Decision in Kachalsky LOSS

[JD-IAFF]

We just don't know what the reasoning was. Maybe they are waiting for Moore. Or maybe waiting to see what happens in the 3d or 9th Circuits.

Possibly, but I'm not sure what Moore would buy us were Madigan dumb enough to seek certiorari (which I'm leaning against thinking she'll do.) Posner as much as came out and told IL that the statutes in MD & NY were IHO an acceptable template for IL to follow in constructing a replacement statute.

IL has ran the clock out a bit beyond what is prudent from the state's perspective, IMO, with regard to getting a replacement statute in the works, but I don't think it's beyond the scope of the possible that IL could move seeking an extension of Posner's deadline were it to be able to demonstrate that progress towards deriving a replacement has been achieved.

What's your opinion on Mehl?

 

[Seeker]

Based on the Obamacare decision, I'm wondering whether someone has something on Chief Justice Roberts... That seemed like a slam dunk case, and the fact that this case has been denied cert makes me think the CJ may be compromised.

 

[JD-IAFF]

Based on the Obamacare decision, I'm wondering whether someone has something on Chief Justice Roberts... That seemed like a slam dunk case, and the fact that this case has been denied cert makes me think the CJ may be compromised.

It seemed like a slam dunk case because people misunderstood Article I.

Roberts is but one vote of nine when considering cert. Yea votes from ANY four justices are sufficient to grant certiorari. Robert's vote doesn't get any special weight in that regard.

 

[Patrick]

Posner gave IL 6 months to change their statute. I suspect that IL is waiting to see what happens with the others before deciding whether to move forward with pursuing cert or just change the statute.

I suspect that in the end they'll change the IL statute to something that closely resembles those in NY and MD. Doing so will arguably nullify the argument in Moore without IL essentially ceding anything in practice. It's the smarter move for them to make from a strategic standpoint.

Letting the decision go into effect without a law is something the gun control groups want to see happen. Our side gets it wrong all the time - it does not create a functional "constitutional carry" state. Instead, it creates a dysfunctional state where 200+ "home rule" cities and towns can implement any form of regulation concerning carry that they wish. And you can bet they've already coordinated that fun.

Madigan has to decide whether she's going to appeal those cases. That is not assured, given that letting it stand will create such a mess that they theorize they can get a NY-style system into place after it passes, even if they cannot do so today.

Disappointed that Kachalsky wasn't picked up. But do the math: The IL cases would have to seek cert before Woollard. If the court wants to hear a case and prefers Moore, they can always wait to see if it shows up. If not, they got another shot at the issue using Woollard. Moore is sandwiched between the two nearly identical cases. Denying Kachalsky gives them more options than accepting it. At least this way, they might get the Illinois case(s). Take Kachalsky and things get complicated. My wife has an expression for life, "it's always better to make options."

Wishful thinking?

Perhaps. But that's what I do.

 

[Seeker]

Roberts is but one vote of nine when considering cert. Yea votes from ANY four justices are sufficient to grant certiorari. Robert's vote doesn't get any special weight in that regard.

It doesn't get special weight, but I expect the other 3 "conservative" justices voted for certiorari. We'll never know for certain of course since the conference is secret, so this is just speculation.

We can hope that this is just because they'd prefer a different case on the issue, but my hopes for CCW in MD happening anytime soon are seriously dimmed. Just one more reason to move to a 2A friendly state.

 

[JD-IAFF]

It doesn't get special weight, but I expect the other 3 "conservative" justices voted for certiorari. We'll never know for certain of course since the conference is secret, so this is just speculation.

We can hope that this is just because they'd prefer a different case on the issue, but my hopes for CCW in MD happening anytime soon are seriously dimmed. Just one more reason to move to a 2A friendly state.

What it tells me is what I've been worried about since Heller & McDonald came down - namely that SCOTUS is prepared to be very deferential to gun rights within the home, but once you step outside your door, the situation in their perspective changes dramatically - was a valid concern.

I don't really go in for hope. I'm too much of a realist for that, and that realism tells me that carry outside the home is in trouble.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Letting the decision go into effect without a law is something the gun control groups want to see happen. Our side gets it wrong all the time - it does not create a functional "constitutional carry" state. Instead, it creates a dysfunctional state where 200+ "home rule" cities and towns can implement any form of regulation concerning carry that they wish. And you can bet they've already coordinated that fun.

