Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 9th, 2017, 02:13 PM #221
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 183
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorcoachdoug View Post
Mabe they are hoping that SCOTUS will deny cert in the case... If they grant cert then FLA will be in a world of hurt ....
Florida lost their case when they erred in concluding that a fundamental right can be substituted with a licensed privilege...The hole in that ship is too big to fix, with or without a response.

Last edited by 777GSOTB; August 9th, 2017 at 02:15 PM. Reason: spelling
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 9th, 2017, 08:52 PM #222
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hazzard County
Posts: 2,486
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hazzard County
Posts: 2,486
In a perfect world that would be true.
But in a world where there are nine humans on a bench, it matters if Thomas and Gorsuch can find sufficient votes to grant cert...
Kharn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2017, 02:46 AM #223
press1280 press1280 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,612
press1280 press1280 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
Florida lost their case when they erred in concluding that a fundamental right can be substituted with a licensed privilege...The hole in that ship is too big to fix, with or without a response.
This assumes that there are 5 votes on SCOTUS to rule licensing is unconstitutional. Highly unlikely considering how many cases they have passed on.
Licensing (in and of itself) will not play a part in this case.

It's now been distributed for the big conference 9/25 https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....lic/17-68.html

If SCOTUS requests a response this will be pushed to another conference.
press1280 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2017, 03:26 AM #224
frogman68's Avatar
frogman68 frogman68 is offline
товарищ плачевная
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 4,273
frogman68 frogman68 is offline
товарищ плачевная
frogman68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 4,273
What I find disheartening is in the last two days, Bill Clinton's first choice for SCOTUS has died . That seat went to Ginsberg and the judge who was the deciding vote to rule NY'S death penalty unconstitutional have died. Still hoping Ginsberg follows suit soon
__________________
Hillary's scandals are piling up faster than snowflakes in a blizzard
frogman68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2017, 04:31 AM #225
motorcoachdoug's Avatar
motorcoachdoug motorcoachdoug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Demcratic Soscial Rublik of Md,Socialist Cnty of Montgomery,1/3 of the 3 that rule the state,
Posts: 978
motorcoachdoug motorcoachdoug is offline
Member
motorcoachdoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Demcratic Soscial Rublik of Md,Socialist Cnty of Montgomery,1/3 of the 3 that rule the state,
Posts: 978
Na. She hates Trump so much that will keep her alive until Trump leaves office then she will let herself leave this world. Its amazing that hating a person that much will keep her alive and give her the willpower to live. Wonder what will happen if Trump is reelected? Will she stay alive or go in a fit of rage because he didnt lose the election like she wanted him to lose.....
motorcoachdoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2017, 04:00 PM #226
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 183
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
This assumes that there are 5 votes on SCOTUS to rule licensing is unconstitutional. Highly unlikely considering how many cases they have passed on.
Licensing (in and of itself) will not play a part in this case.

It's now been distributed for the big conference 9/25 https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....lic/17-68.html

If SCOTUS requests a response this will be pushed to another conference.
A state can't charge a fee to exercise a fundamental right protected by the federal constitution. Stare Decisis....MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

"It is claimed, however, that the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U. S. 174, and cases cited. But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution."

"It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant [319 U.S. 105, 113] if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax – a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution."

Also, a license is not the least restrictive. A certificate of competence would meet that requirement quite nicely...We'll see if Friday plays that card if need be. He knows about it, as I sent off an email to him...Quite possibly flew right over his head though.

Your statistical thinking is flawed...They've only passed on one other open carry case and Embody failed to exhaust all his administrative remedy's in that one. We also have an actual injured party with Norman, in which, all other cases have failed to bring forth.
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2017, 08:14 AM #227
press1280 press1280 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,612
press1280 press1280 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,612
1st test passed for Norman, SCOTUS has requested a response, due September 11th.

The page on the SCOTUS website has that weird glitch again where some get the latest version and others only see the cert petition.
press1280 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2017, 08:15 AM #228
swinokur's Avatar
swinokur swinokur is online now
In a State of Denial
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stalag Montgomery
Posts: 36,710
swinokur swinokur is online now
In a State of Denial
swinokur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stalag Montgomery
Posts: 36,710
clear the browser cache
__________________
swinokur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2017, 11:03 AM #229
danb's Avatar
danb danb is online now
These are not your droids
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Howard County
Posts: 11,471
danb danb is online now
These are not your droids
danb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Howard County
Posts: 11,471
Can only one justice request a response, or does there have to be some sort of vote?
__________________
"More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states."

