More precisely, it'll take a composition change on the Court for Norman to be granted cert, or any other carry case for that matter. The Supreme Court has had plenty of opportunity to opine on the matter and has refused to (and, indeed, has refused to for any and all 2A cases save for Caetano).
No other newly-recognized right has been treated this way by the Court. That should be a clear indication that the Court is political in nature, and not an objective arbiter of law.
There was no split (as far as I know) in Caetano. The Court took it anyway.
That common theme is also shared by (numerous) cases involving other rights that the Court has taken.
For the Court to demand that 2nd Amendment firearms cases somehow adhere to a standard that cases involving other rights don't have to is for the Court to treat the 2nd Amendment as a second-class right. Again, no other right has been treated this way by the Court immediately after its recognition.
There was no split (as far as I know) in Caetano. The Court took it anyway.
That common theme is also shared by (numerous) cases involving other rights that the Court has taken.
For the Court to demand that 2nd Amendment firearms cases somehow adhere to a standard that cases involving other rights don't have to is for the Court to treat the 2nd Amendment as a second-class right. Again, no other right has been treated this way by the Court immediately after its recognition.
Maan,...you guys are really going to be confused when they grant cert on this one.
Caetano had a minor split with people v. YANNA. And, part of the reason it was taken was the reasoning was directly opposed to Heller.
As a frame of reference, what other rights have gotten cert when no split existed?
Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco said:The Court's refusal to review this decision is difficult to account for in light of its repeated willingness to review splitless decisions involving alleged violations of other constitutional rights. See, e.g., Glossip v. Gross, 574 U. S. ___ (2015) (cert. granted) (Eighth Amendment); Ontario v. Quon, 560 U. S. 746 (2010) (Fourth Amendment); Hill v. Colorado, 530 U. S. 703 (2000) (First Amendment). Indeed, the Court has been willing to review splitless decisions involving alleged violations of rights it has never previously enforced. See, e.g., BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U. S. 559 (1996) (right to limit on punitive damages awards). And it has even gone so far as to review splitless decisions involving alleged violations of rights expressly foreclosed by precedent. See, e.g., Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U. S. 723 (2008) (right of aliens held outside U. S. territory to the privilege of habeas corpus); Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in adult, consensual same-sex intimate behavior). I see no reason that challenges based on Second Amendment rights should be treated differently.
When do we get the denial notice?
When do we get the denial notice?
You obviously are not basing that position off of the fact that not one previous carry case prior to Norman had an injured party involving a fundamental right...Just a crystal ball guess.
Being arrested for exercising the fundamental right of open carrying a firearm for self-defense outside the home will compel this courts review mechanism, otherwise known as...certiorari granted
Williams v Maryland proves that an injured party being injured by a law that imposes upon a fundamental right isn't sufficient. Now, Williams wasn't necessarily carrying openly while Norman clearly was. Maybe that'll make the difference. Certainly, the argument put forth in Norman is the one that the "open carry is the only protected manner of carry" folks have been making, and that sets it apart from the rest.
But I very much doubt it'll make any difference at all. You'll see for yourself soon enough that the Court is an entirely (or near enough as makes no difference) political animal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You obviously are not basing that position off of the fact that not one previous carry case prior to Norman had an injured party involving a fundamental right...Just a crystal ball guess.
Being arrested for exercising the fundamental right of open carrying a firearm for self-defense outside the home will compel this courts review mechanism, otherwise known as...certiorari granted
Williams v Maryland proves that an injured party being injured by a law that imposes upon a fundamental right isn't sufficient. Now, Williams wasn't necessarily carrying openly while Norman clearly was. Maybe that'll make the difference. Certainly, the argument put forth in Norman is the one that the "open carry is the only protected manner of carry" folks have been making, and that sets it apart from the rest.
But I very much doubt it'll make any difference at all. You'll see for yourself soon enough that the Court is an entirely (or near enough as makes no difference) political animal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Williams is a bad example. For one thing he never applied for a CCW. I doubt the court will want to find a right to carry AND strike down a permit requirement in one fell swoop. Another thing is Williams was so early after McDonald that the court simply wasn't going to take another case that fast.
This case is so much more unique in that there's no advocates in this case for NO public carry. IMO-this makes it so a "compromise" can be made. If the votes aren't there for Norman, then they can take the state's position and hold shall-issue CCW is an acceptable substitute.
Williams is a bad example. For one thing he never applied for a CCW. I doubt the court will want to find a right to carry AND strike down a permit requirement in one fell swoop.
Another thing is Williams was so early after McDonald that the court simply wasn't going to take another case that fast.
This case is so much more unique in that there's no advocates in this case for NO public carry. IMO-this makes it so a "compromise" can be made. If the votes aren't there for Norman, then they can take the state's position and hold shall-issue CCW is an acceptable substitute.
I am basing on the facts that a)99% of cases get denied and
b) the court has not had an appetite for taking 2nd amendment cases.
I have not seen one scintilla of evidence that 5 justices on this court currently think "open carry" is the true right. 2 or at most 3 justices, perhaps. Generously. Certainly not enough for cert, let alone a majority opinion.
After Peruta, I'd be shocked if we even get a dissent from denial.
Florida's brief in opposition http://blog.californiarighttocarry....2017/02/Norman-BIO-FILED-VERSION-10.10.17.pdf
Absolutely no split here whatsoever, according to them.
The decision below also does not conflict with the post - Heller decision of any other court. Some post - Heller lower courts have held that the Second Amendment protects a right to carry arms in public for self - defense. E .g. , Wrenn v. District of Columbia , 864 F.3d 650 , 667 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ; Moore , 702 F.3d at 942 . Other courts have either rejected that position or otherwise upheld severe restrictions that effectively deny any right of armed self - defense beyond the home . E .g. , Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego , 824 F.3d 919 , 924 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) , cert. denied , 137 S. Ct. 1995 (2017); Drake , 724 F.3d at 440 , cert. denied sub nom. Drake v. Jerejian , 134 S. Ct. 2134 (2014); Woollar d v. Gallagher , 712 F.3d 865 , 882 (4th Cir. 2013) , cert. denied , 134 S. Ct. 422 (2013); Kachalsky v. Cty. of Westchester , 701 F.3d 81 , 101 (2d Cir. 2012) , cert. denied sub nom. Kachalsky v. Cacace , 133 S. Ct. 1806 (2013); Hightower v. Boston , 693 F.3d 61 , 65 (1st Cir. 2012) ; Commonwealth v. Gouse , 965 N.E.2d 774 , 802 (Mass. 2012) ; Williams v. State , 10 A.3d 1167 , 1169 (Md. 2011) , cert. denied sub nom. Williams v. Maryland , 565 U.S. 815 (2011); Wooden v. United States , 6 A.3d 833 , 841 (D.C. 2010) . Still others have upheld restrictions on concealed carry while being careful not to signal approval for total carry bans. E.g. , Peterson v. Martinez , 707 F.3d 1197 , 1209 (10th Cir. 2013)