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

[IVC]

But suppose for the moment that my hypothesis is correct with respect to the uncertainty of one of the Heller 5 members. Is it your contention that the existence of a circuit split would be sufficient to override the hesitation the others on the Court would have in taking a case when none of them had any idea which way the Court would decide the issue?

To answer your question, yes, the split must go. It creates an inconsistent internal judicial state which must be rectified one way or another.

Now, let's reverse the question. If we are to lose at SCOTUS, what do you expect to see in the majority opinion? "We hate guns?"

[IVC]

Oh god no! Negative Nellie and Belgium beer with a hot pastrami?

You'll be getting hot beer and cold pastrami because the probability of blah, blah, blah...

[dantodd]

Me too, if you guys are willing to have me! You'll find I'm not the "down and out" type I play on TV...

We've met at least two times that I remember. I know you are not a negative personality.

[kcbrown]

To answer your question, yes, the split must go. It creates an inconsistent internal judicial state which must be rectified one way or another.

OK, so your thinking is that the need to address the question will override their desire to get what they want.

Interesting. I suppose this is going to be put to the test soon enough (next couple of years or so).

Competing hypotheses that make testable predictions! My favorite kind.

Now, let's reverse the question. If we are to lose at SCOTUS, what do you expect to see in the majority opinion? "We hate guns?"

Nope. I'd expect to see them do something similar to what the anti-rights circuits have done, but instead of enveloping the answer in a hypothetical construct, they'd simply envelop it in a real one. Which is to say, I think they'd say something like "in the environment of the public, as opposed to in the home, the right to keep and bear arms in public cannot surmount the public safety justification of laws governing the exercise of the right, and therefore, since legislators and government officials are best able to assess the public safety angle, the right to keep and bear arms cannot override the actions of legislators and government officials that are intended to enhance public safety. While rational basis cannot apply to the right to keep and bear arms in the home, the heightened public safety concerns in the public sphere, combined with the inherently dangerous nature of the right itself, are sufficient to validate rational basis as a means of analyzing laws which may implicate the right.".

[kcbrown]

We've met at least two times that I remember. I know you are not a negative personality.

Got your PM. Thank you sir!

[kcbrown]

You'll be getting hot beer and cold pastrami because the probability of blah, blah, blah...

Well, it's possible, isn't it?

[IVC]

Well, it's possible, isn't it?

Sure it is... The *vast majority* of beer is NOT refrigerated (think about breweries), therefore the probability of getting warm beer is overwhelmingly higher than getting a cold one. Right?

[IVC]

Nope. I'd expect to see them do something similar to what the anti-rights circuits have done, but instead of enveloping the answer in a hypothetical construct, they'd simply envelop it in a real one.

That requires reversal of CA-7/9 *total* carry bans, which cannot be done unless the right doesn't exist. Also, upholding a total "bear" ban is in direct contradiction even with the dissent in Heller.

Note that justices don't have an option of upholding, say, a "may issue," because CA-7 was a case of "no issue."

[kcbrown]

That requires reversal of CA-7/9 *total* carry bans, which cannot be done unless the right doesn't exist.

You mean if the right doesn't exist in public.

You asked what the SCOTUS decision might look like if SCOTUS were to rule against us. Seeing how SCOTUS is the final word on these things, on what basis are you going to claim that SCOTUS cannot issue a decision with the language I used as an example?

Also, upholding a total "bear" ban is in direct contradiction even with the dissent in Heller.

Is it? Where?

Note that justices don't have an option of upholding, say, a "may issue," because CA-7 was a case of "no issue."

But in the language I used as an example, if "no issue" would pass rational basis, then that ban would be upheld. On the other hand, if it wouldn't even pass rational basis, then it would be stricken.

[kcbrown]

Sure it is... The *vast majority* of beer is NOT refrigerated (think about breweries), therefore the probability of getting warm beer is overwhelmingly higher than getting a cold one. Right?

Exactly!

[wildhawker]

Oh god no! Negative Nellie and Belgium beer with a hot pastrami? I'm going to have to think about this for a while.

I'm taking my wife there tonight (maybe) I'll tell you how i feel tomorrow.

J/K!!! LOL

If you guys go to The Refuge without me I'll [redacted due to possibility of a Gun Violence Restraining Order]!!

[dantodd]

Brandon, we'd never go without inviting you. You showing up way out here is another issue all together. I wasn't sure if he wanted the direct advertisement of being mentioned on Here.

So... Who's game for an informal get together at The Refuge in San Carlos next week?

I suggest Tuesday, June 10th at 6:30pm.

[kcbrown]

Brandon, we'd never go without inviting you. You showing up way out here is another issue all together. I wasn't sure if he wanted the direct advertisement of being mentioned on Here.

So... Who's game for an informal get together at The Refuge in San Carlos next week?

I suggest Tuesday, June 10th at 6:30pm.

I'm in for that! Though I might not show until 7pm or something, depending on traffic...

[LoneYote]

Nothing ever goes on in So. Cal.....

[IVC]

Nothing ever goes on in So. Cal.....

Santa Barbara is in So. Cal...