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions...d/115084.p.pdf
danb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2017, 11:17 AM #230
motorcoachdoug's Avatar
motorcoachdoug motorcoachdoug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Demcratic Soscial Rublik of Md,Socialist Cnty of Montgomery,1/3 of the 3 that rule the state,
Posts: 978
motorcoachdoug motorcoachdoug is offline
Member
motorcoachdoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Demcratic Soscial Rublik of Md,Socialist Cnty of Montgomery,1/3 of the 3 that rule the state,
Posts: 978
I believe it only takes one justice to ask for it.. but I might be wrong... what say our legal eagle? :
motorcoachdoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2017, 12:01 PM #231
StogieC StogieC is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1
StogieC StogieC is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorcoachdoug View Post
I believe it only takes one justice to ask for it.. but I might be wrong... what say our legal eagle? :
Each Justice is assigned to oversee petitions submitted from the various jurisdictions of one or more circuit. Petitions from Florida, being in the 11th Cir., are referred to Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
StogieC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2017, 05:26 PM #232
press1280 press1280 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,612
press1280 press1280 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by StogieC View Post
Each Justice is assigned to oversee petitions submitted from the various jurisdictions of one or more circuit. Petitions from Florida, being in the 11th Cir., are referred to Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
Wish it would have been from Kennedy or Roberts. Thomas seems to be a shoe-in at this point.
press1280 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2017, 07:14 PM #233
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,139
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
A state can't charge a fee to exercise a fundamental right protected by the federal constitution. Stare Decisis....MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

"It is claimed, however, that the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U. S. 174, and cases cited. But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution."

"It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant [319 U.S. 105, 113] if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax – a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution."
Then explain Kwong v de Blasio (a.k.a. Kwong v Bloomberg), and (much more importantly) why the Supreme Court denied cert there, rather than granting and reversing.

No, a fee can't be charged for the exercise of a fundamental Constitutional right except when that right is the right to keep and bear arms.

The right to keep and bear arms is clearly the exceptional case as regards essentially every Constitutional rule in the book. It is, essentially, the only Constitutionally-protected right that is actually a privilege in nearly every way. That will remain the case until the composition on the Supreme Court substantially changes in our favor.

As of now, the 2nd Amendment basically protects nothing.
kcbrown is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2017, 05:42 AM #234
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 183
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Then explain Kwong v de Blasio (a.k.a. Kwong v Bloomberg), and (much more importantly) why the Supreme Court denied cert there, rather than granting and reversing.

No, a fee can't be charged for the exercise of a fundamental Constitutional right except when that right is the right to keep and bear arms.

The right to keep and bear arms is clearly the exceptional case as regards essentially every Constitutional rule in the book. It is, essentially, the only Constitutionally-protected right that is actually a privilege in nearly every way. That will remain the case until the composition on the Supreme Court substantially changes in our favor.

As of now, the 2nd Amendment basically protects nothing.
I don't think you understand the importance of there being an injured party for a certiorari to be granted. Who got arrested in that case?...The answer is, nobody did and in fact, they all paid the license fee without objection. That's a clear waiver of right, right there. Which then means that, nobody was exercising a constitutionally protected right and had that right violated by the state...There's the error which prevented certiorari. If the court is conducting themselves as you say they are, they will not take Norman...I believe they will. With that said, I do hope you're wrong.
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2017, 08:11 AM #235
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 346
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
I don't think you understand the importance of there being an injured party for a certiorari to be granted. Who got arrested in that case?...The answer is, nobody did and in fact, they all paid the license fee without objection. That's a clear waiver of right, right there. Which then means that, nobody was exercising a constitutionally protected right and had that right violated by the state...There's the error which prevented certiorari. If the court is conducting themselves as you say they are, they will not take Norman...I believe they will. With that said, I do hope you're wrong.
With all due respect, it doesn't do our side any favor for conservatives to make excuses for liberal malfeasance. Every case from the judiciary post MacDonald has been in bad faith. Period. Saying, "There was no injured party" or "It wasn't the right case" is just delusion.
GlocksAndPatriots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2017, 09:48 AM #236
press1280 press1280 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,612
press1280 press1280 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
I don't think you understand the importance of there being an injured party for a certiorari to be granted. Who got arrested in that case?...The answer is, nobody did and in fact, they all paid the license fee without objection. That's a clear waiver of right, right there. Which then means that, nobody was exercising a constitutionally protected right and had that right violated by the state...There's the error which prevented certiorari. If the court is conducting themselves as you say they are, they will not take Norman...I believe they will. With that said, I do hope you're wrong.
The courts are trying to have it both ways. On one hand, you can't get standing to sue without paying for the license. On the other hand, you pay the fee so obviously you can afford it and weren't harmed.
press1280 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2017, 10:10 AM #237
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 346
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Then explain Kwong v de Blasio (a.k.a. Kwong v Bloomberg), and (much more importantly) why the Supreme Court denied cert there, rather than granting and reversing.

