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

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 11th, 2017, 06:28 PM #191
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,945
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,945
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.
They have to come to a holding beyond that. The lower court & the state are not arguing against that point, so it would seem a waste of time for SCOTUS to rule that public carry is protected, yet provide no guidance on open or concealed.
As far as the manner, it's possible they do come to that conclusion although they could have taken Peruta and ALSO come to that very conclusion.

Wonder if we'll have a weird split where the Heller 5 (Gorsuch for Scalia) disagree on the manner, but agree on carry outside the home? Gorsuch and Thomas have pretty much stated through the Peruta dissent that may-issue is a non-starter.
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2017, 07:06 PM #192
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 kcbrown View Post
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.
Certiorari Granted, period....And to you a $50 steak dinner on me if I'm wrong. Sooo, take that.
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2017, 07:21 PM #193
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,242
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
Certiorari Granted, period....And to you a $50 steak dinner on me if I'm wrong. Sooo, take that.
Sadly, I'm probably not located where I'd be able to take you up on that, so feel free to give the $50 to the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund in the (inevitable ) event you're wrong.


Let me put the case for denial of cert here in perspective. To insist that cert will be granted to this case is to simultaneously insist that, firstly, Kennedy is even more of an originalist (from the perspective of this case, at least -- I personally view Bliss as the case that is, logically, the most relevant if originalism is what one claims to adhere to) than is Thomas, in light of Thomas' dissent to denial of cert in Peruta, and, secondly, that Thomas' understanding of Heller is incorrect (since if the plaintiffs' interpretation of Heller is correct and Thomas knowingly disagreed with that interpretation, then he would have penned an independent concurrence).
kcbrown is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2017, 07:40 PM #194
CrueChief's Avatar
CrueChief CrueChief is offline
Cocker Dad
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Napolis-ish
Posts: 1,036
CrueChief CrueChief is offline
Cocker Dad
CrueChief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Napolis-ish
Posts: 1,036
[QUOTE=kcbrown;4863099]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.[/QUOTE]

This is all anyone watching this needs to keep in mind. It sucks for the deep blue liberal states but it is the reality. To think differently is wishful thinking. And even if/when they do take a case don't think for a moment that Annapolis won't make us file our own new court case to get it to apply to MD.
CrueChief is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2017, 06:05 AM #195
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hazzard County
Posts: 2,509
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hazzard County
Posts: 2,509
But they would be told to shut it down by the first federal judge to hear it on a PI.
Kharn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2017, 06:08 AM #196
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
[QUOTE=CrueChief;4863213]
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
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.[/QUOTE]

This is all anyone watching this needs to keep in mind. It sucks for the deep blue liberal states but it is the reality. To think differently is wishful thinking. And even if/when they do take a case don't think for a moment that Annapolis won't make us file our own new court case to get it to apply to MD.
I would gleefully file that case too. that is why we fight this battle. Yes the victories are slow coming and often far and few between, but they are victories in the end. With a pro 2a administration and a now once again conservative leaning court we may be in for more regular wins....
__________________
"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 12th, 2017, 08:19 AM #197
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 667
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 667
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
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.
^This. I'm so tired of hearing "conservatives" try to justify the decisions, based on a bad fact pattern, poor lawyering, or anything else. The fact is, the Supreme Court is composed of liberals who will rule in bad faith to reach their policy preferences. There's nothing else to it.
GlocksAndPatriots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2017, 12:52 PM #198
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 kcbrown View Post
Sadly, I'm probably not located where I'd be able to take you up on that, so feel free to give the $50 to the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund in the (inevitable ) event you're wrong.


