Hamilton v. Pallozzi Orals coming up

press1280 · Feb 18, 2017

motorcoachdoug said:
so an En Banc hearing or cert before SCOTUS?

I doubt CA4 will vote to hear en banc, and I doubt SCOTUS would take it at this point. Definitely disturbing that non-violent crimes considered felonies can only be remedied through a full Governor's pardon.
Any other rights which can only be restored through a pardon?

Doco Overboard · Feb 18, 2017

Not_an_outlaw said:
I am curious. Can you explain what your theory would be for a win?

If Hamilton was not a resident of the state and he was stopped while legally transporting a weapon I don't think he would be arrested and charged with a felony. The state it seems will only persecute its own when it can demonstrate its broad powers on its own citizens. They're not so fast to trounce on anything that doesn't belong to them and that is what I garnered from reading the briefs. I think a good lawyer would be able to argue that in a in a court room. Both in the instance I described and in the case in particular. The problem is will this guy be able to stand a long fight and have the means backing or support to see it through. Even though our AG office has a very well prepared and demonstrative rebuttle it wreaks of judicial legislation. You can only sell so much of that outside your house and make it stick. The concept of recidivism to me is a hard sell in a non violent crime and the guys been clean and has been cleared in VA.

jcutonilli · Feb 18, 2017

Doco Overboard said:
If Hamilton was not a resident of the state and he was stopped while legally transporting a weapon I don't think he would be arrested and charged with a felony. The state it seems will only persecute its own when it can demonstrate its broad powers on its own citizens. They're not so fast to trounce on anything that doesn't belong to them and that is what I garnered from reading the briefs. I think a good lawyer would be able to argue that in a in a court room. Both in the instance I described and in the case in particular. The problem is will this guy be able to stand a long fight and have the means backing or support to see it through. Even though our AG office has a very well prepared and demonstrative rebuttle it wreaks of judicial legislation. You can only sell so much of that outside your house and make it stick. The concept of recidivism to me is a hard sell in a non violent crime and the guys been clean and has been cleared in VA.

Your fundamental premise is flawed. Hamilton is a resident of MD and cannot legally transport a firearm in MD because he is considered a felon in MD. He has not been cleared according to MD law because that requires a pardon and does not have one.

Doco Overboard · Feb 18, 2017

That is a response to post 38. If someone in Hamilton's shoes were to cross state lines and be legally transporting would they be charged with a felony in MD? Just because he's a resident hes in a unfavorable position for sure. It will be interesting to see what happens. I need to go back and read where he originally committed his felony if it was in Virginia he never committed a crime in MD. so its favorable to Hamilton that's all I'm saying. Good luck to Hamilton.

Not_an_outlaw · Feb 18, 2017

Doco Overboard said:
That is a response to post 38. If someone in Hamilton's shoes were to cross state lines and be legally transporting would they be charged with a felony in MD? Just because he's a resident hes in a unfavorable position for sure. It will be interesting to see what happens. I need to go back and read where he originally committed his felony if it was in Virginia he never committed a crime in MD. so its favorable to Hamilton that's all I'm saying. Good luck to Hamilton.

Are you hypothesizing that if he was a VA resident, permitted to have a firearm, and he came to Maryland for a shooting competition, he would not have committed a crime in Maryland by his possession in Maryland?

Doco Overboard · Feb 19, 2017

If he was from Virginia the brief indicates there is reciprocity for being charged with a similar crime in the State of Md. hence a felon in VA is a Felon in MD. It reads to me the law between the two states is viewed the same and carries over. I am hypothesizing what if someone came from a state where the same crime was committed but the law for which they were prosecuted for the final interpretation was slightly different but they were still formerly charged with a felony and then summarily pardoned in their home jurisdiction, and then were stopped in MD. Would they then be able to be taken into taken into custody by the further commission of a crime? If this were the case Hamilton may have more of an argument but it appears that MD. is pretty solid in this case. Unless they failed to lay everything out or came out swinging all the lumber they had at the onset. Interesting stuff.

Not_an_outlaw · Feb 21, 2017

Doco Overboard said:
If he was from Virginia the brief indicates there is reciprocity for being charged with a similar crime in the State of Md. hence a felon in VA is a Felon in MD. It reads to me the law between the two states is viewed the same and carries over. I am hypothesizing what if someone came from a state where the same crime was committed but the law for which they were prosecuted for the final interpretation was slightly different but they were still formerly charged with a felony and then summarily pardoned in their home jurisdiction, and then were stopped in MD. Would they then be able to be taken into taken into custody by the further commission of a crime? If this were the case Hamilton may have more of an argument but it appears that MD. is pretty solid in this case. Unless they failed to lay everything out or came out swinging all the lumber they had at the onset. Interesting stuff.

