ScotusBlog: all 3 gun cases Cert Denied Feb 24

[Librarian]

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/02/gun-rights-cases-on-the-schedule/#more-204923

The cases are NRA v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (13-137) and NRA v. McCraw (13-390).
...
The Court has been holding both of the NRA cases until each was ready for consideration. The Court apparently has also been holding another case, to examine it along with the NRA cases. That is the petition in Lane v. Holder (12-1401), which is a test of whether gun fanciers have a right to sue to challenge federal gun laws that restrict their option of buying guns from dealers in a different state. That case, too, is now set for the February 21 Conference, according to the docket.
...
The Court may announce as early as February 24 whether it is going to hear any of these cases.

[wireless]

I'm praying they take McCraw.

[CortoPasta]

Would any of these get us closer to strict scrutiny?

[penguin0123]

Anyone got the cert PDF for both cases?

[Wolverine]

Anyone got the cert PDF for both cases?

NRA v McCraw

NRA v BATFE

[CCWFacts]

NRA v McCraw

Issue: (1) Whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense in case of confrontation includes the right to bear arms in public;
[2 and 3 what about for 18 to 21 year olds]

This could be a major case for us. If they take it and decide issue 1 (independent of the age issue, which seems unimportant) it could make California go shall-issue? I assume if they take it and decide that there is a right to bear arms in public, then the 9th would have clear guidance on our LTC cases.

[penguin0123]

The State of Texas has deemed an entire class of more than one million law-abiding adults aged 18 to 20 unsuitable for exercising their Second Amendment right to carry a handgun for self-defense in public. The court below condoned this categorical infringement by, among other things, construing the Second Amendment to be principally about self-defense in the home and employing an intermediate scrutiny test indistinguishable from the “interest-balancing inquiry” that was championed by the Heller dissent, but emphatically rejected by the Court itself

Agree with CCWFacts. The way I read the cert, quoted is the core issue that could be huge for us. And this is a less "in your face" way of asking the question than Kachalski, and other carry cases. If we get a favourable ruling, swap out the word Texas for California, and we get carry; open and/or conceal will likely be left to the states via the 10th.

[fizux]

I think Paladin is tracking one or both of the NRA cases:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=812950

Probably McCraw, since that has more potential to fix Carry here in the PRK.

[Funtimes]

Please god please lol!

[Al Norris]

Lane v. Holder was also placed on the Feb. 21 conference list.

[Paladin]

This could be a major case for us. If they take it and decide issue 1 (independent of the age issue, which seems unimportant) it could make California go shall-issue? I assume if they take it and decide that there is a right to bear arms in public, then the 9th would have clear guidance on our LTC cases.

If SCOTUS decides to take it this term, it would be decided next term. But it would be one of the earliest cases they decided to take for next term. If they found in our favor, would they actually be brave enough to release their opinion before the last day of the last week of the last month of their term? LOL!

If not, CA9 will be holding Richards-Peruta-Baker until 2015 July before they take more time to apply SCOTUS' decision to the PRK with their decision/s.

Perpetual snacking on a sandwich and napping in the PRK....

[ddestruel]

the across state lines issue is also interesting, if my layman mind is reading it right the effect would be to undermine the CA specific DROS system, and clarify commerce of firearms and the infringement of that. i wish in common use would get hashed out.... but time will tell if the across state lines purchasing is hashed out that could open the door to addressing in common use and rabid infringement laws like CA’s AWB later. though small these cases appear that they might offer some boundaries to the states and feds if ruled in our favor

[jwkincal]

In before kcbrown says "ain't gonna happen"

...with the proviso that it's even money he's right.

[Dantedamean]

"That is the petition in Lane v. Holder (12-1401), which is a test of whether gun purchasers have a right to sue to challenge federal gun laws that restrict their option of buying guns from dealers in a different state."

So it sounds like they are suing for the right to sue?

[Librarian]

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/lane-v-holder/

Issue: Whether consumers have standing to challenge the constitutionality of laws regulating the sale of firearms.

From the petition for cert

QUESTION PRESENTED
Two courts of appeals have held that consumers
have standing to challenge the constitutionality of
federal laws regulating the sale of firearms. Another
court of appeals has held that consumers wishing to
access gun ranges have standing to challenge a city
ordinance prohibiting range operation. But the court
below held that a criminal law prohibiting gun dealers
from effecting retail transactions does not cause
consumers an injury-in-fact, and that consumer
injuries occasioned by the prohibition are not traceable
to the Government.
The question presented is:
Whether consumers have standing to challenge
the constitutionality of laws regulating the sale of
firearms.