Less than a 3% chance of that....
More like 11.1% chance when a new conservative justice arives on the bench of the supreme court
Less than a 3% chance of that....
My opinion on SCOTUS as relates to 2A.
Getting a "proper" replacement for Scalia will only return the SC to the previous status quo. That means there will be 4 hard-left liberals, 3 reasonably solid conservatives, and 2 squishies-in-the-middle: Roberts and Kennedy. I have heard some speculation that Kennedy in particular might have switched sides from Heller and McDonald and that is one reason for no cert on 2A cases, since no one knows which side Kennedy is on anymore. Pure guesswork on my part, seems feasible but worth exactly what you paid for it. Roberts' convoluted affirmation of Obama's health insurance disaster was an eye opener, I'm not so sure he can still be counted on for support of 2A.
In order for the court to be at least somewhat safer for advancing 2A issues, we will need to also replace one or more of the hard lefties. Ginsberg will either retire or expire as she chooses, or maybe we can replace Breyer or Kennedy with a good, known-solid conservative. Then and only then will substantial progress be made.
(Not on-topic for this discussion but still SC related, I would also like to see Thomas retire sometime soon so President Trump can replace him with someone who is the same only 30 years younger. This is another thing which will be a big step toward securing the SC long into the future.)
Again, this is only my opinion, and worth exactly nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Not by a long shot!
All I can see from here is more trees!
I posted this a while back in another thread, repeated here for your perusal.
I'm hoping somone (maybe Esq?) can PLEASE point out the error in my thinking.
Not by a long shot!
All I can see from here is more trees!
I read the Robinson decison as an upheld Terry Stop ... prohibited person in possession of a firearm.
What at all would that have to do with Kolbe???
I read the Robinson decison as an upheld Terry Stop ... prohibited person in possession of a firearm.
What at all would that have to do with Kolbe???
It's an enhancement.
The police were called about a lawful activity.
Here is the petition for rehearing en banc that was granted. It will explain why they granted rehearing. This has a win for the government written all over it. The only question in my mind is how they write the opinion.
The danger justifying a protective frisk arises from the combination of a forced police encounter and the presence of a weapon, not from any illegality of the weapon’s possession.
It's an enhancement.
The police were called about a lawful activity.
Robinson is only peripherally related to Kolbe. It's more 4th amendment. See here:
I would not get your hopes up getting Robinson overturned.
Encounters with the police can be contentious. I think that it's going to be hard to find 5 justices willing to disagree with the logic of a protective frisk.