Binderup en banc decision A WIN

press1280 · Jan 9, 2017

I think this would be the first time a government has appealed a case to SCOTUS, and the Federal government at that.

motorcoachdoug · Jan 9, 2017

You can also look at SCOTUS for the case number is 16-510 as well. As far as i can tell she only filed a writ of centori or how ever it is spelled. I know typo demon got me good....

esqappellate · Jan 9, 2017

motorcoachdoug said:
OH BOY!!! why am I not surprised???? Wonder if Trump will have Sessions repeal or ask the SCOTUS to disregard it? would love to read it as well.

that's a very good question. It would appear that the Obama administration is die-hard to the end. We still have no idea who the new SG may be in the Trump administration, much less an actual nomination, much less confirmation by the Senate. Meanwhile the cert petition remains active..... If I were the Court, I would sit on this petition. The new administration can withdraw it at any time.

wolfwood · Jan 9, 2017

https://www.scribd.com/document/335831988/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-in-Lynch-v-Binderup

I emailed Alan Gura and he linked me to a copy.

Not_an_outlaw · Jan 9, 2017

310 pages? WTF.

wolfwood · Jan 10, 2017

its only 25 pages the rest of it is exhibits

Not_an_outlaw · Jan 10, 2017

I started reading it and was annoyed. I found that it would be hard to make a case saying rights can be restored, but lack funding for that process prevents a person from being able to get their rights restored. How do yet get anywhere with this? I'll go back and try to plow through it.

motorcoachdoug · Jan 10, 2017

I will be interested to see if SCOTUS will grant cert and if it does grant it then how it will rule. If we have a new member on the court bench appointed by Trump when it goes for a hearing it will be very interesting indeed....

danb · Jan 10, 2017

Normally I might say this won't get cert because 70/10,000 cases get cert. Odds are automatically against it. But the Solicitor General on behalf of the AG requesting cert, due to an upheld challenge to federal law, where there is the appearance of a circuit split, has far greater chance of cert grant than most.

I would not bet that the Trump admin drops this either. We do not know who the SG will be just yet, but Session's approach is likely to be: Defend Federal law even where he disagrees with the law. Unless the defense is particularly weak. He said as much during confirmation hearings.

So I do not think that Sessions / Trump (or the future SG) being a "friend" of the 2A will help here, since it's a challenge to federal law.

The good news, I guess, is that if it does go to the Supreme Court, it will be with at least one new member.

press1280 · Jan 10, 2017

danb said:
Normally I might say this won't get cert because 70/10,000 cases get cert. Odds are automatically against it. But the Solicitor General on behalf of the AG requesting cert, due to an upheld challenge to federal law, where there is the appearance of a circuit split, has far greater chance of cert grant than most.

I would not bet that the Trump admin drops this either. We do not know who the SG will be just yet, but Session's approach is likely to be: Defend Federal law even where he disagrees with the law. Unless the defense is particularly weak. He said as much during confirmation hearings.

So I do not think that Sessions / Trump (or the future SG) being a "friend" of the 2A will help here, since it's a challenge to federal law.

The good news, I guess, is that if it does go to the Supreme Court, it will be with at least one new member.

That's one way to go. "Defend" the law by "taking a dive".

danb · Jan 10, 2017

press1280 said:
That's one way to go. "Defend" the law by "taking a dive".

I did not mean to imply that Sessions or the Trump Administration will take a dive. The more I think about it, I think this Administration is likely to defend federal law even where they disagree with it, and defend it vigorously. I don't think that the Trump Administration liking or disliking a certain cause it's going to have much of an impact.

esqappellate · Jan 10, 2017

danb said:
Normally I might say this won't get cert because 70/10,000 cases get cert. Odds are automatically against it. But the Solicitor General on behalf of the AG requesting cert, due to an upheld challenge to federal law, where there is the appearance of a circuit split, has far greater chance of cert grant than most.

I would not bet that the Trump admin drops this either. We do not know who the SG will be just yet, but Session's approach is likely to be: Defend Federal law even where he disagrees with the law. Unless the defense is particularly weak. He said as much during confirmation hearings.

So I do not think that Sessions / Trump (or the future SG) being a "friend" of the 2A will help here, since it's a challenge to federal law.

The good news, I guess, is that if it does go to the Supreme Court, it will be with at least one new member.

Unless that new member is Hardiman, who wrote a concurrence in this case and who is on Trumps short list. He will recuse himself, as is traditional. Note that this is a very limited invalidation: It merely held that the life time disqualification can be challenged on a per person, as applied to that person, basis for non-serious crimes (probably just non-violent misdemeanors). Section 922(g) remains fully applicable to every other type of disqualifying crime. While any SG will have a vastly better track record of getting a petition granted than the norm, that applies less so to this SG's office in the Obama administration, which seems to lose in the SCT a lot more than the most SGs. I could easily see the new SG deciding to withdraw this petition. Of course, that may be a bad thing too, cuz it would be nice to get another 2A win

Boom Boom · Jan 10, 2017

esqappellate said:
Much better is not to have the problem in the first place, viz., don't carry illegally.

Which for 99%+ of MD residents equates to not carrying ever thanks to arbitrary G&S.

danb · Jan 11, 2017

esqappellate said:
While any SG will have a vastly better track record of getting a petition granted than the norm, that applies less so to this SG's office in the Obama administration, which seems to lose in the SCT a lot more than the most SGs. I could easily see the new SG deciding to withdraw this petition. Of course, that may be a bad thing too, cuz it would be nice to get another 2A win

Maybe this is another "be careful what you wish for" moment for the Obama admin.

Response petition will be interesting. Maybe Gura will just say "yes, you should hear this case."

md_rick_o · Jan 11, 2017

I've been so spoiled by reading Gura docs. This was really dull, but i'm not a law nut er uhm, geek, aficionado.

danb · Jan 13, 2017

:WTF:

Now they are not appealing??

From http://www.pagunblog.com/2017/01/13/weekly-gun-news-edition-53/

or are they?

I am a little puzzled, this letter looks like its for a different set of related cases, not Binderup.

krucam · Mar 10, 2017

The 2 cases made ScotusBlog's Petition of the Day. All filings can be found from the links.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/03/petition-of-the-day-1109/

esqappellate · Apr 27, 2017

krucam said:
The 2 cases made ScotusBlog's Petition of the Day. All filings can be found from the links.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/03/petition-of-the-day-1109/

Both the government's petition and Alan Gura's conditional cross petition are now scheduled for Conf., May 11, 2017. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-847.htm

This is a big deal. I am betting that the government's petition, at least, will be the next big 2A case decided by the Supreme Court.

snakep · Apr 27, 2017

Sounds great, but what does it mean in layman's terms?

GlocksAndPatriots · Apr 27, 2017

snakep said:
Sounds great, but what does it mean in layman's terms?

If it's taken by SCOTUS, it really depends on how broad or narrow they want the ruling to be. They could lay out a strict scrutiny requirement for every gun law. That would have major effects, as most of the anti-2A cases were decided under intermediate scrutiny. If they merely say that the law, as applied to non-violent felons, doesn't survive intermediate scrutiny, not very much, unless they also lay out a standard that requires far less deference to legislatures with respect to the "fit" between the regulation and the interest.

Binderup en banc decision A WIN

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

President, MSI

Hold my beer. Watch this.

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Attachments

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Banned

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics