RI district judge upholds may-issue

press1280 said:

http://www.providencejournal.com/ne...dge-upholds-bristols-concealed-weapons-policy

Opinion is below the article. I see some possibilities for this.

The judge has characterized the 2A as NOT extending beyond the home according to Hightower. I'm curious if this could be a vehicle to getting the inside/outside the home question to SCOTUS and getting a remand. A basic question like that seems something that the court may be willing to answer.
One issue though is the license is a CCW. According to handgunlaw RI is a licensed open carry state like MD,NJ, and MA. That may hamstring it.

Click to expand...

jc1240 said:

I'd like to ask his honor where that limitation is stated in COTUS. All of my copies must be faulty because they don't have such a statement.

Click to expand...

rbird7282 said:

THIS. I don't know where judges keep coming up with this crap.

Click to expand...

jc1240 said:

I'd like to ask his honor where that limitation is stated in COTUS. All of my copies must be faulty because they don't have such a statement.

Click to expand...

press1280 said:

http://www.providencejournal.com/ne...dge-upholds-bristols-concealed-weapons-policy

Opinion is below the article. I see some possibilities for this.

The judge has characterized the 2A as NOT extending beyond the home according to Hightower. I'm curious if this could be a vehicle to getting the inside/outside the home question to SCOTUS and getting a remand. A basic question like that seems something that the court may be willing to answer.
One issue though is the license is a CCW. According to handgunlaw RI is a licensed open carry state like MD,NJ, and MA. That may hamstring it.

Click to expand...

JC92 said:

The 7th CCA already answered this question in the affirmative: The right to "bear" arms applies outside of the home. This should be an easy case to remand before it moves too far in the court system.

Click to expand...

jrosenberger said:

Except Hightower is CA1 precedent, so it's binding, unlike a CA7 decision. I obviously think Hightower is wrong, and you could maybe make an argument that it's superseded by Caetano, but I don't see an anti-gun court buying it. That will take SCOTUS saying so explicitly instead of implicitly.

Click to expand...

kcbrown said:

The thing that some people still don't seem to get is this: SCOTUS will have to say everything explicitly. The belligerent lower courts will continue to rule even against direct SCOTUS decisions to the contrary, because there is no consequence to them if they do so and because there is always a chance that SCOTUS will refuse cert. That latter is so high that it's something the lower courts can effectively bank on.

As a result, game theory alone clearly dictates the actions of the hostile lower courts. Their actions will turn SCOTUS from the court of last resort to the court of only resort. And as we've seen, SCOTUS is not willing to step up to the plate to deal with that fact (do you really think Caetano represents a sea change in their approach here? If so, I've got this bridge ... ).


The end result is this: SCOTUS will have to grant cert to every 2nd Amendment case if it wishes to see the right upheld. The hostile lower courts simply will not change their approach to the 2nd Amendment until at a minimum it becomes clear that SCOTUS will overturn them without hesitation if they don't fall in line. And even then, it's more likely than not that the hostile lower courts will behave as they are anyway, even in the face of near-certain reversal, simply due to game theoretical considerations. The only way that will change is if there are real consequences to them for giving SCOTUS the middle finger like that.


This isn't law, gentlemen. This is politics and the exercise of power, dressed up as law. Never forget that.

Click to expand...

kcbrown said:

The thing that some people still don't seem to get is this: SCOTUS will have to say everything explicitly. The belligerent lower courts will continue to rule even against direct SCOTUS decisions to the contrary, because there is no consequence to them if they do so and because there is always a chance that SCOTUS will refuse cert. That latter is so high that it's something the lower courts can effectively bank on.

As a result, game theory alone clearly dictates the actions of the hostile lower courts. Their actions will turn SCOTUS from the court of last resort to the court of only resort. And as we've seen, SCOTUS is not willing to step up to the plate to deal with that fact (do you really think Caetano represents a sea change in their approach here? If so, I've got this bridge ... ).


The end result is this: SCOTUS will have to grant cert to every 2nd Amendment case if it wishes to see the right upheld. The hostile lower courts simply will not change their approach to the 2nd Amendment until at a minimum it becomes clear that SCOTUS will overturn them without hesitation if they don't fall in line. And even then, it's more likely than not that the hostile lower courts will behave as they are anyway, even in the face of near-certain reversal, simply due to game theoretical considerations. The only way that will change is if there are real consequences to them for giving SCOTUS the middle finger like that.


This isn't law, gentlemen. This is politics and the exercise of power, dressed up as law. Never forget that.

Click to expand...

JPG said:

If the SCOTUS only said, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. means just that no and, if, or buts. People have the right to buy any weapon, accessory, pay no tax or fee for this right."

Well we can dream.

Click to expand...

Brooklyn said:

OK let's give up.

Click to expand...

kcbrown said:

Heh. Nope. Never do that for something like what we fight for here.

You can't know what to do if you don't know what you're up against.

We shouldn't give up. We should change the game.

Click to expand...