Jackson v. SF (Ammo Ban; Locked Storage Reqts.): Cert DENIED 6/8/15

[IVC]

Whatever the outcome, multiple relistings mean that the court is not done with 2A cases.

[Librarian]

Do you have any suggestions for a noob, as to the best single modern text on the version of game theory that you like? I'd like to follow along on future game theory threads, but I'll just get lost in the semantics arguments, without the basics, I fear.

You might find this link useful: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introd...to_Game_Theory

'best', I think, would depend on your level of preparation.

[lowimpactuser]

Whatever the outcome, multiple relistings mean that the court is not done with 2A cases.

Not done CONSIDERING taking one.

They're not done with the 2A cases if they actually take one.

Until they take a 2A case, there is no change in anything.

[rlc2]

thank you, any thoughts on the sticky reference?

You might find this link useful: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introd...to_Game_Theory

'best', I think, would depend on your level of preparation.

Thank you, lots to digest there.

To all: Any interest in a side thread on game theory in general, and application to the judicial arena?

To: Librarian: Where should that thread be best located?

Also, any thoughts, sir, about the usefulness of a sticky, for Jackson, for simple updates? Per posts, 420, 424, 427, I'm noticing there are differences in expectations among users on what is OT or not, and as a noob,
I defer to those more experienced, as to proper protocol.

Thanks

[rlc2]

good points

Lots of re-lists is also consistent with the notion that they like and want the case. They might just be, you know, busy with other stuff and/or don't want the PR drama that goes with a gun case grant until later in the year. (Especially possible given upcoming decisions.)

-Brandon

In particular, the last. Prof Walker noted how Burwell might be delayed for Halbig.

Even though Jackson is narrow, it IS from the Ninth, and thus my snarkulation that just perhaps there might be some element of delay, for SCOTUS,

given everything else on their plate, might just agree to wait until orals for Peruta, to see if the stoopid is strong enough at the Ninth, to cause the Justices to agree, especially if that would help any waverers to sign on to a reversal, in Jackson, in order to give an 'cautionary'message, as to how far the 9th should stray from settled law in Heller. Sort of a twofer, if you will...

AKA "stop cherry-picking words and phrases from dissents to imply thats what we meant!"....

[Librarian]

Thank you, lots to digest there.

To all: Any interest in a side thread on game theory in general, and application to the judicial arena?

To: Librarian: Where should that thread be best located?

Also, any thoughts, sir, about the usefulness of a sticky, for Jackson, for simple updates? Per posts, 420, 424, 427, I'm noticing there are differences in expectations among users on what is OT or not, and as a noob,
I defer to those more experienced, as to proper protocol.

Thanks

Possibly a simpler GT site: http://www.econport.org/econport/req...etheory_intro1

I don't think Calguns is a good place for the discussion, but such a thread really would go to Off Topic, where most things are treated, ah, perhaps irreverently is the word. That would rather detract from a thread meant to be serious.

Seems like a better place would be a math site, but I didn't see one when I briefly looked just now, and it might be the case that such a site would be pitched higher than beginners might be able to appreciate.

Stickies have a well-known problem, at every forum I have ever used: because they do not change often, they become effectively invisible. Part of the reason for the Calguns Foundation Wiki is to give me a place to put long 'stickies' on FAQs.

There is some number of readers of stickies who are not able to initially accept that the reason no information is newer than a month ago is that nothing has happened in the intervening month.

This is agonizingly so for court cases; we are accustomed to things running on 'internet time', while courts are more on 'horse and buggy time'. Worse, courts are not obligated to emit status reports. This t-shirt applies:

[Window_Seat]

Thanks, Erik. I'd read elsewhere the 9th had a reputation for 'most reversed', in particular for one-liners (per curiam) for habeas cases...

(And noob that I am, I had to google what habeAss meant...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

So your link puts that earlier comment, into context. Thank you.