No, a fee can't be charged for the exercise of a fundamental Constitutional right except when that right is the right to keep and bear arms.

The right to keep and bear arms is clearly the exceptional case as regards essentially every Constitutional rule in the book. It is, essentially, the only Constitutionally-protected right that is actually a privilege in nearly every way. That will remain the case until the composition on the Supreme Court substantially changes in our favor.

As of now, the 2nd Amendment basically protects nothing.
Right, when you have courts ruling that it's not the job of the judiciary to second guess the legislatures, but of course ONLY when it comes to laws affecting guns, the 2nd Amendment protects nothing.
GlocksAndPatriots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2017, 01:58 PM #238
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 183
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlocksAndPatriots View Post
With all due respect, it doesn't do our side any favor for conservatives to make excuses for liberal malfeasance. Every case from the judiciary post MacDonald has been in bad faith. Period. Saying, "There was no injured party" or "It wasn't the right case" is just delusion.
Hardly delusional, you've got to know how to play the game...If the court doesn't take Norman, we clearly have a rogue court on our hands, as Norman was damaged(arrested) for exercising a fundamental right protected by the federal constitution.

U.S. Supreme Court
ASHWANDER v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288 (1936)

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS (concurring)

The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision. They are:


5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation. 6 Tyler v. Judges, etc., 179 U. [297 U.S. 288, 348] * S. 405, 21 S.Ct. 206; Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 621 , 35 S.Ct. 140. Among the many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the right of challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right. Thus, the challenge by a public official interested only in the performance of his official duty will not be entertained. Columbus & Greenville Ry. Co. v. Miller, 283 U.S. 96, 99 , 100 S., 51 S.Ct. 392. In Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126 , 42 S.Ct. 274, the Court affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a citizen who sought to have the Nineteenth Amendment declared unconstitutional. In Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 , 43 S.Ct. 597, the challenge of the federal Maternity Act was not entertained although made by the commonwealth on behalf of all its citizens.
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2017, 02:23 PM #239
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 413
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Then explain Kwong v de Blasio (a.k.a. Kwong v Bloomberg), and (much more importantly) why the Supreme Court denied cert there, rather than granting and reversing.

No, a fee can't be charged for the exercise of a fundamental Constitutional right except when that right is the right to keep and bear arms.

The right to keep and bear arms is clearly the exceptional case as regards essentially every Constitutional rule in the book. It is, essentially, the only Constitutionally-protected right that is actually a privilege in nearly every way. That will remain the case until the composition on the Supreme Court substantially changes in our favor.

As of now, the 2nd Amendment basically protects nothing.
I would suggest that you read the 2CA decision. It seems self explanatory to me. "The Supreme Court's “fee jurisprudence” has historically addressed the constitutionality of fees charged by governmental entities on expressive activities protected by the First Amendment—such as fees charged to hold a rally or parade." It was determined that the fees did not exceed the costs so it was acceptable. It is the same public safety issue you see in other cases. It is not limited to the 2A. SCOTUS passed on the issue because it is not inconsistent with what it has said in the past on similar issues.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2017, 02:33 PM #240
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 183
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
The courts are trying to have it both ways. On one hand, you can't get standing to sue without paying for the license. On the other hand, you pay the fee so obviously you can afford it and weren't harmed.
You're mostly right,..the courts are not making it easy. Voluntarily signing an application for a license is a waiver of any rights that may be involved. One can contract(license application) away every right they have. The best option in that case would have been for someone to get arrested for not having the license. Of course you're not going to get anyone to do that if the penalty is a felony. We could easily find out just how rogue the court is by redoing Friedman v Highland Park...But with an actual damage with someone getting arrested for possessing an "assault weapon" for self-defense. It's a misdemeanor charge of up to 6mos in jail, so there is no lose of ones 2nd Amendment rights...I would volunteer to do that with financial support during time in jail. And if I were Wayne LaPierre, I'd do it on my own dime, but we all know what he's all about. The fact that we can't get any retired gun guy to do something along these lines, is pretty pathetic in a country of 300 million people...Pretty sad. So now we wait for a circuit split.

777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2017, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service