Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 20th, 2020, 07:20 PM #11
HaveBlue's Avatar
HaveBlue HaveBlue is offline
HaveBlue
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 530
HaveBlue HaveBlue is offline
HaveBlue
HaveBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 530
Tomorrow is 5/21!!
__________________
2A Bigot is more accurate. Calling them Antis is too coded and subtle.

bigot[ big-uh t ] noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

“The legal precendent we would set by allowing the legislature to selectively ignore enumerated rights at will, is the same mindset that 150 years ago led this country into a civil war.”
Ben Woods, Fairfax Country Board Meeting 12/3/19
HaveBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2020, 11:09 AM #12
Steel Hunter Steel Hunter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 382
Steel Hunter Steel Hunter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 382
It's the 21st now. Let's see what gets relisted and what doesn't.
Steel Hunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2020, 02:21 PM #13
esqappellate's Avatar
esqappellate esqappellate is offline
President, MSI
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,804
esqappellate esqappellate is offline
President, MSI
esqappellate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steel Hunter View Post
It's the 21st now. Let's see what gets relisted and what doesn't.
Probably won't know until next Tuesday, when the order list comes out at 9:30
__________________
This may sound like legal advice, but it isn't. Don't rely on it. Hire your own counsel.
esqappellate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2020, 07:32 PM #14
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,592
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by esqappellate View Post
Probably won't know until next Tuesday, when the order list comes out at 9:30
SCOTUS actually re-listed all cases for the May 28th conference : https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...were-watching/

Guess they didn't want to wait until Tuesday to announce
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2020, 10:00 PM #15
danb's Avatar
danb danb is offline
dont be a dumbass
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: google is your friend, I am not.
Posts: 22,007
danb danb is offline
dont be a dumbass
danb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: google is your friend, I am not.
Posts: 22,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
SCOTUS actually re-listed all cases for the May 28th conference : https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...were-watching/

Guess they didn't want to wait until Tuesday to announce

Seems very unusual.



danb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2020, 10:56 PM #16
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,272
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by danb View Post
Seems very unusual.

I seem to recall that not too long ago they relisted cases the Fri before a holiday, which is exactly what they did here.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2020, 11:32 PM #17
danb's Avatar
danb danb is offline
dont be a dumbass
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: google is your friend, I am not.
Posts: 22,007
danb danb is offline
dont be a dumbass
danb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: google is your friend, I am not.
Posts: 22,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
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.
danb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2020, 07:34 AM #18
wjackcooper wjackcooper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 615
wjackcooper wjackcooper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 615
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...-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-...ond-amendment/
wjackcooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2020, 10:47 AM #19
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,592
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjackcooper View Post
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...-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-...ond-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......

[U]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.
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2020, 11:27 AM #20
wjackcooper wjackcooper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 615
wjackcooper wjackcooper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 615
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
wjackcooper 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 -4. The time now is 09:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2019, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service