En banc Decision in Peruta -- a loss

Kharn said:

It was, in US v Stewart in 2003. It was GVR'ed in light of Raich.
Wikipedia page on the case

Click to expand...

I learned something new here. So the 9th Circuit originally ruled "for" machine guns??? Color me shocked.

HaveBlue said:

I learned something new here. So the 9th Circuit originally ruled "for" machine guns??? Color me shocked.

Click to expand...

Judge Kozinski can be a real firecracker.

777GSOTB said:

You are completely wrong here.

" M16 and the like " and " like the short-barrel shotgun in Miller "

This is exactly why the 9th concluded that concealed carry is not a right.

Right...And in a light that illustrates that it can be prohibited under the " 2nd Amendment and state analogues. "

Right...And with the blessing of Hellers historical analysis in a light that concealed carry can be prohibited under the " 2nd Amendment and state analogues."...Which is why they will not take Peruta for review.

Norman was actually damaged under Florida statute. If there is no personal damage to ones rights, the SCOTUS will not take the case. The only other actual damage while exercising ones right to self-defense was Caetano...And amazingly, the SCOTUS gave it review.

Actually, I never said " MA violated the 2A". That's right, MA can't use that analogy to prohibit an arm in common use...Not to difficult to read between the lines on this...Which means it's protected under the 2nd Amendment just like Scalia stated in Heller...." in common use " And stun-guns are in common use.

Peruta will get certiorari denied and Norman will get a grant.

Click to expand...

How can I be wrong when you fail to cite the HOLDING (what it actually said). The dicta is contradicting. The "M16 and the like" sentence is actually a conditional sentence because it starts with "It may be objected that if". The paragraph goes on to talk about it protect the type of weapon you keep in your home and specifically mentions small arms. M16s are small arms that one could keep in their home and many are indeed lawful. It is also contradicting when they say in Caetano that you can't limit yourself to just weapons when enacted, yet they they seem to say that the sophistication can't really advance much. Miller remanded the case back to the lower court to determine if evidence could be produced to determine if SBS had a military application. The case resolved itself before it could be determined if there was any evidence.

While I disagree that the precedent is the right, that issue is largely a matter of semantics. You seem to be implying that precedent/right cannot change. Caetano indicates that you need to update the right to account for changes in circumstance. You fail to understand the rationale (with an e) behind the ban on CCW. The courts were trying to prevent criminals from doing something only criminals would do. The thing that has changed is that CCW is no longer something only criminals do. The precedent needed to be updated to reflect this change.

In every case the plaintiff is required to articulate some type of damage. If they don't the case will be dismissed due to a lack of standing. In every case listed, the court found standing.

While you did not literally say "MA violated the 2A" you implied it. You even contradict yourself in the answer when you say "Which means it's protected under the 2nd Amendment" Caetano never came to that conclusion. MA could have reargued the case as a public safety issue and would likely have survived intermediate scrutiny. All of the cases to date indicate that there does not need to be much evidence presented for the court to accept public safety as a valid reason. This is the problem with a purely individual right argument.

Kharn said:

It was, in US v Stewart in 2003. It was GVR'ed in light of Raich.
Wikipedia page on the case

Click to expand...

It was not a 2A case, it was a commerce clause case. Cases are decided based on the arguments presented.

Fox123 said:

If it is specific to handguns great.


If it's just arms then MD will argue it is already allowed with rifles and shotguns.

Click to expand...

Yep. The ruling that OC or CC must be allowed (with no distinction for handguns) would essentially mean the status quo for Marylanders. That would really suck.

SWO Daddy said:

Yep. The ruling that OC or CC must be allowed (with no distinction for handguns) would essentially mean the status quo for Marylanders. That would really suck.

Click to expand...

It would only suck till Marylanders got the balls to do it.

Sent from the 3rd Rock

GTOGUNNER said:

It would only suck till Marylanders got the balls to do it.

