Peņa v. Cid (Handgun Roster) **CERT DENIED 6-15-2020**

[Paladin]

No, if we win in the 9th then the 9th will reverse through en banc proceedings, and THEN SCOTUS will decline to hear. If we win in the 9th for real then SCOTUS might actually hear the case. Tough to say.

The end result is the same, except that the decision will only directly affect the states within the 9th Circuit.

True, unless and until Trump/Pence can replace Kennedy (and ideally 1 or more of the hardcore antis) with another Scalia clone.

[AKSOG]

I saw 3/16 and thought something was happening today. Happy 1 year anniversary. Only 2 more weeks to go

[kcbrown]

True, unless and until Trump/Pence can replace Kennedy (and ideally 1 or more of the hardcore antis) with another Scalia clone.

Right. A real composition change is a necessity if we are to see SCOTUS stand behind the right. As it is, it has abandoned the 2nd Amendment.

[FilmGuy]

Oral arguments happening today
Looks like the oral argument video is up

This video is from 2017

[thorium]

This video is from 2017

[Bhobbs]

What is encouraging to me is that the "commonly use" test, which came about from the Heller vs DC case, applies here. The rest of the US permits new firearms WITHOUT microstamping. Such guns are "commonly used", so how can they be banned? (or was it the Miller case, can't keep em straight anymore.)

[GunsInMyEyes]

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.- Thomas Jefferson

[champu]

The common use test would be fine if judges at lower levels weren't tripping over themselves to curb gun rights by assuming the inverse of every SCOTUS statement used to support the second amendment was necessarily true (a logical fallacy.) "Common use" is supposed to be sufficient to overturn a ban, not necessary.

The "longstanding test", which was spun out of the language of Heller, is what is heavily flawed. To treat longevity of a law as either necessary or sufficient to either overturn or uphold a prohibition is absurd. This isn't a driveway that clips the corner of your neighbor's property, these are rights.

[Uncivil Engineer]

The common use test would be fine if judges at lower levels weren't tripping over themselves to curb gun rights by assuming the inverse of every SCOTUS statement used to support the second amendment was necessarily true (a logical fallacy.) "Common use" is supposed to be sufficient to overturn a ban, not necessary.

The "longstanding test", which was spun out of the language of Heller, is what is heavily flawed. To treat longevity of a law as either necessary or sufficient to either overturn or uphold a prohibition is absurd. This isn't a driveway that clips the corner of your neighbor's property, these are rights.

Scotus is fond of these common use, prior example tests. Really they are an avoidance of creating a real test. The common use with guns is one. So what about new guns that might be safer, for owners or even possible victims of violence? We can't know because a new gun won't be in common use. Similar to their qualified immunity for police officers. You can hold a police officer responsible only if their is an perfect example of a prior case, so no new cases, to accountability.

It is the ultimate dodge to keep the status quo. While I prefer legislatures to do their job and write good laws that don't require these judicial tests. I would prefer an objective tests. If scotus can't find a good test then make them extremely lacking forcing the legislatures hand. Can't decide what should be legal? Make it all legal and force them to try again.

[Purple K]

Justice delayed is justice denied.

[Joejitsu]

Are we still waiting on the 9th? When are they going to give a decision?

[CandG]

When are they going to give a decision?

Two weeks.

[BBot12]

Any update on the 9th circuit court?

[aBrowningfan]

Any update on the 9th circuit court?

See post #2355 above.

[mshill]

Any update on the 9th circuit court?

Check back in a year, give or take six months.