I may not have read the case in detail enough. But if he is disqualified in one state he should be disqualified in all states (note: including DC as a state). So, if DC allows him to possess a firearm, or work, would that sow that he is not a prohibited person? He would not be able to handle he handgun itself of the ammunition. Maybe this is not the case, and if you are a prohibited person, you can still carry a firearms for work. That doesn't make sense, but much of this doesn't.

So, if he isn't prohibited from owing a firearm in VA, and he lives in VA (which he does not) and he's at a family picnic in Maryland and has his gun in the truck, is he in violation? I'm looking for a Due Process or Equal Protection case.

Dogmeat · Feb 21, 2017

Not_an_outlaw said:
I may not have read the case in detail enough. But if he is disqualified in one state he should be disqualified in all states (note: including DC as a state). So, if DC allows him to possess a firearm, or work, would that sow that he is not a prohibited person? He would not be able to handle he handgun itself of the ammunition. Maybe this is not the case, and if you are a prohibited person, you can still carry a firearms for work. That doesn't make sense, but much of this doesn't.

So, if he isn't prohibited from owing a firearm in VA, and he lives in VA (which he does not) and he's at a family picnic in Maryland and has his gun in the truck, is he in violation? I'm looking for a Due Process or Equal Protection case.

It comes down to a differences in State Law. An infraction that generates a possible punishment in Maryland capable of making you a prohibited person in Maryland, may not make you a prohibited person in Virginia.

For example, let's say you commit a misdemeanor offense in Maryland that carries a possible 2 year imprisonment, thus making you a prohibited person. Let's say you commit the same offense in Virginia, but there the penalty is at most 6 months. The result is you are prohibited in Maryland but not Virginia.

How they reconcile all of this at the Federal level is anyone's guess. Obviously, Maryland's goal is "Ban Them All The Guns And Ban The Owners That Own Them."

Maybe Frosh can sort this out with his new powers to sue the Feds. :sarcasm:

wolfwood · Jul 21, 2017

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uploads/hamilton_cert-stage.pdf

amicus brief by CATO

press1280 · Jul 22, 2017

I forgot about this case. SCOTUS docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-1517.htm

It appears plaintiffs have at least cleared a very low bar, which is that the state waived their response but SCOTUS has now requested a response which is due August 21st. It's also been distributed for the September 25th conference, although that'll probably change.

From the CATO brief I gather this case is about as narrow as it can get. They just want to be able to challenge a felon prohibition and get the case sent back for further proceedings.

We're looking at 3 2A cases (Norman, Kolbe, and Hamilton) all being at SCOTUS simultaneously and will likely be at conference around the same time, if not at the same conference(s).

press1280 · Aug 20, 2017

Aug 04 2017 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including September 20, 2017.

Suffice it to say this will NOT be at the big conference on September 25th.

wolfwood · Sep 25, 2017

http://blog.californiarighttocarry....n-Petitioner-v.-William-L.-Pallozzi-et-al.pdf

response filed

press1280 · Oct 19, 2017

A bit odd that Hamilton's reply was filed over 2 weeks ago, and SCOTUS has not put it on the calendar for a conference as of yet. Kolbe and Norman have not been scheduled for a conference either, although the plaintiffs have not yet responded to the state's brief.
Used to be a conference date was set after the brief in opposition came in. Wonder if this is another change at SCOTUS?

motorcoachdoug · Oct 20, 2017

That is odd. I think SCOTUS is really wondering if they should take a 2A case after what happened in LV

press1280 · Oct 20, 2017

motorcoachdoug said:
That is odd. I think SCOTUS is really wondering if they should take a 2A case after what happened in LV

Unless they want Norman, Kolbe and Hamilton at the same conference

motorcoachdoug · Oct 20, 2017

press1280 said:
Unless they want Norman, Kolbe and Hamilton at the same conference

If they are waiting for that to happen then I would love to be a fly on the wall in chambers when those cases are discussed. Would their be anyway of putting Kolbe and Hamilton Together? since those cases will involve our lovely AG pile of Frosh?

press1280 · Oct 20, 2017

motorcoachdoug said:
If they are waiting for that to happen then I would love to be a fly on the wall in chambers when those cases are discussed. Would their be anyway of putting Kolbe and Hamilton Together? since those cases will involve our lovely AG pile of Frosh?

I think all these cases are too dissimilar to combine them. Perhaps one gets decided and the others get GVRed, although it's too soon to start making that prediction.

press1280 · Oct 24, 2017

3 weeks since Hamilton's reply. No updates from the SCotUS website.

press1280 · Oct 30, 2017

Still no change from the SCotUS website. This case was on the same timeline as the Robinson case, which was just denied cert in last Fridays conference.
Wonder what the heck is going on?

jcutonilli · Oct 30, 2017

press1280 said:
Still no change from the SCotUS website. This case was on the same timeline as the Robinson case, which was just denied cert in last Fridays conference.
Wonder what the heck is going on?

They have been known to hold cases pending the outcome of another case.

Hamilton v. Pallozzi Orals coming up

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics