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

[jcwatchdog]

Based on when cert was granted, it should be one of the first cases heard during the next term, which starts in October.

Last year, oral arguments for October were announced in July.

[FirearmFino]

5/7 is the due date for petitioners' brief that NYC is trying to push back, so we should hear from the court before then. However, their decision on NYC's motion probably won't include the date of the oral arguments.

If the case doesn't get mooted, oral arguments will likely take place in October (with the exact date released at some point before that).

[Uncivil Engineer]

I like your thinking here but I fear it will be just more delay. We might see SCOTUS provide us a new test from the NY case then send Pena back down to the ninth. I have no confidence the ninth will properly apply any test. So once again we will back at SCOTUS. Hopefully, we will get our judges so pissed they will send down an even harsher test.

[aBrowningfan]

5/7 is the due date for petitioners' brief that NYC is trying to push back, so we should hear from the court before then. However, their decision on NYC's motion probably won't include the date of the oral arguments.

If the case doesn't get mooted, oral arguments will likely take place in October (with the exact date released at some point before that).

Why/how would the case get mooted? Do you see NYC revoking the current law? Or?

[CCWFacts]

Why/how would the case get mooted? Do you see NYC revoking the current law? Or?

They workin on it.

I write to advise the Court of a proposed rulemaking. If adopted in accordance with established procedures, the proposed rule would render this case moot before the parties complete the merits briefing in this case. For this reason, I also write to request that the Court stay the current briefing schedule pending final action on the proposed rule.

[sfpcservice]

They workin on it.

I write to advise the Court of a proposed rulemaking. If adopted in accordance with established procedures, the proposed rule would render this case moot before the parties complete the merits briefing in this case. For this reason, I also write to request that the Court stay the current briefing schedule pending final action on the proposed rule.

This is call running scared because we thought Hillary was going to pick supreme Court justices.

[Paladin]

Based on when cert was granted, it should be one of the first cases heard during the next term, which starts in October.

Last year, oral arguments for October were announced in July.

July 9th 2018, when they did that, was the 2nd Monday in July. This year that will be July 8th. https://www.scotusblog.com/events/2019-07/

[Paladin]

More nothing in re. Pena....

Order list: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...19zor_f2q3.pdf

[NorCalRT]

[Califpatriot]

What denial?

[ajb78]

What denial?

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=22949347&postcount=517

SCOTUS denies NYC motion to delay briefings!

Order list: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...19zor_f2q3.pdf

[CCWFacts]

What denial?

NY STATE RIFLE & PISTOL, ET AL. V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL. The motion of respondents to hold the briefing schedule in abeyance is denied.

If I'm reading that correctly, NY requested that everything be put on hold until it can remove the law and moot the case. Supreme Court denied that motion. That's good, it means that NY's last minute plans to say, "hey guys, we were just joking, let's forget the whole thing" isn't going to work.

[NorCalRT]

NY STATE RIFLE & PISTOL, ET AL. V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL. The motion of respondents to hold the briefing schedule in abeyance is denied.

If I'm reading that correctly, NY requested that everything be put on hold until it can remove the law and moot the case. Supreme Court denied that motion. That's good, it means that NY's last minute plans to say, "hey guys, we were just joking, let's forget the whole thing" isn't going to work.

I agree, it comes across as good for us. I take it as SCOTUS is working on a 2A ruling, and holding others till it is published. I could easily be wrong, and even if right the ruling could not be one we want. But I feel optimistic.

[Smedkcuf]

I agree, it comes across as good for us. I take it as SCOTUS is working on a 2A ruling, and holding others till it is published. I could easily be wrong, and even if right the ruling could not be one we want. But I feel optimistic.

Do they have any constraints that their ruling has to relate to that case in some way? If so I don't see how the roster case has much to do with that case

[NorCalRT]

If scotus says use strict scrutiny for 2A cases, as some people are thinking they might, then it will. They could send the roster case back to the 9th telling them to use strict scrutiny.