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

[sholling]

Maybe in both cases (gay marriage and bear arms) they are not going to take a case until there is a large amount of legal work in the lower courts? Maybe they want to make sure all viable arguments have been made, and reviewed thoroughly? I can imagine that, in making big decisions with very long-term impacts, they want to get as much insight as they can before they do it. What do you think?

(IANAL so this may be ignorant speculation, but that never stops anyone on the Internet.)

It's a better bet that SCOTUS is trying to avoid a new Roe v Wade type controversy. SCOTUS sees that gay marriage is slowly gaining popular support and sees no reason for it to get itself in up to its neck in another decades long SCOTUS made law controversy. I think they're letting lower courts take the lumps for them for a few more years while they wait for popular support to gel.

That's not going to happen with 2nd Amendment cases because those few states and federal enclaves (and the majority of federal courts of appeal) that still reject the 'right to keep and bear arms' as an actual full fleggged right are never-ever going to change their minds. The sheeple that make up the majorites in those states are too mind-numbed and brain-washed to demand their rights, and the politicians and judges are too arrogant to ever accept the notion of armed subjects.

Logically the only reason that SCOTUS still refuses to take a bear arms in public case is that it lacks a reliable majority to either grant us a solid and expansive victory or hand us a crushing defeat and roll back of our rights. I seriously doubt that we'll be hearing from SCOTUS again until it has a solid majority willing to hand us one or the other and that depends entirely on who holds the white house and senate after 2016.

[Rumline]

As long as I can sign this contract with my dad, I'm all for it.

I've got income, he's got assets - my tax bill goes down by more than half (progressive taxes), when he passes his assets are not inheritance, but a surviving spouse benefit so also tax free. I also get his social security. My "wife" does the same thing with her mom and the two of us have only church-recognized union, but not the state-recognized one which we don't need. That's a pretty good deal I'd support any time...

So why don't you do this now with your mother-in-law? And your wife with your father?

[erik_26]

No, the reason is that the government enforces it at gunpoint, and most people would rather not risk their lives just to thwart a court decision, even one on this topic.


What do you expect to happen instead? Law enforcement is going to enforce the law no matter how unjust or Unconstitutional. Do you expect the people to revolt? That'll get you military intervention on the side of the government.

Do you expect an armed insurrection to flare up? Such things usually end badly for the citizenry. We got lucky with the American Revolution.

Absent revolt and insurrection, exactly what do you expect people to do?

I do expect a revolt.

I do not have any kinky fetish about such event either. I know that it will be bad for everyone.

But if we the people allow the current trend to continue, I genuinely feel bad for my children and their future. They will not be free.

I am wide open to ideas. So far no one has produced anything of any merit. I don't believe the answer is voting or in the courts anymore. That time has passed. I reckon that several share a similar opinion as I and just aren't as vocal about it.

[ccmc]

Slightly off topic, but the SCOTUS today *denied* cert on five same sex marriage cases.

Which means the lower court rulings stand, lower court rulings overturning state laws that prohibit SSM.

[kcbrown]

I do expect a revolt.

I do not have any kinky fetish about such event either. I know that it will be bad for everyone.

That's probably understating the problem.

It's not just that it'll be bad for everyone, it's that, firstly, those people who participate in it are much more likely than not to suffer consequences far more severe than those imposed by that which they revolt against and, secondly, it is much more likely that they'll fail in their attempt than that they'll succeed.

Revolt is a very low-probability, high-risk option. The reason they happen so infrequently is because of that. There was only a brief period of time during which the average person was anything close to a match for the average soldier in terms of firepower and effectiveness. That time was the period of time the American Revolution was fought.

But if we the people allow the current trend to continue, I genuinely feel bad for my children and their future. They will not be free.

No, they won't. But servitude is the dominant state of man throughout history. Liberty is a recent and short state. It appears to be in man's nature to be servile.

I am wide open to ideas. So far no one has produced anything of any merit. I don't believe the answer is voting or in the courts anymore. That time has passed. I reckon that several share a similar opinion as I and just aren't as vocal about it.

At this point, my opinion is that a Constitutional Convention is the only peaceful option remaining. And that, too, is highly likely to fail, as it relies on the state governments as a whole deciding to voluntarily cede some power over the right while perhaps gaining power at the expense of the federal government, rather than simply seizing power for themselves without giving anything up at all.


There are no good, high probability options open to us, at least in the absence of a Supreme Court that is willing to vigorously defend the right. And that shouldn't be much of a surprise, because to fight for liberty is to fight against the tides of history and to fight against human nature itself (since people are more interested in simultaneously being told what to do and controlling others than they are in being free to choose for themselves what to do and tolerating the liberty of others). That human nature is such shouldn't come as much of a surprise, either, since people who are easily controlled are more easily able to work together for a common cause under singular leadership, and natural selection favors the power of a group acting in unison over the power of the individual.

[JAWS]

As long as I can sign this contract with my dad, I'm all for it.

