It is always a good day when SCOTUS makes Herr Baron Frosh and his minions squirm and wiggle trying to trying to duck a case about our 2A rights!!!
It is always a good day when SCOTUS makes Herr Baron Frosh and his minions squirm and wiggle trying to trying to duck a case about our 2A rights!!!
A grant, vacate, remand order (GVR order) is a type of order issued by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court grants a petition for certiorari, vacates the decision of the court below, and remands the case for further proceedings (hence the acronym by which they are known).Sorry for the dumb question but what is GVR again?
This thread should be sticky-ed for the time being.
.....
Which additionally means., for the lower court to follow the rulings of the Supreme Court. Which should be a good thing.
Could the CA4 ignore the ruling and makeup some nonsense to justify G&S? We’ve seen what they’re capable of.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Not entirely true. They could come up with some different tortured ruling. GVR is SCOTUS telling the lower court they got the decision wrong, rethink it.
It happens occasionally that the lower court ends up with a different, but essentially the same decision. That’s usually when SCOTUS steps in and lays a real smack down on the lower court. It’s rare, but it happens.
To be fair, that wasn’t the question. The question was in reference to a SCOTUS ruling. If SCOTUS rules that shall-issue, or better yet that Constitutional carry is the law of the land then the lower courts are impotent.
To be fair, that wasn’t the question. The question was in reference to a SCOTUS ruling. If SCOTUS rules that shall-issue, or better yet that Constitutional carry is the law of the land then the lower courts are impotent.
Say SCOTUS issues a ruling that any restriction on concealed carry is unconstitutional. State "x" still has a licensing scheme in place in contradiction of that ruling. Officer Smith sees Citizen Joe carrying concealed, verifies he does not have a state issued carry permit and arrests him. What happens to Joe? my understanding is once SCOTUS issues a ruling, each state still needs to be "encouraged" to alter or remove their now non confirming laws. Does each state need to be sued individually?
Say SCOTUS issues a ruling that any restriction on concealed carry is unconstitutional. State "x" still has a licensing scheme in place in contradiction of that ruling. Officer Smith sees Citizen Joe carrying concealed, verifies he does not have a state issued carry permit and arrests him. What happens to Joe? my understanding is once SCOTUS issues a ruling, each state still needs to be "encouraged" to alter or remove their now non confirming laws. Does each state need to be sued individually?
Your assuming that there is a case where the court rules on shall-issue. Currently there is no case that SCOTUS has accepted that addresses shall-issue. They are only going to rule on cases before it. The only 2A case before it is the NYSRPA v NYC case, which is not about shall-issue. It is likely that the NYC case will impact how future courts will decide 2A cases and that there will likely be room for lower courts to continue their narrowing/undermining of shall-issue.
The initial question was a hypothetical. You can unbunch your panties.
My panties are not bunched, but your panties seem to be.
While the initial question was hypothetical, it was also based on the rulings of the court. You seem to eliminate any possibility of the lower court ruling against G&S, which is clearly wrong because there have not been any rulings on G&S by SCOTUS. Hypothetically speaking, SCOTUS may never rule on G&S. This is the basis of the original question, which you seem to have ignored.