Malpasso v Pallozzi SCOTUS Cert Petition Filed

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!
  • Nobody

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 15, 2009
    2,810
    Please remember i Am just a stupid magician. What happens in in April?

    This legal stuff sucks when you are the one getting screwed.

    Nobody
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    Please remember i Am just a stupid magician. What happens in in April?

    This legal stuff sucks when you are the one getting screwed.

    Nobody

    Prediction: This case will be held by the Court pending a decision in NYSRPA v. NYC, in which oral argument is being held on Dec. 2. That is the same hold that Court has given Rogers, Gould, Mance and Pena (so far). After a decision on the merits in NYSPRA, all the Second Amendment cases being held by the Court, including this one, will be GVRed.
     

    ShafTed

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 21, 2013
    2,212
    Juuuuust over the line
    If the state has been given their chance and still doesn't have anything to say in opposition, why is that a problem? Couldn't SCOTUS just say "Grant, Vacate, Done" and not bother waiting until the NYC case is finished to make Maryland Shall Issue?
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    If the state has been given their chance and still doesn't have anything to say in opposition, why is that a problem? Couldn't SCOTUS just say "Grant, Vacate, Done" and not bother waiting until the NYC case is finished to make Maryland Shall Issue?

    Not done. The Court will simply issue an order, "requesting" a response from MD. Frosh will comply because not even he will diss the SCT by refusing. Then the Court will simply hold the case.
     

    motorcoachdoug

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Will Herr Baron Frosh and his minions ever learn that they are now playing with the big boys and gals at SCOTUS and do not want to file a response unless he is told to do so by SCOTUS because he is to busy thinking up ways to sue Trump again while he spends MD Taxpayers money on the lawsuits that he and his co conspirators will lose..
     

    Mike OTDP

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 12, 2008
    3,318
    Not done. The Court will simply issue an order, "requesting" a response from MD.

    Pity they didn't do that with Miller. It would be terribly interesting to see SCOTUS' response to a lower court playing the one-sided game that was played with that case.
     

    GTOGUNNER

    IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!
    Patriot Picket
    Dec 16, 2010
    5,492
    Carroll County!
    Pity they didn't do that with Miller. It would be terribly interesting to see SCOTUS' response to a lower court playing the one-sided game that was played with that case.
    Agreed. However, Miller the way I read it, recognized that we can own military arms. Now if it wasn't for Wayne LaPierre. We could buy brand new M.G.s...
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    Prediction: This case will be held by the Court pending a decision in NYSRPA v. NYC, in which oral argument is being held on Dec. 2. That is the same hold that Court has given Rogers, Gould, Mance and Pena (so far). After a decision on the merits in NYSPRA, all the Second Amendment cases being held by the Court, including this one, will be GVRed.

    Not being as deeply familiar with the SCOTUS (well, law in general I'd imagine, but I had a class in college for non-law degree seeking. Like having had one psych class and now I can diagnose people! :innocent0 ), the fact that they are holding all of these cases instead of dismissing them or ordering them back to lower courts for reconsideration with instructions gives me some hope. I guess it could still be that there is one undecided justice and both sides are hoping they side with them in the end.

    Anyway, its my hope they are being held (as I guess it has been stated here) because the majority is hoping NYSRPA will not be mooted, will be found to be unconstitutional and will not be an extremely narrowly tailored opinion and all of the held cases will be sent to lower courts to be reconsidered. That reconsideration based on a new standard and instructions that is favorable to the 2A.

    Stepping outside the mind of the deranged, I mean gun grabber, for a second. I just don't see how some of these laws can be remotely for the public good. Even if the 2A was not a thing at all and there is no right to self defense. If we are just talking PUBLIC good, the number of times people use guns in self defense stopping crimes is massive. The fact that in some places it is effectively impossible to carry a firearm outside your house except maybe for hunting (and it better only be a "hunting/fudd" firearm then) doesn't seem at all to comport with any kind of public good.

    Ignoring the 2nd, I can at least wrap my head around how most people think a CCW/W&C or whatever makes some amount of sense. I don't agree, but I can at least wrap my brain around that. That training and instruction might make some safer, that maybe we don't want to give such licenses to those who are criminals (so preform a background check) and that being required to carry said license when outside of the home and carrying a firearm allows police a quick way to check that maybe you aren't a criminal carrying a gun. Again, I disagree. But I can wrap my brain around it.

    I can't this may issue (and generally don't) ********. As well as enormous hoops.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    They learn so slowly....... That won't work.

    This seems to be more of a delay tactic at this point. I don't think they're that stupid to believe SCOTUS will simply boot the case because MD doesn't think it's important enough to respond to.

    So what'll happen is a week or two goes by (maybe more), SCOTUS will request a response in a month or two, then when that's due MD can request several extensions (cuz they're busy). But with NYSRPA continuing, ultimately this case will join Rogers and the other cases and be put on hold pending NYSRPA's resolution (likely June). That's my prediction anyway.
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    If I were a Justice, I'd have a clerk request a reply immediately upon receipt of the waiver on any non-criminal BoR case, just out of principle.
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    This seems to be more of a delay tactic at this point. I don't think they're that stupid to believe SCOTUS will simply boot the case because MD doesn't think it's important enough to respond to.

    So what'll happen is a week or two goes by (maybe more), SCOTUS will request a response in a month or two, then when that's due MD can request several extensions (cuz they're busy). But with NYSRPA continuing, ultimately this case will join Rogers and the other cases and be put on hold pending NYSRPA's resolution (likely June). That's my prediction anyway.

    The Court is less generous with extensions where there was a waiver and then a response requested. It does buy them delay. It also makes them look like they are doing it in bad faith (for purposes of delay) after NJ tried it in Rogers and a response was requested. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-824.html Too clever by half. Notably Mass didn't try this stunt in Gould. I agree, the case will be held, just like Rogers and Gould have been held.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    The Court is less generous with extensions where there was a waiver and then a response requested. It does buy them delay. It also makes them look like they are doing it in bad faith (for purposes of delay) after NJ tried it in Rogers and a response was requested. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-824.html Too clever by half. Notably Mass didn't try this stunt in Gould. I agree, the case will be held, just like Rogers and Gould have been held.

    Although it may make them look bad I doubt they care or believe it'll change any justices mind about how they'll rule.
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    Although it may make them look bad I doubt they care or believe it'll change any justices mind about how they'll rule.

    Maybe. It is just unprofessional and that's a bad rep to acquire. Ever. After all, this is not the only SCT filing that office does.
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    On 10/16 it was distributed for the 11/1 conference, meaning the clerks got it in their inbox. On 10/18, one realized Frosh forgot to submit his homework and told him it was now due 11/18. The clerk would schedule the case for the next conference two weeks after 11/18, so the petitioner has a chance to reply, but due to Thanksgiving, that conference is 12/6. Coincidentally, that is the same conference where the result of NYSRPA v NYC will be decided by the justices after its oral argument on 12/2.

    Frosh & Friends can ask for a 30-day delay claiming they're busy helping NYC prepare, blah blah blah, but good luck as everyone knows the real reason will be to read the tea leaves of oral argument and try to respond in a way to duck whatever NYSRPA v NYC's outcome is.

    Hoisted by their own petard, the case definitely won't be denied now and can expect a GVR come June.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,916
    Messages
    7,258,496
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom