Freidman v. Highland Park (AWB)

danb said:

Sticking to my prediction, several more relists and a dissent from denial of cert. This is a stupid opinion, to be sure, but my gut tells me the court will at least wait for other circuit opinions.

ETA: maybe the dissent will give us a clue how to get a few more justices on board.

Click to expand...

Southwest Chuck said:

Well, the 2CA just opined in NYSRPA v. Cuomo, using the now famous 2A 2-step along with a now common misreading of Heller/McDonald. Do you think that will have a bearing on a cert grant or denial in Freidman?

Click to expand...

Southwest Chuck said:

Well, the 2CA just opined in NYSRPA v. Cuomo, using the now famous 2A 2-step along with a now common misreading of Heller/McDonald. Do you think that will have a bearing on a cert grant or denial in Freidman?

Click to expand...

Kharn said:

Or if they have decided, the 2nd's opinion could bring about an additional Justice to concur with any dissent from denial of cert, if one is being written.

Click to expand...

aireyc said:

None of the relisted petitions have had their docket updated as far as I can tell.

Click to expand...

Should the plaintiffs ultimately prevail in this case, however, it’s not hard to imagine what would happen. Gun manufacturers who develop new and more efficient weapons would have a strong incentive to distribute those weapons to as many people as quickly as possible — even at prices that would not be profitable for the gun maker in the short term — so that those weapons would gain the special constitutional protection sought by the plaintiffs in Friedman.

Click to expand...

DC-W said:

Want to read a laughably written article by a modern man?
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...off-a-literal-arms-race-in-the-united-states/

Click to expand...

danb said:

for example??

Click to expand...

aireyc said:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-1143.htm
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-1248.htm
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-1273.htm
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-1472.htm
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-10154.htm
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/15-5004.htm
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/15-5238.htm

As of 2:41am on October 23, 2015, none of those have been updated.

Click to expand...

aireyc said:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-1143.htm
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-1248.htm
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-1273.htm
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-1472.htm
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-10154.htm
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/15-5004.htm
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/15-5238.htm

As of 2:41am on October 23, 2015, none of those have been updated.

Click to expand...

Meanwhile, Voisine v. United States, 14-10154, probably returns for a second time. The petitioners in Voisine challenge convictions under 28 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which makes it unlawful for someone “who ha been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” to possess any firearm or ammunition. The petition asks (1) whether “a misdemeanor crime with the mens rea of recklessness qualif[ies] as a ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence’ as defined by 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(33)(A) and 922(g)(9)” and (2) whether Section 922(g)(9) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 15-133, also probably gets a second relist. That case involves a Second Amendment challenge to a Highland Park, Illinois ordinance banning large-capacity magazines and assault weapons. The Court has been avoiding Second Amendment cases for several Terms, but perhaps we’re due for a surprise.

Click to expand...