Madigan has to decide whether she's going to appeal those cases. That is not assured, given that letting it stand will create such a mess that they theorize they can get a NY-style system into place after it passes, even if they cannot do so today.

Disappointed that Kachalsky wasn't picked up. But do the math: The IL cases would have to seek cert before Woollard. If the court wants to hear a case and prefers Moore, they can always wait to see if it shows up. If not, they got another shot at the issue using Woollard. Moore is sandwiched between the two nearly identical cases. Denying Kachalsky gives them more options than accepting it. At least this way, they might get the Illinois case(s). Take Kachalsky and things get complicated. My wife has an expression for life, "it's always better to make options."

Wishful thinking?

Perhaps. But that's what I do.

Then why not simply re-list? That would have created the most options, yes? This honestly, makes me feel the best that I have felt today regarding this (but that ain't saying a whole lot).

 

[fightinbluhen51]

What it tells me is what I've been worried about since Heller & McDonald came down - namely that SCOTUS is prepared to be very deferential to gun rights within the home, but once you step outside your door, the situation in their perspective changes dramatically - was a valid concern.

I don't really go in for hope. I'm too much of a realist for that, and that realism tells me that carry outside the home is in trouble for the states that restrict the right.

Perhaps SCOTUS doesn't want to touch the "icky guns" policies that other states have used the legislatures to reach. Simply, they don't want to weight the social science data vs the Constitution, and feel it best to leave that to the discretion of the state legislatures or perhaps Congress itself.

We keep coming back to this point...elections have consequences.

 

[Patrick]

Then why not simply re-list? That would have created the most options, yes? This honestly, makes me feel the best that I have felt today regarding this (but that ain't saying a whole lot).

If someone wanted to pressure Madigan, then a denial of Kachalsky would do so more than a re-list.

Again...not sure of anything when it comes to this stuff.

 

[esqappellate]

Possibly, but I'm not sure what Moore would buy us were Madigan dumb enough to seek certiorari (which I'm leaning against thinking she'll do.) Posner as much as came out and told IL that the statutes in MD & NY were IHO an acceptable template for IL to follow in constructing a replacement statute.

IL has ran the clock out a bit beyond what is prudent from the state's perspective, IMO, with regard to getting a replacement statute in the works, but I don't think it's beyond the scope of the possible that IL could move seeking an extension of Posner's deadline were it to be able to demonstrate that progress towards deriving a replacement has been achieved.

What's your opinion on Mehl?[/QUOTE]

Terrible panel: SCHROEDER, ROTH,* and BERZON, and it appears to be badly litigated. I mean, Mehl's counsel (Gorski) did not even show up on time for the argument. That is just terrible. It is the last case I would want to have as the lead 9th Circuit case on this subject and, yet, the panel expressly stated that it has priority over the other three cases (Peruta, Richards, Baker). Calguns argued that the case is moot. I hope so, but the panel did not seem to think so. I think we may be doomed in Mehl.

Moore would buy us a case like Heller: Whether the right outside the home exists at all, in the abstract. That is the best possible scenario for us. I know that does NOT necessarily give us law on carry permits, but that appears to be a bridge too far for the Court with the denial of cert in Kachalsky, at least until the underlying question is decided.

 

[hvymax]

Add another nail in the coffin of the Constitution and the Republic.

Obamarx Care!!! Now this!!! It is over except the survivors being hauled to the FEMA Camps.

 

[spank308]

I find a difficult challenge to be "law-abiding" in md. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This is simple for anyone with two eyes and half a brain to understand. It is plain language that needs no interpretation. When there is an unconstitutional law that conflicts this, it is an assault on my rationality and patriotism to be forced to follow that plainly unconstitutional law.

As far as "in the home"...HOW DARE they think they can somehow ALLOW me to defend myself under my own roof. I will keep and bear arms in my house and defend my family, this will never change, regardless of what "law" is imposed on the people. The second amendment clearly extends beyond my roof, saying I somehow have legal protection to carry tools for defense under my own roof seems so absurdly redundant that it isn't worth mentioning. There's a lot of places in law that I'm infuriated at the blatant attacks on american liberty by our legislators, the 2A issues just happen to be the most obvious domestic terrorism by enemies of the state I see. /rant

I could not agree more. It will only get worse if a few in SCOTUS retire. More NOBAMA appointees to fill in the void to piss on the constitution. People here still believe in our system. It is way to corrupt. Lets just keep on watch everything being chipped away.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

SCOTUS Blog now updated with expanded opinion.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/04/court-avoids-gun-rights-dispute/

I haven't read the update (as of 1500) yet, but I know you guys would be looking for what was linked earlier today.


