NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!
- Thread starter press1280
- Start date
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!
Member Benefits:
Kharn
Ultimate Member
Clement was either going to get relisted or the 9th's decision wouldn't change anything. It's just icing on the cake at this point IMO.
I think the real question is what shenanigans will we see trying to moot, get the case dismissed as improvidently granted, or pack the court in the next 15 months after cert is granted.
pcfixer
Ultimate Member
I was also looking at 0940 and did not find it as well.
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
Likely will not be officially relisted until next monday because there is no conference this week.
Pope414
Active Member
Don`t know why..can`t explain why but..I have a feeling because this case is too quiet...I have a feeling this case gets Cert..after that shitshow in the 9th and with a case from the 3rd right on it`s heels..Roberts knows the votes are there.. I think he`s going to vote for Cert THEN assign himself to author the majority opinion so he can constrict it as much as he can...all that said if cert is granted I hope Justice Thomas writes the Majority opinion as he deserves to be it author as he has been championing this cause to declare the 2A is NOT a second class right since Heller
If the votes are indeed there, meaning the Chief Justice's vote is not required, Roberts will have only modest leverage. With that proviso, I concur with your every word.
No, if Robert's wants it to go a certain way, he has extreme leverage. If he votes with the majority he gets to choose who writes the opinion.
Which can mean HIM.
He can vote to slap down NY and then write an incredibly narrow opinion that does nothing other than overturn the NY case in the most limited manner possible.
THAT is what Roberts can do.
Pope414
Active Member
I might be wrong please correct me if I am... but if the majority doesn't concur with Justice Roberts opinion they don`t have to sign onto it.. lets just say for shitts & giggles its a 6-3 majority and five feel the Roberts opinion is too narrow... couldn't say Justice Thomas author an alternate opinion supported by the other 4 being that would still be a majority opinion?
I would say you’re right. We’d be looking at a 5 justice majority opinion with Roberts writing a separate opinion concurring.
Where the vote could really come in is a per curiam requiring 6 votes.
Kharn
Ultimate Member
But he has to get the others to agree with him. Thomas could concur in the judgement but write his own opinion explaining a much more open right to carry exists. Then it is whoever gets four signatures becomes the majority. If neither opinion has five, but they agree in the judgement, they have a plurality, which has its own rules for who established precedent.
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
They officially relisted the case for Friday's conference. We will likely know more next Monday when the orders from the conference are released.
Pope414
Active Member
NJ 2A justifiable need lawsuit requests SCOTUS Cert.
Rather than start another thread I just thought I would add this.. New Jersey Justifiable Need 2A lawsuit has been filed at the SCOTUS Russell v. New Jersey. Russell is represented by Evan Nappen..if Nappen sounds familiar Nappen was the attorney in the Pantano case.. good lawyer..he wrote the "gun book" that is the go to on nj firearms law. The SCOTUS will remember that case because it was used by the state of NJ to deceive the SCOTUS during Drake. The NJ Supreme court granted cert to Pantano so the state of NJ could tell the court that Pantano was to be heard in the NJSC.. Once the SCOTUS declined cert to Drake to allow the state to hear the Pantano case the NJSC dismissed the case within 2 weeks as improvendantly granted. It was a con job that played the SCOTUS as fools all to avoid cert with Drake.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public\20-1419.html
Rather than start another thread I just thought I would add this.. New Jersey Justifiable Need 2A lawsuit has been filed at the SCOTUS Russell v. New Jersey. Russell is represented by Evan Nappen..if Nappen sounds familiar Nappen was the attorney in the Pantano case.. good lawyer..he wrote the "gun book" that is the go to on nj firearms law. The SCOTUS will remember that case because it was used by the state of NJ to deceive the SCOTUS during Drake. The NJ Supreme court granted cert to Pantano so the state of NJ could tell the court that Pantano was to be heard in the NJSC.. Once the SCOTUS declined cert to Drake to allow the state to hear the Pantano case the NJSC dismissed the case within 2 weeks as improvendantly granted. It was a con job that played the SCOTUS as fools all to avoid cert with Drake.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public\20-1419.html
Not much evidence of that. If the court were inclined to take a NJ case, they had ample opportunity post-NYSRPA, as there were several NJ cases on the docket (3 if memory serves). They booted all of them.
This case is likely 2 months from conference and if NJ requests any extensions then we will not see it until the big conference in the fall. The NY case's fate (whether its granted or not) will be decided by then.
Pope414
Active Member
Press I agree 95%..I made mention just because it challenges justifiable need/good cause just as the NY case does... the wildcard with taking say Rogers was Roberts ..he showed himself to be unreliable..Justices are human they don`t like being played & I think Alito & Thomas will remember the State of NJ deception and give them less os a "benefit of the doubt" IIRC Thomas & Alito were none too happy with NYC playing games to moot that case..
IDK if the justices work that way. They don't like being played but Drake was 7 years ago I think? NYSRPA was last year and technically this is NY state as the defendant, not the city.
Thomas is definitely all in at this point. Question is are 3 others down to take a case (specifically the same one)?
JMangle
Handsome Engineer
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
‘Why is nothing being done?’: Concerns grow about drug use, fighting in Montgomery Co. school bathrooms (1 Viewer)
- Started by RFBfromDE
- Replies: 10
-