Sent from the 3rd Rock

Click to expand...

Now I'm genuinely curious. So what and where can a Virginian open carry in Maryland?

HaveBlue said:

Now I'm genuinely curious. So what and where can a Virginian open carry in Maryland?

Click to expand...

A rifle

AG ruling.
.

Not in today's orders list.

Kharn said:

Not in today's orders list.

Click to expand...

As the relists mount past 2 relists, the odds of a grant actually go down.... Note that the Court also declined to act on the petitions in Binderup. That's interesting.

esqappellate said:

As the relists mount past 2 relists, the odds of a grant actually go down.... Note that the Court also declined to act on the petitions in Binderup. That's interesting.

Click to expand...

A dissent may help steer us in the right direction though.

esqappellate said:

As the relists mount past 2 relists, the odds of a grant actually go down.... Note that the Court also declined to act on the petitions in Binderup. That's interesting.

Click to expand...

Unless Gorsuch is still not ready to take on the heavy petitions. Maybe they'll hold those until the long conference?

Kharn said:

Unless Gorsuch is still not ready to take on the heavy petitions. Maybe they'll hold those until the long conference?

Click to expand...

Maybe. No idea where Gorsuch stands on his preparation. He is known as a hard worker. It's a huge job he has, especially since he is not using the pool memo on petitions. That alone is a lot of extra work.

esqappellate said:

Maybe. No idea where Gorsuch stands on his preparation. He is known as a hard worker. It's a huge job he has, especially since he is not using the pool memo on petitions. That alone is a lot of extra work.

Click to expand...

Could you explain the meaning of that to the legal layman?

DanGuy48 said:

Could you explain the meaning of that to the legal layman?

Click to expand...

Here is something the scotusblog put together to help people understand the procedure.
http://www.scotusblog.com/educational-resources/supreme-court-procedure/

The relevant paragraph from this link is as follows:
Once all of the cert. stage briefs — the cert. petition, the BIO, the reply brief (if any), and the amicus briefs (if any) — are filed, they are distributed to the Justices’ chambers. Seven of the current Justices participate in the cert. pool, which is a labor-saving device in which a cert. petition is first reviewed by one law clerk in one of the seven chambers. That clerk prepares a memorandum about the case that includes an initial recommendation as to whether the Court should review the case; the memorandum is circulated to all seven chambers, where it is reviewed by the clerks and possibly the Justices there. Justice Alito does not participate in the cert. pool. Instead, his law clerks review the incoming cert. petitions on their own and make recommendations directly to him.

DanGuy48 said:

Could you explain the meaning of that to the legal layman?

Click to expand...

Wikipdeia has a pretty good description https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cert_pool

The basic problem is that by using a random clerk, the memo/review of the petition gets generalized and details key to one side or the other can either be highlighted or obscured. The reasons for the pool are logical, but I think it really becomes a disservice to the petition since it gets summarized for everyone instead of for that clerk's specific justice.

That it's not in today's orders could be somewhat encouraging. It must be clear that the Court will trend increasingly conservative during President Trump's term(s). The remaining opportunities for the Court "moderates" to affect decisions in 2A cases are dwindling. I would expect them to seize any opportunity they can to sell their vote dearly: "I'll reluctantly be the fifth vote if the decision includes these onerous restrictions and is is of severely limited scope."

These repetitive relists suggest that the Court conservatives think it unnecessary to bargain. They are simply biding their time until J. Kennedy and the elders to his left are replaced. That is promising.

DanGuy48 said:

Could you explain the meaning of that to the legal layman?

Click to expand...

The cert pool is the justices (everyone but Alito and Gorsuch) who have their clerks combine efforts to only have one clerk read and summarize reach petition, then the justices share the summary. Each justice gets four clerks, the chief gets five, so 29 clerks spreading the load vs four clerks from each independent justice spreading the load to review and summarize the same number of petitions. The rule is at least one justice cannot participate in the pool.