Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 11th, 2017, 07:41 AM #181
Inigoes's Avatar
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 37,534
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
Inigoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 37,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorcoachdoug View Post
It is well written and I for one will be interested to see if SCOTUS does grant cert. IMO i believe they will take it and grant cert. As to how this will help us here in MD if they do prevail I would like the legal eagles here to respond and let the rest of us who are not well versed in legalese what would happen if they did strike down FL law against open carry..
Pretty much a Caetano remake. If the court holds OC is part of the right to bear arms for self defense and all lawful purposes, That means the states are against strict scrutiny.

Plan on lots of lawsuits to strike down any OC prohibitions, because the states will have to defend those prohibitions are narrowly tailored for a specific government interest. The states will no longer be able to safe "public safety" without a darn good reason.
__________________
Life is tough, life is tougher when you are stupid.
Inigoes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2017, 08:17 AM #182
Bigfoot21075 Bigfoot21075 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Elkridge, MD
Posts: 951
Bigfoot21075 Bigfoot21075 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Elkridge, MD
Posts: 951
This was in Brietbart today;

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-outside-home/
__________________
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
Bigfoot21075 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2017, 09:20 AM #183
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,947
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by shacklefordbanks View Post
Charles Nichols is hopping mad that Norman's lawyers did not take his advice in structuring the cert brief.



Isn't Nichols like 0 to 2 or 3 in his lawsuits so far? 0 to 0 in SCOTUS so far and just as likely to be shot down by the 9th circuit as anybody with a gun. (pun intended)
Probably because if Norman wins then all of Nichols' claims are validated and he wins automatically. With Norman only challenging handgun OC, Nichols would still have some work to do.
But I still don't see why he thinks that Norman passing on long gun carry is going to mean cert denied.
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2017, 09:29 AM #184
motorcoachdoug's Avatar
motorcoachdoug motorcoachdoug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Demcratic Soscial Rublik of Md,Socialist Cnty of Montgomery,1/3 of the 3 that rule the state,
Posts: 1,607
motorcoachdoug motorcoachdoug is offline
Senior Member
motorcoachdoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Demcratic Soscial Rublik of Md,Socialist Cnty of Montgomery,1/3 of the 3 that rule the state,
Posts: 1,607
I guess we will not find out if SCOTUS will grand cert until the end of Oct.
motorcoachdoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2017, 01:01 PM #185
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 491
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inigoes View Post
Pretty much a Caetano remake. If the court holds OC is part of the right to bear arms for self defense and all lawful purposes, That means the states are against strict scrutiny.

Plan on lots of lawsuits to strike down any OC prohibitions, because the states will have to defend those prohibitions are narrowly tailored for a specific government interest. The states will no longer be able to safe "public safety" without a darn good reason.
I don't see that Norman is a Caetano remake. The court in Norman never said OC was not part of the right. If they said that then Norman would be like Caetano. The court said that Norman could still exercise the right (self defense outside the home) but that there were extenuating circumstances (public safety issues) that allowed the government to restrict particular aspects of the right. This makes the case more like Woollard or Friedman, which have been denied cert by SCOTUS.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2017, 01:06 PM #186
Inigoes's Avatar
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 37,534
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
Inigoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 37,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
I don't see that Norman is a Caetano remake. The court in Norman never said OC was not part of the right. If they said that then Norman would be like Caetano. The court said that Norman could still exercise the right (self defense outside the home) but that there were extenuating circumstances (public safety issues) that allowed the government to restrict particular aspects of the right. This makes the case more like Woollard or Friedman, which have been denied cert by SCOTUS.
We were discussing how to get a remedy to apply in Maryland, if Norman prevailed. It took a lot of lawsuits to get the stun gun laws rescinded at the state and local levels.

We were not discussing the content of the case.
__________________
Life is tough, life is tougher when you are stupid.
Inigoes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2017, 02:58 PM #187
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 207
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
I don't see that Norman is a Caetano remake. The court in Norman never said OC was not part of the right. If they said that then Norman would be like Caetano. The court said that Norman could still exercise the right (self defense outside the home) but that there were extenuating circumstances (public safety issues) that allowed the government to restrict particular aspects of the right. This makes the case more like Woollard or Friedman, which have been denied cert by SCOTUS.
Too bad the Heller court clearly indicated its position on a states regulatory powers involving the public's safety to that of carrying concealed weapons only...Somehow you've let this liberal mindset of "public safety" convince you that it must be historically rebutted to overcome. It already has through numerous 19th century courts that have concluded that the open carrying of firearms, in PUBLIC, can not be prohibited. We will surely find out in Oct. who is correct in regards to this. Certiorari will be granted and I'll buy you a $50 steak dinner if I'm wrong.
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2017, 03:29 PM #188
krucam's Avatar
krucam krucam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 7,454
krucam krucam is offline
Senior Member
krucam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 7,454
In spite of what all the earlier cases said about Open carry being protected, added to that what the CA9 en banc court said about Concealed not being protected....I feel that if (actually big IF) the Court takes this one, they address only "Bear" and that it IS protected.

Essentially, Norman would likely lose since FL offers a freely available Concealed license, which satisfies "Bear". The States would be allowed to choose their preferred Manner of Carry.

This would then require a new round of cases in CA9/CA4/CA3 & CA2, stating that the right exists outside the home. I don't see how this gets restrictive May Issue States into the Shall Issue world. I don't believe every legislature will act as they did in IL.
__________________
Mark C.

Dallas/Ft Worth, TX

Post McDonald Second Amendment Cases/Links HERE
krucam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2017, 03:51 PM #189
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 207
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by krucam View Post
In spite of what all the earlier cases said about Open carry being protected, added to that what the CA9 en banc court said about Concealed not being protected....I feel that if (actually big IF) the Court takes this one, they address only "Bear" and that it IS protected.

Essentially, Norman would likely lose since FL offers a freely available Concealed license, which satisfies "Bear". The States would be allowed to choose their preferred Manner of Carry.

This would then require a new round of cases in CA9/CA4/CA3 & CA2, stating that the right exists outside the home. I don't see how this gets restrictive May Issue States into the Shall Issue world. I don't believe every legislature will act as they did in IL.
Norman was arrested for open carrying a firearm outside the home. The case thus involves bearing arms, OPENLY, outside the home. Having to ask permission from the government to exercise a fundamental right violates substantive due process. Florida can regulate concealed carry through its licensing scheme, but may not license or prohibit the right to open carry.

MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

"This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution."

"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution."

"The tax imposed by the City of Jeannette is a flat license tax, the payment of which is a condition of the exercise of these constitutional privileges. The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment."

"It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant [319 U.S. 105, 113] if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax – a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution."

"It is claimed, however, that the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U. S. 174, and cases cited. But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution."

Last edited by 777GSOTB; July 11th, 2017 at 03:52 PM. Reason: Missed Info
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2017, 05:53 PM #190
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,242
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,242
The Supreme Court will deny cert. It has nothing to do with the merits of the case. It has nothing to do with whether or not the plaintiff was convicted of violating the law.

It has everything to do with the apparent fact that the Court, for political reasons, has insufficient support for the right to arms to take any case except when the plaintiff's plight is "heart wrenching" (abused homeless woman faced with imminent attack), the situation is innocuous (non-lethal weapon), and the lower court decision's "reasoning" is identical to that which the Court previously found to be "bordering on the frivolous".

We'll get no relief from the Supreme Court until its composition changes, period.
kcbrown is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
2018, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service