Yeah, I thought at first it was "Hey be us" as in "that body of hay belongs to who, and who's 'us'?" And one might think that it had nothing to do with the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, but Congress has their way of selling tricks for their dog and pony show, or that might be what Judge Pregerson would likely say when talking about "the great joke".

Erik.

[rlc2]

thanks, Librarian

Possibly a simpler GT site: http://www.econport.org/econport/req...etheory_intro1

I don't think Calguns is a good place for the discussion, but such a thread really would go to Off Topic, where most things are treated, ah, perhaps irreverently is the word. That would rather detract from a thread meant to be serious.

Seems like a better place would be a math site, but I didn't see one when I briefly looked just now, and it might be the case that such a site would be pitched higher than beginners might be able to appreciate.

Stickies have a well-known problem, at every forum I have ever used: because they do not change often, they become effectively invisible. Part of the reason for the Calguns Foundation Wiki is to give me a place to put long 'stickies' on FAQs.

There is some number of readers of stickies who are not able to initially accept that the reason no information is newer than a month ago is that nothing has happened in the intervening month.

This is agonizingly so for court cases; we are accustomed to things running on 'internet time', while courts are more on 'horse and buggy time'. Worse, courts are not obligated to emit status reports. This t-shirt applies:

Great shirt, and thank you for your long service here. I regularly refer readers from other blogs when I get drawn into comment on CA 2A issues, to come to calguns.net as far and away the go to resource, and thats no slight on other places, just the fact that there are so many here who have have been there, done that, (and got the tshirt) so if they aren't using calguns, hat its a lost opportunity, to miss coming here and move up the learning curve fast.

I notice the challenge of info organization, as a reader and defer to you and others doing it, as my understanding is as a user only. But thanks again cuz I see its a never ending job, and calguns is far more civilized and useful than I recall from visiting about ten years back.

Yes, I'll do some reading and decide if its worthwhile to stimulate discussion in OT, on game theory. Lots to learn there for me.

[kcbrown]

Whatever the outcome, multiple relistings mean that the court is not done with 2A cases.

If every 2A case goes through multiple listings and is then denied cert, how is that any different in practice from the Court being done with 2A cases?

[kcbrown]

Lots of re-lists is also consistent with the notion that they like and want the case. They might just be, you know, busy with other stuff and/or don't want the PR drama that goes with a gun case grant until later in the year. (Especially possible given upcoming decisions.)

Exactly. That's precisely why I said it's only consistent with my hypothesis (i.e., does not disprove it), and not evidence of its correctness.

[lowimpactuser]

If every 2A case goes through multiple listings and is then denied cert, how is that any different in practice from the Court being done with 2A cases?

Because they're done with ruling on them, but they're not done tearing our hearts out of our chests and making us lose sleep over each case?

[thorium]

If this were "in the bag", as it were, I see little reason to believe that it would be relisted rather than being granted cert immediately.

I agree it's far from in the bag... But...

SCOTUS' conference practices since 2014 (for whatever reason) has resulted in the vast majority of cert grants being relisted at least once before getting the cert grant. So an immediate grant would be abnormal; there's your reason.

https://richardresjudicata.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/no-grants-from-the-long-conference/

[wireless]

Heller was relisted as well.

[rlc2]

more insight

I agree it's far from in the bag... But...

SCOTUS' conference practices since 2014 (for whatever reason) has resulted in the vast majority of cert grants being relisted at least once before getting the cert grant. So an immediate grant would be abnormal; there's your reason.

https://richardresjudicata.wordpress...ng-conference/

Thorium, thanks, bookmarked. Really helps this noob to have laymans explanatiins from experienced legal experts, and the author's comment about strategic uses implies game theory is used by lawyers, too.

Kc, there is quite a bit of discussion on those earlier links to scotusblog articles by Elwood, explaining the trend of increased relists, and why, mostly on administrative issues, was my read.

Couple more links to articles by other court watchers, posted at mdshooters, too, fyi.

[ASD1]

"May 4 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 14, 2015."

Erik.

Tick tock