SCOTUS 5/1

[danb]

At a minimum the standard of review HAS to be addressed. There's no other reason to take a case.
The thing with Caetano is that it didn't do much except put the fear into any state maintaining a taser ban. Doing something like that may knock out a few laws here and there but not much else. The lower courts need some clarity, bad.

 

[jcutonilli]

Does anyone know if any of the other "may" jurisdictions had used, so explicitly, and centrally to their argument, the assertion that the jurisdiction had authority to ration a right, simply based on an asserted social harm of exercise of the right, and therefore a policy of choosing/limiting those who do exercise it with the specific and stated aim of numerically reducing exercise?

That would be the United States. See Korematsu. The US denied first amendment rights to Japanese Americans because a few might have tried to sabotage some things during WWII. SCOTUS has endorsed this.

 

[whistlersmother]

That would be the United States. See Korematsu. The US denied first amendment rights to Japanese Americans because a few might have tried to sabotage some things during WWII. SCOTUS has endorsed this.

Based on evidence withheld from SCOTUS, his conviction was overturned...

How might SCOTUS had ruled if it had all the evidence?

 

[jcutonilli]

At a minimum the standard of review HAS to be addressed. There's no other reason to take a case.
The thing with Caetano is that it didn't do much except put the fear into any state maintaining a taser ban. Doing something like that may knock out a few laws here and there but not much else. The lower courts need some clarity, bad.

A minimum standard has been addressed. We should win under intermediate scrutiny. Heller even acknowledges it.

The problem is figuring out why the lower courts are using intermediate scrutiny incorrectly. I don't believe the 10 cases currently before the court or any of the previous cases they denied cert on really addressed this issue.

I see the problem being the same logic that gave us Korematsu. If the actions of someone else can be used to deny rights, then every right can be taken away for any reason.

 

[jcutonilli]

Based on evidence withheld from SCOTUS, his conviction was overturned...

How might SCOTUS had ruled if it had all the evidence?

A lower court grant a writ of coram nobi (writ of error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coram_nobis). The lower court did not determine any errors of law however. Additionally SCOTUS has not overturned the conviction.

The issue is not one of evidence. The problem is that if you deny rights based on the actions of someone else, no right can survive. We punish people after they cause harms not before.

 

[whistlersmother]

A lower court grant a writ of coram nobi (writ of error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coram_nobis). The lower court did not determine any errors of law however. Additionally SCOTUS has not overturned the conviction.

The issue is not one of evidence. The problem is that if you deny rights based on the actions of someone else, no right can survive. We punish people after they cause harms not before.

That is a matter of perspective.

Am I harmed by not being able to possess home-made machineguns?

Or constructing a non-HBAR AR15 in Maryland?

I have not caused any harm to anyone and yet the state would punish me.

 

[jcutonilli]

That is a matter of perspective.

Am I harmed by not being able to possess home-made machineguns?

Or constructing a non-HBAR AR15 in Maryland?

I have not caused any harm to anyone and yet the state would punish me.

The state would punish you for violating laws, which is in itself a harm to society.

If you don't like the law, have it changed through legislative or judicial means.

 

[rascal]

That would be the United States. See Korematsu. The US denied first amendment rights to Japanese Americans because a few might have tried to sabotage some things during WWII. SCOTUS has endorsed this.

They have endorsed Korematsu it recently? I thought both sides of the court have gone on record saying that was an onerous decisions and explicitly "overruled by history."

I believe in the trump immigration controls scotus case the majority specifically said Kormutso had been "overruled by history." it is just that there is no current case opportunity to formally overturn. The justices consider it invalid, really the language they have used indicated they view it as onerous, but there is just no present mechanism or case opportunity to directly overturn it it/

so sure that now villifed by all sides on the court decision is still out there, but has any lower court recently had the gall to to successfully cited Korumatsu in upholding a rights rationing case? or any current or recent Supreme court justice actually citing it as supporting a ruling? Seems to me if opponents of the Second were to cite it they would kill their own case.

Gura seems to think the inherent rights rationing regime in "may" as clearly unconstitutional as central to his argument.

 

[Steel Hunter]

The state would punish you for violating laws, which is in itself a harm to society.

If you don't like the law, have it changed through legislative or judicial means.

What if you are the minority and your representatives are actively hostile towards you and your interests? See MGA for example.

 

[rascal]

The issue is not one of evidence. The problem is that if you deny rights based on the actions of someone else, no right can survive. We punish people after they cause harms not before.

That is a very important point. The second amendment regime promoted by the gun ban lobby and the legislators they own apply Orwellian and totalitarian pre-crime analogies that are quite frightening.