ETA: Never mind. The update covers the two cases that did get cert. Interesting that a non-cert case got faster coverage than two cases that did.

 

[JD-IAFF]

Perhaps SCOTUS doesn't want to touch the "icky guns" policies that other states have used the legislatures to reach. Simply, they don't want to weight the social science data vs the Constitution, and feel it best to leave that to the discretion of the state legislatures or perhaps Congress itself.

We keep coming back to this point...elections have consequences.

The flipside of that argument is this:

The denial in Kachalsky (and arguably the looming denial in Woollard, assuming Gura even chooses to file the petition at this point, which IMLO is in doubt) sends a clear signal to states which might be (in light of recent events) considering moving to a more restrictive regulatory scheme.

Namely, that they are covered at SCOTUS when/if they choose to do so. All they have to do is use MD and/or NY's statutes as a template, and they're good to go. It's a dangerous place to be in from our perspective.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

If someone wanted to pressure Madigan, then a denial of Kachalsky would do so more than a re-list.

Again...not sure of anything when it comes to this stuff.

Gotcha...thanks for clarification of your opinion.

Reading tea leaves blows. This whole thing blows. THE GOD DAMNED CONSTITUTION MEANS WHAT IT MEANS!

/vent.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

The flipside of that argument is this:

The denial in Kachalsky (and arguably the looming denial in Woollard, assuming Gura even chooses to file the petition at this point, which IMLO is in doubt) sends a clear signal to states which might be (in light of recent events) considering moving to a more restrictive regulatory scheme.

Namely, that they are covered at SCOTUS when/if they choose to do so. All they have to do is use MD and/or NY's statutes as a template, and they're good to go. It's a dangerous place to be in from our perspective.

Yeah, I don't like that either. Banning "certain" arms, licensing folks via finger prints to exercise a right, and the laundry list of other stuff, one must consider what could come out of the legal system.

Soap
Ballot
Jury...

Let's replace the fourth part with ugly.

 

[JD-IAFF]

Moore would buy us a case like Heller: Whether the right outside the home exists at all, in the abstract. That is the best possible scenario for us. I know that does NOT necessarily give us law on carry permits, but that appears to be a bridge too far for the Court with the denial of cert in Kachalsky, at least until the underlying question is decided.

I can see that, and agree. That said, it hinges on Lisa Madigan being dumb enough to push Moore to cert, which I still don't think she'll do. She's not dumb, by any means, and she knows that if she pushes to SCOTUS, she'll lose. If she hedges and let's the legislature impose a replacement statute, she and IL have pretty wide options, especially again considering that Posner as much as told her that the 7th would likely sign off on that sort of regulatory scheme.

 

[Inigoes]

The flipside of that argument is this:

The denial in Kachalsky (and arguably the looming denial in Woollard, assuming Gura even chooses to file the petition at this point, which IMLO is in doubt) sends a clear signal to states which might be (in light of recent events) considering moving to a more restrictive regulatory scheme.

Namely, that they are covered at SCOTUS when/if they choose to do so. All they have to do is use MD and/or NY's statutes as a template, and they're good to go. It's a dangerous place to be in from our perspective.

It is a slippery slope when the SCOTUS can rewrite the plain language of the Bill of Rights by striking out the the "and bear" portion of the second amendment.

 

[esqappellate]

I can see that, and agree. That said, it hinges on Lisa Madigan being dumb enough to push Moore to cert, which I still don't think she'll do. She's not dumb, by any means, and she knows that if she pushes to SCOTUS, she'll lose. If she hedges and let's the legislature impose a replacement statute, she and IL have pretty wide options, especially again considering that Posner as much as told her that the 7th would likely sign off on that sort of regulatory scheme.

Agreed on all points. I don't think they will seek cert either. As to what Illinois will enact, that is a matter of state politics and there are those who firmly believe that the Chicago crowd do not have the votes for may issue. If so (and I have no idea), then Madigan may feel that a cert petition is necessary. I can't believe that Illinois really wants 200 city ordinances out there, but Illinois is a strange place.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

It is a slippery slope when the SCOTUS can rewrite the plain language of the Bill of Rights by striking out the the "and bear" portion of the second amendment.

... And the media/liberals can redefine "regulated"...

*** When can we start taxing stupid? ***