Let me put the case for denial of cert here in perspective. To insist that cert will be granted to this case is to simultaneously insist that, firstly, Kennedy is even more of an originalist (from the perspective of this case, at least -- I personally view Bliss as the case that is, logically, the most relevant if originalism is what one claims to adhere to) than is Thomas, in light of Thomas' dissent to denial of cert in Peruta, and, secondly, that Thomas' understanding of Heller is incorrect (since if the plaintiffs' interpretation of Heller is correct and Thomas knowingly disagreed with that interpretation, then he would have penned an independent concurrence).
I agree with you wholeheartedly on Bliss and your originalism assessment. But from what I got from Heller, the justices have come to an understanding that concealed carry can be prohibited under the 2nd Amendment based on the jurisprudence from a majority of 19th century courts. Right or wrong, that's how they decided to meter a states public policy choice on the manner of carry...Concealed carry can be prohibited, but open carry can not be prohibited. Besides Caetano, Norman is the only other case where the plaintiff was actually injured while exercising a constitutionally protected right. His case is solidly set for review and why I believe cert will be granted. I'm going to give Kennedy the benefit of the doubt here and believe he'll properly administer justice as a signer to the Heller decision.
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2017, 11:38 PM #199
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,242
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
I agree with you wholeheartedly on Bliss and your originalism assessment. But from what I got from Heller, the justices have come to an understanding that concealed carry can be prohibited under the 2nd Amendment based on the jurisprudence from a majority of 19th century courts.
And if Thomas hadn't penned his dissent to denial of cert in Peruta, I'd agree that your assessment of what Heller implies is, at least, plausible.

But it almost certainly cannot be in the face of that dissent.

Why? Because:
  1. If Thomas agreed with the understanding you believe the Heller justices came to, then he wouldn't have penned the dissent to denial of cert in Peruta. So it follows that Thomas disagrees with the understanding you believe the Heller justices came to. But since that's the case, then:
  2. If Thomas disagreed with the understanding you believe the Heller justices came to, then he would have penned a separate concurrence in Heller explaining his views, just like he did with McDonald.

Since Thomas penned a dissent to denial of cert in Peruta and did not pen a separate concurrence in Heller, it follows that Thomas disagrees with the interpretation you're using and that he believes his understanding to match that of the other Heller justices.

So either Thomas is wrong about his beliefs matching that of the other justices (highly unlikely, seeing how they were in deep discussion about the decision at the time it was being penned), or their interpretation does not match yours.

Guess which conclusion is, by far, the most likely case? Hint: it's not the first one.
kcbrown is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 13th, 2017, 11:26 AM #200
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 kcbrown View Post
And if Thomas hadn't penned his dissent to denial of cert in Peruta, I'd agree that your assessment of what Heller implies is, at least, plausible.

But it almost certainly cannot be in the face of that dissent.

Why? Because:
  1. If Thomas agreed with the understanding you believe the Heller justices came to, then he wouldn't have penned the dissent to denial of cert in Peruta. So it follows that Thomas disagrees with the understanding you believe the Heller justices came to. But since that's the case, then:
  2. If Thomas disagreed with the understanding you believe the Heller justices came to, then he would have penned a separate concurrence in Heller explaining his views, just like he did with McDonald.

Since Thomas penned a dissent to denial of cert in Peruta and did not pen a separate concurrence in Heller, it follows that Thomas disagrees with the interpretation you're using and that he believes his understanding to match that of the other Heller justices.

So either Thomas is wrong about his beliefs matching that of the other justices (highly unlikely, seeing how they were in deep discussion about the decision at the time it was being penned), or their interpretation does not match yours.

Guess which conclusion is, by far, the most likely case? Hint: it's not the first one.
You forgot this one:

3. Justice Thomas doesn't seem to have the judicial restraint he should be adhering to as a supreme court justice sitting on the highest court in America.

Peruta had two options to challenge California's deprivation of his 2nd Amendment rights. Challenge the protected right of open carry(per Heller) or challenge the unprotected privilege to conceal carry. But, no, Peruta chooses the privilege to conceal carry and sought a license, and was ok with a supposedly fundamental right being licensed...Not sure how anyone could be ok with that, oh wait,...government brainwashing of its sheeple. Anyway, I'm not sure how one seeks the legal remedy to open carry by seeking a license to conceal carry...Makes no sense to me and obviously it didn't to the astute supreme court justices that would not accept certiorari. October can't come soon enough...Until then my friend, may the winds blow you back on course to the Sea Of Reality.
777GSOTB 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 04:37 AM.


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