Drake v. Jerejian (NJ CCW) [cert denied 5/5]

[LostInSpace]

... and refusing to resolve an issue that has been raised.

Guns have a special place in American society, and they are, by design, pretty deadly, so one simply can't expect SCOTUS not to treat them in a special way.

For example, you read quite a bit into NRA vs BATFE, but my first reaction was, if I am not mixing up the cases, who ever thought SCOTUS would let itself be responsible for 18 year olds buying handguns when we as a society won't even let them enjoy a glass of wine with their dinner. And so it came to pass.

So, SCOTUS can be expected to handle RKBA more gingerly than other rights. It's not that your working hypothesis is not persuasive, but things may not yet be at a point where SCOTUS is clearly done with this right.

[M. D. Van Norman]

If this applies even to urban areas, I am surprised the carry advocates in MD haven’t taken up the carrying of long guns.… Unless there is a catch and you can’t really carry a long gun there.

At oral arguments, the state allowed that you would likely be arrested.

Anyway, at this point, I’m surprised that the Supreme Court bothered to take up McDonald.

[kcbrown]

McDonald.

Sandy Hook hadn't happened yet.

[IVC]

Sure. But the difference between them is that in the case of right to abortion or right to free speech, the Supreme Court hasn't refused to protect those rights once those rights were initially recognized.

Every case that hasn't been picked up by SCOTUS appeared to plaintiffs as "refusal to protect the right" too. It's a matter of perspective.

[IVC]

McDonald.

Do you and KC get invited to any but goth parties?

[hoffmang]

Embody's stunt got his permit revoked, so now it's an unlicensed open carry since TN doesn't allow OC or CC without a permit.

You are quite right. I had remembered that I could OC in TN but that was because I was licensed. My mistake.

-Gene

[ryan_j]

At oral arguments, the state allowed that you would likely be arrested.

So how does this even compute?

You have a right to do something, but if you do it, you'll be arrested?

[kcbrown]

Every case that hasn't been picked up by SCOTUS appeared to plaintiffs as "refusal to protect the right" too. It's a matter of perspective.

Yes, but the difference there is that for the other rights, SCOTUS has taken cases to protect those rights shortly after recognition of the right, while for RKBA, it hasn't.

That could change, yes. I really hope it does. But if we presume that SCOTUS would be logically consistent with its past if it were interested in protecting the right, then it won't.

Of course, nothing requires SCOTUS to be logically consistent with respect to anything, so there will always be hope no matter how much time has passed since the recognition of the right. But given your messages on the subject to date, I can't help but wonder if you would still be arguing "but they could still protect the right!" if 50 years had passed since McDonald without so much as a single grant of cert.

You still haven't answered what conditions would be required for you to decide that my hypothesis is the most likely explanation.

[kcbrown]

Do you and KC get invited to any but goth parties?

What's a "party"?

[LostInSpace]

You still haven't answered what conditions would be required for you to acknowledge that my hypothesis is the most likely explanation.

A new SCOTUS appointment? (Just kidding.)

[kcbrown]

A new SCOTUS appointment? (Just kidding.)

Actually, that brings up another prong of my hypothesis, another bit of supporting logic.

If SCOTUS were interested in protecting the right, then it follows that there would be even more incentive than usual for it to grant cert to a case for that purpose. Why? Because the Heller 5 are on a clock. There's a roughly 40% chance that we'll lose one of them to death between now and 2016 (that figure is based on CDC mortality estimates).

And once we lose that majority, which is by a scant one person, it is over.

[ryan_j]

If the senate flips in November, the change can be pushed back some.

[LostInSpace]

And once we lose that majority, which is by a scant one person, it is over.

One should hope for a 6-3 decision. Otherwise, once there is a new appointment, even Heller and McDonald could start getting whittled away in some fashion. I keep wondering if the SF bizarre new handgun storage law isn't just such a trial balloon. But I guess this is getting off-topic.

[dantodd]

Sandy Hook hadn't happened yet.

Wasn't Sandy Hook before Abramski?

[IVC]

So how does this even compute?

You have a right to do something, but if you do it, you'll be arrested?

Same as "paying taxes is voluntary."

Except, in this case, we are waiting on SCOTUS to provide guidance and resolve circuit splits.