Malpasso v Pallozzi SCOTUS Cert Petition Filed

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!
  • esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    It is always a good day when SCOTUS makes Herr Baron Frosh and his minions squirm and wiggle trying to trying to duck a case about our 2A rights!!!

    The irony is that it probably doesn't matter what Frosh says in his response. The case will still be held. Yet, he still has to file a response. The extra work will do him good. :rolleyes:
     
    Apr 10, 2012
    84
    Frederick County
    Sorry for the dumb question but what is GVR again?
    A grant, vacate, remand order (GVR order) is a type of order issued by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court grants a petition for certiorari, vacates the decision of the court below, and remands the case for further proceedings (hence the acronym by which they are known).
     

    GTOGUNNER

    IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!
    Patriot Picket
    Dec 16, 2010
    5,492
    Carroll County!
    .....grants a petition for certiorari, vacates the decision of the court below, and remands the case for further proceedings....

    Which additionally means., for the lower court to follow the rulings of the Supreme Court. Which should be a good thing.
     

    win296

    Active Member
    Jun 15, 2012
    231
    Baltimore
    .....
    Which additionally means., for the lower court to follow the rulings of the Supreme Court. Which should be a good thing.


    Could the CA4 ignore the ruling and makeup some nonsense to justify G&S? We’ve seen what they’re capable of.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678

    Not entirely true. They could come up with some different tortured ruling. GVR is SCOTUS telling the lower court they got the decision wrong, rethink it.

    It happens occasionally that the lower court ends up with a different, but essentially the same decision. That’s usually when SCOTUS steps in and lays a real smack down on the lower court. It’s rare, but it happens.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    Not entirely true. They could come up with some different tortured ruling. GVR is SCOTUS telling the lower court they got the decision wrong, rethink it.

    It happens occasionally that the lower court ends up with a different, but essentially the same decision. That’s usually when SCOTUS steps in and lays a real smack down on the lower court. It’s rare, but it happens.

    To be fair, that wasn’t the question. The question was in reference to a SCOTUS ruling. If SCOTUS rules that shall-issue, or better yet that Constitutional carry is the law of the land then the lower courts are impotent.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    To be fair, that wasn’t the question. The question was in reference to a SCOTUS ruling. If SCOTUS rules that shall-issue, or better yet that Constitutional carry is the law of the land then the lower courts are impotent.

    Your assuming that there is a case where the court rules on shall-issue. Currently there is no case that SCOTUS has accepted that addresses shall-issue. They are only going to rule on cases before it. The only 2A case before it is the NYSRPA v NYC case, which is not about shall-issue. It is likely that the NYC case will impact how future courts will decide 2A cases and that there will likely be room for lower courts to continue their narrowing/undermining of shall-issue.
     

    ras_oscar

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 23, 2014
    1,666
    To be fair, that wasn’t the question. The question was in reference to a SCOTUS ruling. If SCOTUS rules that shall-issue, or better yet that Constitutional carry is the law of the land then the lower courts are impotent.

    Say SCOTUS issues a ruling that any restriction on concealed carry is unconstitutional. State "x" still has a licensing scheme in place in contradiction of that ruling. Officer Smith sees Citizen Joe carrying concealed, verifies he does not have a state issued carry permit and arrests him. What happens to Joe? my understanding is once SCOTUS issues a ruling, each state still needs to be "encouraged" to alter or remove their now non confirming laws. Does each state need to be sued individually?
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    Say SCOTUS issues a ruling that any restriction on concealed carry is unconstitutional. State "x" still has a licensing scheme in place in contradiction of that ruling. Officer Smith sees Citizen Joe carrying concealed, verifies he does not have a state issued carry permit and arrests him. What happens to Joe? my understanding is once SCOTUS issues a ruling, each state still needs to be "encouraged" to alter or remove their now non confirming laws. Does each state need to be sued individually?

    Each state needs to be sued, but they'll lose on a preliminary injunction and the attorney general will issue an opinion starting to not enforce the law in the mean time.
     

    Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    32,881
    And in the spirit of Natty Fatty's post#47 above , please give generously to MSRPA , And MSI Legal Fund .

    Freedom isn't Free, and Justice isn't Cheap .
     

    delaware_export

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 10, 2018
    3,143
    It seems that in the taser cases, a number of individual .govs had to be ?sued? (Or prober legal term) to get the laws removed. Wilmington Delaware still has the law on the books, as of last check, despite the scotus ruling. My understanding is that wolfwood is/was looking for a case to push there. Several other .govs only removed such laws after legal action

    I would bet a couple bucks that at least several of the usual suspects would not comply willingly.

    That would seem a good comparison unless I am missing something.

    Say SCOTUS issues a ruling that any restriction on concealed carry is unconstitutional. State "x" still has a licensing scheme in place in contradiction of that ruling. Officer Smith sees Citizen Joe carrying concealed, verifies he does not have a state issued carry permit and arrests him. What happens to Joe? my understanding is once SCOTUS issues a ruling, each state still needs to be "encouraged" to alter or remove their now non confirming laws. Does each state need to be sued individually?
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    Your assuming that there is a case where the court rules on shall-issue. Currently there is no case that SCOTUS has accepted that addresses shall-issue. They are only going to rule on cases before it. The only 2A case before it is the NYSRPA v NYC case, which is not about shall-issue. It is likely that the NYC case will impact how future courts will decide 2A cases and that there will likely be room for lower courts to continue their narrowing/undermining of shall-issue.

    The initial question was a hypothetical. You can unbunch your panties.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    The initial question was a hypothetical. You can unbunch your panties.

    My panties are not bunched, but your panties seem to be.

    While the initial question was hypothetical, it was also based on the rulings of the court. You seem to eliminate any possibility of the lower court ruling against G&S, which is clearly wrong because there have not been any rulings on G&S by SCOTUS. Hypothetically speaking, SCOTUS may never rule on G&S. This is the basis of the original question, which you seem to have ignored.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    My panties are not bunched, but your panties seem to be.

    While the initial question was hypothetical, it was also based on the rulings of the court. You seem to eliminate any possibility of the lower court ruling against G&S, which is clearly wrong because there have not been any rulings on G&S by SCOTUS. Hypothetically speaking, SCOTUS may never rule on G&S. This is the basis of the original question, which you seem to have ignored.

    The question was if SCOTUS rules “shall issue” is the law of the land, can lower courts go and reinstate “may issue”. The answer is a simple “no”. You are way over-thinking this. Seriously. Unbunch your panties. If you seem to be menstruating, make sure you didn't cut your labia on Occam's Razor.
     
    Last edited:

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,928
    Messages
    7,259,434
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom