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

[ddestruel]

Ok, now that we have some data points, let's build a model.

It was relisted seven (7) times, starting 4/1/2015. Therefore, the prediction is that it will keep on getting relisted indefinitely.

The court cannot take it on 8th try because the 8th try is no different than the previous 7 - if they wanted to take it, why didn't they take it on the attempts 1, 2 or 3? There is absolutely nothing different in front of the court the 8th time that wasn't in front of the court the first 7 times. This "shows" that one of the Heller five is on the fence and SCOTUS won't take a 2A case....................



(For those who are not sure, this is pure sarcasm.)

in all seriousness i was looking at the SCOUTSBLOG page some are claiming this is a situation of only 5 so far

"With today's relist we are now at 5 relists plus one rescheduling." ???


The above list doesnt coincide.... with comment off there do legal beagles have a different way of looking at things than us laymen over here on Calguns? LOL that list seems pretty self explanatory but maybe im not getting how the two can be so different in their reading of the same list LOL

[IVC]

in all seriousness i was looking at the SCOUTSBLOG page some are claiming this is a situation of only 5 so far

"With today's relist we are now at 5 relists plus one rescheduling." ???

Look at Librarian's post #550 above. It's directly from the SCOTUS blog with all the relevant dates.

[HarryS]

I reckon the liberal justices are terrified of the consequences to sad little rioters if the law-abiding public decides it has had enough of their antics and the complicity of opportunist politicians like the Mayor of Baltimore.

People whose businesses, homes and lives are designated as "free space" for rioters to display their charming attitude may resist. Some of the aggrieved might get hurt. How sad that would be.

They would prefer such people know their place, and, as in England, not injure their attackers.

[RobertMW]

Ok, now that we have some data points, let's build a model.

It was relisted seven (7) times, starting 4/1/2015. Therefore, the prediction is that it will keep on getting relisted indefinitely.

The court cannot take it on 8th try because the 8th try is no different than the previous 7 - if they wanted to take it, why didn't they take it on the attempts 1, 2 or 3? There is absolutely nothing different in front of the court the 8th time that wasn't in front of the court the first 7 times. This "shows" that one of the Heller five is on the fence and SCOTUS won't take a 2A case.

The court also cannot reject the case because they are too political to reverse Heller outright. The 7 relists show that the court is more than happy to keep 2A cases in the limbo. I mean, they take some non-2A cases on the first or second try.

So, by method of elimination and extrapolation, the court MUST keep relisting. Remember, they've kept the split with CA-7 on "carry" just because they can, so they can do the same here - keep relisting just because they can.

Who's in $20 against this model?

(For those who are not sure, this is pure sarcasm.)

They just missed the date to release their opinion, so they are going to go around the horn to get it right.

[Apocalypsenerd]

I have $20 against this model.

If I win, you donate $20 to the NRA. If you win, I donate $20 to the gun rights organization of your choice.

We on?

Ok, now that we have some data points, let's build a model.

It was relisted seven (7) times, starting 4/1/2015. Therefore, the prediction is that it will keep on getting relisted indefinitely.

The court cannot take it on 8th try because the 8th try is no different than the previous 7 - if they wanted to take it, why didn't they take it on the attempts 1, 2 or 3? There is absolutely nothing different in front of the court the 8th time that wasn't in front of the court the first 7 times. This "shows" that one of the Heller five is on the fence and SCOTUS won't take a 2A case.

The court also cannot reject the case because they are too political to reverse Heller outright. The 7 relists show that the court is more than happy to keep 2A cases in the limbo. I mean, they take some non-2A cases on the first or second try.

So, by method of elimination and extrapolation, the court MUST keep relisting. Remember, they've kept the split with CA-7 on "carry" just because they can, so they can do the same here - keep relisting just because they can.

Who's in $20 against this model?

(For those who are not sure, this is pure sarcasm.)

[lorax3]

It was relisted seven (7) times, starting 4/1/2015. Therefore, the prediction is that it will keep on getting relisted indefinitely.

Look at Librarian's post #550 above. It's directly from the SCOTUS blog with all the relevant dates.

No. It has only been relisted 5 times. The first relist was from the April 24 conference. The reschedule is signifcally different as it never made it to the April 17th conference.

[IVC]

No. It has only been relisted 5 times. The first relist was from the April 24 conference. The reschedule is signifcally different as it never made it to the April 17th conference.

There goes my model...

[lowimpactuser]

There goes my model...

Does that mean lorax wins?

[IVC]

Does that mean lorax wins?

Of course he does - he is being serious and he is correct that it has been only 5 *RE*lists (SCOTUS had a chance to take it 7 times, though.)

I'll fine tune my model retroactively once I know the outcome. That will make it even better...

[IVC]

I have $20 against this model.

If I win, you donate $20 to the NRA. If you win, I donate $20 to the gun rights organization of your choice.

We on?

Heh, we are on, but only if you want to do it for the next conference *only*. In this type of modeling I get to change it after every new data point, so the "indefinite" only applies until the next conference...

[kcbrown]

Of course he does - he is being serious and he is correct that it has been only 5 *RE*lists (SCOTUS had a chance to take it 7 times, though.)

I'll fine tune my model retroactively once I know the outcome. That will make it even better...

I think you should stick with the model as it is even after the outcome shows it to be wrong.

[Apocalypsenerd]

Heh, we are on, but only if you want to do it for the next conference *only*. In this type of modeling I get to change it after every new data point, so the "indefinite" only applies until the next conference...

Hmmm. That seems like a longshot to me. I was going to suggest that if they keep it relisted for the next session, after the end of June, you win. If not, I win.

[RipVanWinkle]

Relisted Again

Fifth relist, moves to the top of the relist leaderboard:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/relist-watch-65/

[IVC]

There, my model WORKED!! There is no way that this case will be anything but relisted. If the court wanted it, they would've taken it by now.

(Sarcasm, obviously.)

[thayne]

idk, relist means its still viable