/rescheduled for another conference or goes to limbo on Jan 27 (Monday) or maybe even Jan 24 (this coming Friday).

Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-20-2020, 5:30 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 773
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
We should find out if it is granted, denied, redistributed/rescheduled for another conference or goes to limbo on Jan 27 (Monday) or maybe even Jan 24 (this coming Friday).

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.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-27-2020, 5:52 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,285
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
We should find out if it is granted, denied, redistributed/rescheduled for another conference or goes to limbo on Jan 27 (Monday) or maybe even Jan 24 (this coming Friday).

Limbo it is.

Quote:
This week at the court

On Monday, the court released orders from the January 24 conference. The justices did not add any new cases to their merits docket ....
From: https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/01/t...the-court-365/
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-27-2020, 10:37 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,285
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Exclamation

Quote:
Apr 27 2020 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/1/2020.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search....ic/19-423.html
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-27-2020, 1:22 PM
sulla123 sulla123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 296
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Aaaaaand now mrrabbit and offwidth can take that discussion to PM.
Whew. Thankfully.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-29-2020, 1:41 AM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,969
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-29-2020, 8:29 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 3,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
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 11:46 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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 2002-2021, 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.



Seams2SewBySusy