I've got income, he's got assets - my tax bill goes down by more than half (progressive taxes), when he passes his assets are not inheritance, but a surviving spouse benefit so also tax free. I also get his social security. My "wife" does the same thing with her mom and the two of us have only church-recognized union, but not the state-recognized one which we don't need. That's a pretty good deal I'd support any time...

So why don't you do this now with your mother-in-law? And your wife with your father?

This may be the most creative estate planning I've ever seen... well played.

[IVC]

So why don't you do this now with your mother-in-law? And your wife with your father?

It doesn't piss off the "equality" crowd.

[IVC]

Which means the lower court rulings stand, lower court rulings overturning state laws that prohibit SSM.

The lower court ruling stands in Moore too, yet pessimists on these boards tend to discount it...

[ccmc]

The lower court ruling stands in Moore too, yet pessimists on these boards tend to discount it...

True, but Madigan didn't request cert so nobody knows how that would have played out. Also important to remember that Moore challenged a no issue system whereas Woollard, Kachalsky and Drake challenged may issue systems. I'm a natural optimist, but I had some skin in the game in Woollard. The overturning of Judge Legg's ruling, and SCOTUS denial of cert was a most unpleasant surprise.

[RobertMW]

Revolt is a very low-probability, high-risk option. The reason they happen so infrequently is because of that. There was only a brief period of time during which the average person was anything close to a match for the average soldier in terms of firepower and effectiveness. That time was the period of time the American Revolution was fought.

Sorry, I know we've done this before, but quantity has a quality all of its own, we still have to think in terms of force multipliers. If an American citizen with a .308 bolt action rifle is considered 1, and then all other technology available to either side is a multiplier on top of that, is the equipment available to bring to bear upon a revolution going to be enough to balance out the 100-1000x difference in personnel? I still think that we have a large enough armed citizenry that we can balance out the equation, from previous conversations and this statement you feel we do not.

At this point, my opinion is that a Constitutional Convention is the only peaceful option remaining. And that, too, is highly likely to fail, as it relies on the state governments as a whole deciding to voluntarily cede some power over the right while perhaps gaining power at the expense of the federal government, rather than simply seizing power for themselves without giving anything up at all.

I still feel that there is a peaceful option left, but nobody is willing, or possibly capable, to pull it off, mass protest. Sure, across the country there are probably daily demonstrations and protests, but they are just small pockets of people, usually just in their hometowns most of which the vast majority US population would never have heard their name before. Why haven't we done this yet...



Why can't we get 50,000 or 100,000 law abiding gun owners that are passionate yet peaceful to congregate in a place that is public and has a strong image to anyone that sees it. For all the bravado we put out on the internet, we don't do it with feet on the ground. We still act shamed in public, we don't have enough people that are willing to publicly say "I support the 2nd Amendment," rather than, "I support the 2nd Amendment, but..."

Probably the biggest detriment to this would be that 80+% of the attendees would be NRA members, even if it wasn't the NRA that organized the rally, and the media would probably just pick it up that way.

[kcbrown]

I still feel that there is a peaceful option left, but nobody is willing, or possibly capable, to pull it off, mass protest. Sure, across the country there are probably daily demonstrations and protests, but they are just small pockets of people, usually just in their hometowns most of which the vast majority US population would never have heard their name before. Why haven't we done this yet...

Because others have, and it did squat. Namely, there were 100K people in demonstrations against the Iraq war in Washington DC in October 2002, and that's just one of them. Guess what the response was? Nothing. No change whatsoever. And those were relatively small protests. Not long after that, the largest protest recorded in history took place. And guess what effect it had? Yep: none whatsoever.

Mass protest doesn't work anymore, because governments have discovered they can ignore the citizenry with impunity, precisely because they hold overwhelming power of force over the citizenry.

[IVC]

True, but Madigan didn't request cert so nobody knows how that would have played out.

In the context of developing jurisprudence, the only thing that matters is whether a circuit court ruling stands. Moore does stand.

The "SCOTUS is done with the 2A carry cases" is, thus, incompatible with the "SCOTUS is providing a quiet approval of the lower courts' decisions by remaining silent on the issue."

[M. D. Van Norman]

[elSquid]

Mass protest doesn't work anymore, because governments have discovered they can ignore the citizenry with impunity, precisely because they hold overwhelming power of force over the citizenry.

Nope, the government cares what the people think. Those elected want to be re-elected.

However, a large protest may not be reflective of general attitudes. 100K sounds like a lot, but there are well over 200 million eligible voters in this country.

Further, when the Republicans are in control, they may not be particularly concerned about large protests comprised mainly of solid Democrat votes. And versa-vicey.

If those 200 million were of one mind and approved of NFA items - and were willing to vote on that basis and were vocal about it - we'd all be able to buy newly manufactured, integrally suppressed machineguns by the end of next year. We wouldn't need SCOTUS to make any rulings...

< shrug >

-- Michael

[ccmc]

In the context of developing jurisprudence, the only thing that matters is whether a circuit court ruling stands. Moore does stand.

Unfortunately so do Woollard, Kachalsky and Drake.

So no issue is not allowed in the 7th circuit, but may issue is allowed in 2nd, 3rd and 4th circuits, and the 9th is still in play until Peruta is finalized.