Malpasso v Pallozzi SCOTUS Cert Petition Filed

teratos said:

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.

Click to expand...

teratos said:

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.

Click to expand...

teratos said:

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.

Click to expand...

jcutonilli said:

I am not sure why you have this fetish about me and panties. You might want to talk with someone about that.

The question was not about how the lower courts will rule if SCOTUS rules for "shall issue", it was about what happens to GVRed "shall issue" cases and whether the lower courts will still be able to ignore the updated rulings.

See post 48. There is no indication that the SCOTUS ruling that is talked about refers to a "shall issue" ruling. The question does quote a previous post (post 45) about what a GVR is and what it does. It implies that the ruling that is talked about refers to the ruling that SCOTUS wants reevaluated.

As stated previously (see posts 53 and 59) there are no 2A cases that they have accepted that directly addresses "shall issue" and it is entirely possible that it might never address "shall issue" directly. You never address that issue.

Click to expand...

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has joined four other organizations in an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a challenge to Maryland’s restrictive gun control law requiring applicants for concealed carry permits to provide a “good and substantial reason” to exercise their right to bear arms.

SAF is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. (“FPC”), Firearms Policy Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation and the Madison Society Foundation. Their brief is submitted to the high court by Sacramento attorney Joseph G.S. Greenlee.

The case is known as Malpasso v. Pallozzi. Plaintiffs are Brian Kirk Malpasso and the Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association.

“This case could have far-reaching ramifications,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “At issue is Maryland’s restrictive requirement but the outcome, if the Court agrees to hear this case, could define the parameters of bearing arms outside the home, and that will impact restrictive laws in several states where carry permits or licenses are strictly regulated, which translates to nearly impossible to get.”

The amicus brief asks the high court to determine “to what extent the right to bear arms applies beyond the home,” because the question “has deeply divided lower courts.” The 27-page brief notes that the D.C. and Seventh Circuits held that the right applies just as strongly outside the home as inside the home, while the First and Second Circuits determined that the right likely applies outside the home, but in a weaker form. Meanwhile, the Third and Fourth Circuits declined to decide whether the right exists outside the home and the Ninth and Tenth Circuits held that the right to bear arms does not protect concealed carry.

“Clearly,” Gottlieb said, “the lower courts need definitive guidance on this important constitutional issue. What other constitutionally-enumerated fundamental right applies only within the confines of the home? It is time the high court takes up this issue to determine whether the Second Amendment vigorously protects a right, or allows states to treat it as a regulated privilege.”

Click to expand...

jcutonilli said:

I am not sure why you have this fetish about me and panties. You might want to talk with someone about that.

The question was not about how the lower courts will rule if SCOTUS rules for "shall issue", it was about what happens to GVRed "shall issue" cases and whether the lower courts will still be able to ignore the updated rulings.

See post 48. There is no indication that the SCOTUS ruling that is talked about refers to a "shall issue" ruling. The question does quote a previous post (post 45) about what a GVR is and what it does. It implies that the ruling that is talked about refers to the ruling that SCOTUS wants reevaluated.

As stated previously (see posts 53 and 59) there are no 2A cases that they have accepted that directly addresses "shall issue" and it is entirely possible that it might never address "shall issue" directly. You never address that issue.

Click to expand...

CrueChief said:

It my opinion yes they can and in the less freedom loving circuits there will still be some sort of 2A-2step, as most people say the ruling in this case will set some sort of scrutiny level for 2A cases. But the problem is that most of the "Judges" deciding these cases think they are deciding these cases with the proper level of scrutiny already. So until the SCOTUS explicitly says the unwashed masses have a right to carry in public, which I don't believe they take that case under the current make up, nothing really changes.

Just my $0.02 YMMV

Click to expand...

delaware_export said:

One month until the NYC case is heard, 12-2-19, right? It will be interesting to see if the discussion plays out on lines in the past. Either way, it should set a tone. Hopefully pro 2a.

Click to expand...

krucam said:

AG's Office requested an extension of time for filing last Friday (Nov 1st). Could be legit, could be they're playing around to see how the NYSRPA arguments go...

Also, an Amicus from Firearm Policy Coalition was submitted on the 30th.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-423.html

Click to expand...

motorcoachdoug said:

I am raising the BS Flag here. One of the reasons why they want a 30 extension is so they can coordinate with the printer???? Geeee are they to busy filing so many federal lawsuits against trump and all the printing they have to do for the fed lawsuits that they need to call a time out so they can print the reply for this one???? Im just shocked I tell ya just shocked

Click to expand...

jcutonilli said:

Most federal courts do not have as rigorous printing requirements as SCOTUS. SCOTUS requires 40 bound copies in 6 1/8 x 9 1/4 booklet format. Most people/places are not set up to handle those requirements.

Click to expand...

krucam said:

The Amicus was a sound argument, worth a read...

Click to expand...

motorcoachdoug said:

I am raising the BS Flag here. One of the reasons why they want a 30 extension is so they can coordinate with the printer???? Geeee are they to busy filing so many federal lawsuits against trump and all the printing they have to do for the fed lawsuits that they need to call a time out so they can print the reply for this one???? Im just shocked I tell ya just shocked

Click to expand...

jcutonilli said:

Most federal courts do not have as rigorous printing requirements as SCOTUS. SCOTUS requires 40 bound copies in 6 1/8 x 9 1/4 booklet format. Most people/places are not set up to handle those requirements.

Click to expand...