Updates on Masciandaro v. US

[SilverBulletZ06]

Can we get this thread going like the Williams case?

SCOTUS:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-11212.htm

SCOTUS Blog says that the court is not yet ready to act on Masciandaro, but I believe the reply was due today.

[Caladain]

Can we get this thread going like the Williams case?

SCOTUS:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-11212.htm

SCOTUS Blog says that the court is not yet ready to act on Masciandaro, but I believe the reply was due today.

It's still...today

I'd be concerned if no reply was in by COB today.

[SilverBulletZ06]

Well darn it I wanted to read the reply. Then I want to read the counter reply. In fact, I'd probably be able to write both since the .gov seems to write the same thing "Its in the publics best interest. Never mind all those times a CCW saves someone from robbery, rape, or murder".

[Kharn]

Petitioner has 10 days to submit an optional response to the Respondant's brief, only after the 10 days have expired will the Clerk distribute the case for a conference, thus the SC not being ready to act.

[mattlevy]

FYI, the government has requested and received an extension for another week. The government's brief is now due on 10/18.

Best,

Matt Levy

[yellowfin]

His lawyer is the federal public defender? I thought Cloudigy Law PLLC had someone for him.

[mattlevy]

His lawyer is the federal public defender? I thought Cloudigy Law PLLC had someone for him.

We are working with the federal public defender to represent Mr. Masciandaro.

Best,

Matt

[SilverBulletZ06]

FYI, the government has requested and received an extension for another week. The government's brief is now due on 10/18.

Best,

Matt Levy

Wow, seriously?! How long do they need to respond. This would have to be something like the 4th visit to chambers, and they need another 7 days on top of the 30 days they have already been granted?

[krucam]

As Matt mentioned:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-11212.htm

No. 10-11212
Title:
Sean Masciandaro, Petitioner
v.
United States
Docketed: June 24, 2011
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-4839)
Decision Date: March 24, 2011

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jun 22 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 25, 2011)
Jul 5 2011 Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
Jul 14 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2011.
Jul 25 2011 Brief amicus curiae of Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Aug 9 2011 Response Requested . (Due September 8, 2011)
Aug 24 2011 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 11, 2011.
Oct 11 2011 Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including October 18, 2011.

[OleCuss]

We are working with the federal public defender to represent Mr. Masciandaro.

Best,

Matt

Thank you for your work on this. It is very important to the cause of freedom.

[OleCuss]

Wow, seriously?! How long do they need to respond. This would have to be something like the 4th visit to chambers, and they need another 7 days on top of the 30 days they have already been granted?

I'm not at all sure what is going on, but it would not surprise me at all if denial of cert for Williams suggested a different sort of presentation. Or maybe Heller II changed some of the context necessitating a re-write? There could be other legislative or court situations we may know nothing about?

I'm just speculating, but I'd note that the enactment of AB144 means the next filing in Richards is different than it would have been if AB144 had been vetoed.

[krucam]

I'm not at all sure what is going on, but it would not surprise me at all if denial of cert for Williams suggested a different sort of presentation. Or maybe Heller II changed some of the context necessitating a re-write? There could be other legislative or court situations we may know nothing about?

I'm just speculating, but I'd note that the enactment of AB144 means the next filing in Richards is different than it would have been if AB144 had been vetoed.

I'd say you're likely warm. I don't see however how Heller II's loss would help the SG/Defendant's arguments. Remember that at this stage, the briefs are not about arguing over the Question presented by the Petitioners. It is about whether the Cert should be granted.

Recall one of the arguments used by MD in their response in Williams. It said (and I'm paraphrasing wildly), "There are much better cases out there over this one to explore this right".

Kills me to say it, but perhaps they were right...

[hoffmang]

We are working with the federal public defender to represent Mr. Masciandaro.

Best,

Matt

And all are getting as much support as they'd like from SAF and friends.

-Gene

[krucam]

And all are getting as much support as they'd like from SAF and friends.

-Gene

More Amici...

[press1280]

More Amici...

I only see the SAF amici. Will the NRA and others support this case with more amici?