the guys arguing ARE lawyers.
En banc Decision in Peruta -- a loss
- Thread starter esqappellate
- 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:
danb
dont be a dumbass
And some people to hear lawyers a case in court. Heck this past week has been free entertainment and free info as well. Why pay for law school when you can learn things right here....
Fox123
Ultimate Member
No new Grants
Nothing today
Southwest Chuck
A Calguns Interloper.. ;)
KC is and Engineer, not an Lawyer, and a passionate 2A advocate, but one could easily think otherwise ....
others in the discussion are lawyers.
Looks like another relist. On another note, another per curiam slap down issued in Jenkins v. Hutton. Let's hope the PC slap downs continue.
There are still a number of heard cases that haven't had opinions. It's possible that extra days are added to the calendar.
There are still a number of heard cases that haven't had opinions. It's possible that extra days are added to the calendar.
danb
dont be a dumbass
Interestingly, there is a per curiam opinion in a death penalty case (Jenkins v. Hutton). The 6th had reversed a death penalty case, and the SCT reversed the 6th. The implication appears to be that Percy Hutton would get the death penalty in Ohio, albeit 30 years after the actual crime. I find that interesting because quite a few of the Justices often go out of their way to avoid applying the death penalty.
They are also taking the Wisconsin partisan gerrymandering case.
They are also taking the Wisconsin partisan gerrymandering case.
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
Man, if for nothing else, I can't wait for SCOTUS to decide one way or another on this case, just because MDS' self-appointed constitutional lawyers have been particularly active this past week. Wading through pages of bickering and nit-picking is labor-intensive!9:30 can't come fast enough!
Man, if for nothing else, i can't wait for lawyers to start winning cases, that day can't come fast enough.
MD AWB Loss
DC AWB Loss
NY AWB Loss
CT AWB Loss
Highland Park AWB Loss
CO Magazine Limit Loss
SF Storage Ordinance Loss
MD CCW Loss
NJ CCW Loss
CA CCW Loss
etc
Maybe it would be a good idea to figure out why there are so many losses and figure out how to actually win.
"Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco City" is giving me a sense of hope.
If you were not a party, then the case gets tossed.
If you were not a party, then the case gets tossed.
We know why we're losing: many judges tend to defer to the state's judgement. That is why the only win/loss that actually matters is at SCOTUS, which at least tends to be less deferential.
danb
dont be a dumbass
Before first amendment principles were firmly established, all sorts of censorship and government pressure was permitted. First amendment doctrine as we know it was not really developed until the late 1920s. I am sure that there were a lot of appellate losses over that period.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. There are so many losses currently primarily because 2nd Amendment law is really only in its infancy. What really matters at this point is the quality and persuasiveness of the dissents.
Anyone see if Peruta has been rescheduled for 6/22?
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
I believe the 2A was always about individuals. Heller was specifically about disconnecting the right from the militia. As described in Heller it appears the connection to the militia was a technicality. In Miller, the court did not find that he did not have a connection to the militia, just that there was no evidence that the gun itself had a connection. I am not sure it would have been that hard to demonstrate a connection given how effective normal shotguns were in WWI.
I can't tell you the specifics of when the court raises issues sua sponte. The Court tends not to raise issues by themselves, but it does happen. See Kolbe 4th circuit en banc raising an issue that was not really addressed. Normally you loose the ability to appeal an issue if you have not raised it at the initial trial. Miller is an example. The latest per curiam (Jenkins v Hutton) also talks to this issue.
No i just checked and it is not listed yet.. IMO i do believe they are going to hold it until Newman vs FL appears before them, the accidental display of a weapon in public when he does have a ccw from FLA to conceal carry. Unless a pc or denial of cert before then. What do our "legal members think"??
danb
dont be a dumbass
It's way to early in the day to know whether it's been relisted for June 22nd. The docket may not get updated until afternoon. Some of the denials do not even appear on the docket yet.
Ask again around close of business.
Ask again around close of business.
danb
dont be a dumbass
People should also keep in mind that grants during May and June are slow, until they aren't.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/SB_grantsperconference_OT15.pdf (see p 36)
The average number of grants per conference is 1-2 during May and June, until the final June week #4, when its 8.8! The range is 5-13 grants during June conference #4.
I would not yet read to much into the lack of action. They are busy writing opinions.
ETA: docket updated, Peruta and Binderup rescheduled for June 22.
If the past pattern is any predictor, I'd expect 10-15 grants next week.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/SB_grantsperconference_OT15.pdf (see p 36)
The average number of grants per conference is 1-2 during May and June, until the final June week #4, when its 8.8! The range is 5-13 grants during June conference #4.
I would not yet read to much into the lack of action. They are busy writing opinions.
ETA: docket updated, Peruta and Binderup rescheduled for June 22.
If the past pattern is any predictor, I'd expect 10-15 grants next week.
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
Possibly all heard by obama appointees?
IANAL, but getting closer
I am aware that many people here believe that the judges are the problem. I remember sitting in the court room waiting for the Court to grant the temporary restraining order in Kolbe. I was shocked to find out that it was denied. Once I did the research, I found that, while I disagree with the Courts decision in Kolbe (district level), it is not unreasonable given how courts decide cases. If you look at all the cases that I listed, you will find, with minor exceptions, they present essentially the same argument. SCOTUS has passed on all most all of them.
There are so many losses because the plaintiffs bring the same loosing argument and expect different results. SCOTUS is not going to be more deferential because they made the rules.
I am tired of loosing and am willing to debate anyone as to why in hopes to inform more people why there are so many losses.
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
PG County getting some Liberty Doll love over a bill that would ban computers for minors- Started by jc1240
- Replies: 6