Range vs Garland-En Banc "our Nation's THT" do not support disarming Range(plaintiff)

[Paladin]

From case docket:

Jul 31, 2023

MANDATE ISSUED. (CND) [Entered: 07/31/2023 06:45 AM]

So, does this mean Garland will not seek cert?

[Offwidth]

From case docket:


So, does this mean Garland will not seek cert?

I guess they greatly prefer this not being merged with Rahimi. Which is bad news for us.

Food stamp violation would have been a MUCH better national precedent.

[AlmostHeaven]

I guess they greatly prefer this not being merged with Rahimi. Which is bad news for us.

Food stamp violation would have been a MUCH better national precedent.

The Supreme Court should have at least waited into the next term to grant certiorari to Rahimi. Bad facts make bad law, and I am almost certain that the government will win the case.

[darkwater34]

No matter what happens in Rhami, they are going to still have to deal with Range.

[tenemae]

No matter what happens in Rhami, they are going to still have to deal with Range.

I don't see why they can't do both without having to wait. They can strike 922(g)(8) with the reasoning that "a single judge issuing an order does not constitute proper due process to restrict constitutional rights". After that's done, lower courts must apply the test to Range just like Bruen's THT is being used to gut laws outside the scope of Bruen.

Maybe I'm wearing rose-colored glasses, but I can't see SCOTUS knee-capping due process to a single judge's whim.

[AlmostHeaven]

I don't see why they can't do both without having to wait. They can strike 922(g)(8) with the reasoning that "a single judge issuing an order does not constitute proper due process to restrict constitutional rights". After that's done, lower courts must apply the test to Range just like Bruen's THT is being used to gut laws outside the scope of Bruen.

Maybe I'm wearing rose-colored glasses, but I can't see SCOTUS knee-capping due process to a single judge's whim.

Ultimately, the liberals only need to pull two conservative votes to win, and Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and to a lesser degree, Amy Coney Barrett, harbor sensitivity to public opinion.

[darkwater34]

Amy Cohen Barrett ruled in a similar case for the plaintiffs just before being appointed by Trump to the SCOTUS. So I really don't think she really cares about what the public thinks she is not even concerned about what the public thinks she is more concerned about the constitutionally aspects of the law. Not like V.P. HARRIS she is very consciousness about public opinion.

[Sgt Raven]

From case docket:


So, does this mean Garland will not seek cert?

[Bhobbs]

I’m surprised.

This may save Rahimi from being a disaster.

[Paladin]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-374.html

[Paladin]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/23-374.html

From today:

Nov 01 2023 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/17/2023.

Order List will be released on Monday the 20th.

[ritter]

Thanks for the updates, Paladin.

[Rickybillegas]

Then they should not offer to let them plea to petty stuff, only, if they are so concerned about it.

I'm not entirely opposed to prohibitions as a result of convictions, but the punishment should fit the crime of which the person was actually convicted. It can be justified if the person comments a serious offense that is violent, has the potential for or indicates a willingness to commit violence, aids others in the same, etc. and which involves acts that are malum in se (probably redundant, but I suppose there may be some exception somewhere). I also am not a fan of modern prohibited persons doctrine and question some of its constitutionality outside of 2A grounds, such as Federal prohibitions for non-Federal convictions or State prohibitions for crimes committed in other jurisdictions.

Felonies used to be exclusively very serious crimes, mostly violent, although not exclusively so, and also used to be far fewer in number. Most acts which are felonies today historically would only have been misdemeanors, infractions, or not offenses at all. Such broadening requires less blanket approaches, IMO. Ideally we'd go back to limiting what we consider to be felonies and maybe go back to some being misdemeanors that are more seriously punished.

IMO, to be prohibited you should have to commit an act of the type mentioned above (either civil or martial), or be adjudicated mentally incompetent/defective/insane, by a competent court in the jurisdiction in which you are being prohibited, ideally with that aspect of the sentence (in criminal cases) being waivable on an individual basis if the facts of the case justify it. I could also see it for aliens not part of the community where there is sufficient cause for doing so (such as illegals, aliens who are citizens of a hostile country, etc.), but there should be some way for non-resident or temporary resident aliens to keep and bear arms if there is no threat, danger, or other reason to restrict them. Beyond that I can't justify any kind of prohibition on the keeping and bearing of arms by any adult or any minor otherwise permitted to keep and bear arms under the law, where applicable.

Certainly, something like the act in question in this case does not fit the criteria.

Man, is that statement true. In NY under CCIA, just violating one of their stupid 'sensitive place' rules is a potential felony. Imagine that: a law abiding permit holder who accidentally steps foot into a no-go zone is a dangerous felon, and barred for life.

[AlmostHeaven]

21st-century America, specifically the places controlled by the Democratic Party where much of the population lives, is an upside-down place. Merely setting foot into a public park while carrying a gun, even in possession of an onerously obtained government permit, induces felony charges, while thieves loot store shelves bare in broad daylight and perverts display their genitalia in front of children at parades without consequences.

[pacrat]

https://youtu.be/mzry9Z-Lj9k

4 boxes take