I can't tell you how many times I have heard arguments, to the effect of : "well we sanction libel and defamation don't we?"

defamation an libel sanctions are a) limited to the individual person or entity that committed the harm; b) a harm must be proven in court; and c) involve no constraint on ability to commit the harm ie are post-harm

The analogy to what are opponents want is: if Joe Schmoe in California libels someone in writing on the net, we need laws that directly constrain, make illegal the hypothetical ability do so by government limiting all access to posting on the internet in the first place.

We already have post-harm laws dealing with harming someone with a firearm, they are called criminal assault laws, criminal homicide laws, and civil law against those that caused the harm.

 

[jcutonilli]

They have endorse it recently? I thought both sides of the court ha have gone on record saying that was an onerous decsions "overruled by history."

I believe in the trump immigration controls scotus case the majority specifically said Kormutso had been "overruled by history." it is just that there is no current case opportunity to formally overturn. The justices consider it invalid, really the language they have used indicated they view it as onerous, but there is just no present mechanism or opportunity to directly overturn it it

so sure, but has any lower court recently had the gall to to successful cited Korumatsu in upholding a rights rationing case? or any current or recent Supreme court justice actually citing it as supporting a ruling

Gura seems to think the inherent rights rationing regime in "may" as clearly unconstitutional as central to his argument.

I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying. The lower courts have not endorsed Korematsu by name. They are endorsing it by practice.

They are finding that a few people that commit crimes justify restrictions on others that do not cause harms. I don't see any real differences between the reasoning in Korematsu and the reasoning in most 2A cases.

Gura has had lots of chances to get another 2A case before SCOTUS, why is this time any different?

 

[jcutonilli]

What if you are the minority and your representatives are actively hostile towards you and your interests? See MGA for example.

Then you need to find some judicial means.

 

[press1280]

A minimum standard has been addressed. We should win under intermediate scrutiny. Heller even acknowledges it.

The problem is figuring out why the lower courts are using intermediate scrutiny incorrectly. I don't believe the 10 cases currently before the court or any of the previous cases they denied cert on really addressed this issue.

I see the problem being the same logic that gave us Korematsu. If the actions of someone else can be used to deny rights, then every right can be taken away for any reason.

The why seems to be their own biases. Normally, dueling stats would be a tie and the tie goes in favor of the right. But if you look at the cases before the court, you'll see a trend. There's a lack of historical analysis and whatever our side produces is basically glossed over or ignored. For one example, the 19th century carry cases are either absent or disregarded since they are from the Antebellum South. Also, they are equating a law's existence with it's constitutionality when they point out several carry bans which were never challenged in court(several of which were later overturned or repealed like In re brickey).

 

[jcutonilli]

The why seems to be their own biases. Normally, dueling stats would be a tie and the tie goes in favor of the right. But if you look at the cases before the court, you'll see a trend. There's a lack of historical analysis and whatever our side produces is basically glossed over or ignored. For one example, the 19th century carry cases are either absent or disregarded since they are from the Antebellum South. Also, they are equating a law's existence with it's constitutionality when they point out several carry bans which were never challenged in court(several of which were later overturned or repealed like In re brickey).

The lower courts interpret dueling stats as a political issue where there is no correct answer. They believe the legislature is the best place to resolve political issues. Since the legislature wrote the law, the court allows it to stand. I see this as one of the problems with dueling stats.

If you look at the data they use, there is no need to provide dueling stats. It can easily be defeated other ways by challenging the data directly. For example, they often develop correlations without determining actual causation.

 

[danb]

12 hours....


Although I am expecting relists...

 

[whistlersmother]

Denial of cert for all. Roberts is not on board. Why continue a useless endeavor when the outcome is known?

Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch will have to await another Constitutionalist to the bench.

Kavanaugh is unknown, but a probable.

The 2A waits a little while longer. Can the the ammo box out wait SCOTUS?

 

[danb]

Denial of cert for all. Roberts is not on board. Why continue a useless endeavor when the outcome is known?

Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch will have to await another Constitutionalist to the bench.

Kavanaugh is unknown, but a probable.

The 2A waits a little while longer. Can the the ammo box out wait SCOTUS?

Nah, they could have done that a long time ago.

They would not have taken NYSRPA Jan 2019 if Roberts was not on board.

 

[whistlersmother]

Nah, they could have done that a long time ago.

They would not have taken NYSRPA Jan 2019 if Roberts was not on board.

Apologies, but I'm forever a pessimist.

I hope to hell one of cases, or all categories of cases, are taken.

The time of the 2A being a 2nd class right needs to end.

 

[press1280]

Nah, they could have done that a long time ago.

They would not have taken NYSRPA Jan 2019 if Roberts was not on board.

Certainly it's possible he wasn't (as in he didn't vote for cert). But, would the other 4 believe somehow that they had his vote to win NYSRPA but somehow with these 10 other cases (specifically Pena) that it's a bridge to far for Roberts?
Not likely, but we shall see.

 

[Alea Jacta Est]

Although not a method, Hope Springs eternal.