danb
dont be a dumbass
Tuesday is too early for either a per curiam or dissent from denial.
En banc Decision in Peruta -- a loss
- Thread starter esqappellate
- Start date
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!
Member Benefits:
Can you foresee any way they could accept Binderup, and (assuming we win) GVR Peruta?
Or are the two cases so completely unrelated that a victory in Binderup cannot influence Peruta.
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
I don't think that the issues in Binderup and Peruta are sufficiently related to ever justify a GVR in either case. I can easily see a cert. denied in both cases. IT is hard to see a grant in both cases, but not impossible. See
https://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=4817274&postcount=61 The most likely result is a cert denied in both cases with a written dissent from the denial in Peruta. Alan Gura's BIO in Binderup is quite good and the Court has shown no real interest in addressing 2A outside the home.
Peaceful John
Active Member
- May 31, 2011
- 239
Is it correct that Peruta asks "Is there a right to carry in some manner?" and Norman asks, "Is the right Open Carry?"
If that's the case, it seems reasonable to think that Norman is the appeal more likely to be heard. Am I wrong?
Peruta is asking that question, however, the relief sought by Peruta was only a CCW (no specific challenge to OC). So the 9th ruled only on that.
You're exactly correct on Norman, as he was actually arrested on an OC charge.
The Peruta question is more straightforward but w/o a clear OC challenge, who knows. A case like Moore would have been a great candidate IMO since it was a complete ban, but I don't believe there are any more of those except for non-residents of certain states.
Peaceful John
Active Member
- May 31, 2011
- 239
Thank you, Press1280.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but since Peruta sought only a CCW, wouldn't the 9th CA en banc decision be reasonable: "There is no right to carry concealed"? Of course, because the right is Open Carry? If that's how SCOTUS sees it, then Peruta is toast.
If Open Carry is indeed the right, then it could be that Norman, offering an unambiguous approach to that issue, might be the one the Court has been waiting for, no?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but since Peruta sought only a CCW, wouldn't the 9th CA en banc decision be reasonable: "There is no right to carry concealed"? Of course, because the right is Open Carry? If that's how SCOTUS sees it, then Peruta is toast.
If Open Carry is indeed the right, then it could be that Norman, offering an unambiguous approach to that issue, might be the one the Court has been waiting for, no?
I'd agree with all of that.
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
The only reason why the Peruta en banc can be considered reasonable is that Peruta failed to challenge the historical ban on CCW. All we really know is that there has been a historical ban. What is unknown is whether that historical ban can be overturned due to changing circumstances. I believe you just need to argue the case correctly.
I think the right is to be able to carry in public, but the legislature has the right to determine whether it is open or CCW. I think Peruta argued the right correctly, but lost on a technicality. FL has CCW so it can ban open carry.
There are definitely negative societal implications to open carry. In todays society, some people get hysterical at the sight of a gun. The police get called and need to verify that this person is not a criminal. CCW tends to resolve the negative societal implications.
I'd agree with this too, for example, I've gotten into arguments with Nichols over CCW vs. OC. He maintains the court should view the right as identical to how it was in Chandler & Nunn (CC ban, OC allowed). I would maintain that the courts in those days did no analysis over why CC was banned. It was simply a "given" that hiding a weapon meant your intentions were nefarious. We now know with a ton of statistics that millions carry concealed with no ill affects to society. There's also considerations for how someone dresses (OC during extreme cold is not easy), not part of the discussion in the mid 1800's. Someone covering up with a coat does not make them all of a sudden any more dangerous than if open carrying.
It's also worth pointing out the very first CCW case (based on the KY RKBA) was Bliss v. Commonwealth in 1822 which ruled concealed carry was protected. Granted it did not mention the 2A specifically, but I can't see anything that would point to the KY RKBA being so divorced from the 2A that the judges would think CC could be banned under the 2A either. From that point on a number of state constitutions were amended to specifically exclude concealed carrying. Seems odd to change the constitution to specifically exclude something but maintain it wasn't there before!
The en banc panel, twisted the argument into CC v. OC.
The "original" question was about the Sheriff requiring a "Good and Substantial" Reason
No Peruta in the Orders list today
Then I wonder if they are going to hold it over until the Florida case is before them and combine them or someone a per curium or only the supreme know what is going on.... IMO This is getting to be very interesting since their are no orders or anything yet on this case...
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Unlikely a hold.
On a Positive note, Gorsuch has started to participate in the opinions
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
Pertua let them do this because they did not address the historical ban on CC. The court cannot grant something that historically does not exist (according to Heller).
Fox123
Ultimate Member
Waiting for dissent to be finished
danb
dont be a dumbass
There are still a lot of cases open (53?) from the May 25th conference, and many like Graham v. United States (cell site 4th amendment case) and Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (cakes for same-sex weddings) have been relisted and rescheduled multiple times.
We are not getting dissents from denial of cert in all these still-open cases from 25th conference, and it's highly unlikely we are getting a PC opinion in a case like Graham v. United States or Masterpiece Cakeshop.
Best explanation is a bottleneck, and the court is carefully weighing each case.
We are not getting dissents from denial of cert in all these still-open cases from 25th conference, and it's highly unlikely we are getting a PC opinion in a case like Graham v. United States or Masterpiece Cakeshop.
Best explanation is a bottleneck, and the court is carefully weighing each case.
CrazySanMan
2013'er
That shop is right up the road from me, in the same shopping center as my favorite Indian restaurant and the Green Mountain Guns LGS where I have bought several guns.
Don't you think it also may be due to the plaintiffs not asking for the OC ban to be overturned?
May 30 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 1, 2017
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-894.htm
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-894.htm
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
While I think that is the reason the Court did not rule on the OC law, I don't think it had anything to do with why the Court denied the CC portion. Peruta tried to get away saying since OC is banned, you need to allow CC. The Court simply said no CC because of history. This changed the argument from let the legislature decide to OC vs limited CC.
Until someone challenges the history, which conceptually seems feasible, or you get SCOTUS to accept it for non historical reasons, which conceptually seems difficult, you are going to find it difficult to challenge CC restrictions.
