5/11 scotus briefs

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • frogman68

    товарищ плачевная
    Apr 7, 2013
    8,774
    Is it Monday morning yet? I want to wake up to seeing a 2A case granted.

    Some shill was just on CNBC (dont ask LOL) that none of these cases will be heard as in the NY case Congress and the Senate has made it clear to the court not to take anymore. Only thing I remember was a few anti's threatened the court not sure how that makes it Congress and the Senate
     

    Steel Hunter

    Active Member
    Nov 10, 2019
    548
    We have to wait a few more hours to see which get relisted for 5/21. None were granted today.

    Cases that are now relisted for conference on 5/21:

    Mance v Barr
    Pena v Horan
    Rogers v Grewal
    Gould v Lipson
    Ciolek v New Jersey
    Cheeseman v Polillo
    Worman v Healey
    Malpasso v Pallozzi
    Culp v Raoul
    Wilson v Cook County
     
    Last edited:

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    I seem to recall that not too long ago they relisted cases the Fri before a holiday, which is exactly what they did here.


    The do not usually relist cases before the order list comes out from the previous conference.



    However, they seem to have relisted almost 30 cases for the 5/28 conference, before the 5/21 order list has come out.
     

    wjackcooper

    Active Member
    Feb 9, 2011
    689
    Esqappellte wrote:

    “ The Court would then GVR all the pending 2A cases that used tiers of scrutiny (all of them) and tell the lower courts to reconsider the decision below using the right legal standard established by the decision in Pena.” (post #107 page 11 of the SCOTUS 5/1, thread)

    Hoping that Roberts (on board for Heller) has not jumped ship.

    If the S.C. takes a 2A case and Roberts has wimped out the court may officially abandon the Heller text, history, tradition (i.e., original public meaning) test . . . then formally embrace the Breyer balancing (safety v. the right) test rejected by the Heller majority. Whereupon, those many lower courts now obviously using (but not citing) Breyer’s approach while evading Heller can then openly continue to do so.*

    In the alternative, could it be that Roberts & the four liberals might sidestep Heller completely by construing the “tiers of scrutiny” to be something other than simply methods of interest – balancing? **

    Regards
    Jack

    * “[T]he lower court decisions and the analytical approach that has begun to crystallize in them reflect Justice Breyer’s sentiments about Second Amendment claims far more than those of Justice Scalia or the other members of the Court who formed the majorities in Heller and McDonald.”13
    https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/04/the-second-amendment-as-a-normal-right/ at para. 5.

    ** ”In my view, Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.” Judge (now Justice) Kavanagh dissenting in Heller 11. 670 F 3d 1211 at 1271, or see: https://reason.com/2018/07/09/judge-kavanaugh-and-the-second-amendment/
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Esqappellte wrote:

    “ The Court would then GVR all the pending 2A cases that used tiers of scrutiny (all of them) and tell the lower courts to reconsider the decision below using the right legal standard established by the decision in Pena.” (post #107 page 11 of the SCOTUS 5/1, thread)

    Hoping that Roberts (on board for Heller) has not jumped ship.

    If the S.C. takes a 2A case and Roberts has wimped out the court may officially abandon the Heller text, history, tradition (i.e., original public meaning) test
    . . . then formally embrace the Breyer balancing (safety v. the right) test rejected by the Heller majority. Whereupon, those many lower courts now obviously using (but not citing) Breyer’s approach while evading Heller can then openly continue to do so.*

    In the alternative, could it be that Roberts & the four liberals might sidestep Heller completely by construing the “tiers of scrutiny” to be something other than simply methods of interest – balancing? **

    Regards
    Jack

    * “[T]he lower court decisions and the analytical approach that has begun to crystallize in them reflect Justice Breyer’s sentiments about Second Amendment claims far more than those of Justice Scalia or the other members of the Court who formed the majorities in Heller and McDonald.”13
    https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/04/the-second-amendment-as-a-normal-right/ at para. 5.

    ** ”In my view, Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.” Judge (now Justice) Kavanagh dissenting in Heller 11. 670 F 3d 1211 at 1271, or see: https://reason.com/2018/07/09/judge-kavanaugh-and-the-second-amendment/

    See below excerpts from the DC v. Heller oral arguments. Since Roberts hasn't authored any 2A opinions or dissents, this may be the next best place to see where he goes. Obviously its been 10 years now, so things could change but it's all we really have.

    GENERAL CLEMENT: In our view it makes a 22 world of difference, Justice Ginsburg, because we 23 certainly take the position, as we have since 24 consistently since 2001, that the Federal firearm
    statutes can be defended as constitutional, and that
    43
    Alderson Reporting Company
    5
    10
    15
    20
    25
    Official - Subject to Final Review
    1 would be consistent with this kind of intermediate 2 scrutiny standard that we propose. If you apply strict 3 scrutiny, I think that the result would be quite 4 different, unfortunately.
    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, these various 6 phrases under the different standards that are proposed, 7 "compelling interest," "significant interest," "narrowly 8 tailored," none of them appear in the Constitution; and 9 I wonder why in this case we have to articulate an
    all-encompassing standard. Isn't it enough to determine 11 the scope of the existing right that the amendment 12 refers to, look at the various regulations that were 13 available at the time, including you can't take the gun 14 to the marketplace and all that, and determine how
    these -- how this restriction and the scope of this 16 right looks in relation to those? 17 I'm not sure why we have to articulate some 18 very intricate standard. I mean, these standards that 19 apply in the First Amendment just kind of developed over
    the years as sort of baggage that the First Amendment 21 picked up. But I don't know why when we are starting 22 afresh, we would try to articulate a whole standard that 23 would apply in every case?


    and later......

    MR. GURA: That's another way to look at it, 12 Your Honor. Certainly -13 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: -- you would define 14 "reasonable" in light of the restrictions that existed
    at the time the amendment was adopted. 16 MR. GURA: Those restrictions -17 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: You know, you can't 18 take it into the marketplace was one restriction. So 19 that would be -- we are talking about lineal descendents
    of the arms but presumably there are lineal descendents 21 of the restrictions as well.


    Seems pretty clear to me that Roberts was aiming for text, history, and tradition as the standard.
     

    wjackcooper

    Active Member
    Feb 9, 2011
    689
    press1280

    I am encourage by the info you posted, thanks.

    Roberts strikes me as somewhat of a flake - having found a penalty to be a tax (or, vice versa) in the Obama Care case.

    Regards
    Jack
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,915
    Messages
    7,258,418
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom