1st Circuit Appeal of MA AWB case (Worman v Baker)

[whistlersmother]

Can we get enough petition together to sell the land under Souter's seat?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

We probably do although I thought the court did hammer the other side as well. You can clearly hear them struggling with both parties' case.

That being said, Judge Barron (the one doing the most talking) is an Obama appointee, Judge Seyla is a Reagan appointee but ruled against plaintiffs in Gould v. Morgan, and the 3rd member of the court (who I do not think asked any questions) is none other than former SCOTUS justice Souter.

So the numbers are simply not there. Look for the court to cut and paste from Freidman and other AW cases.

You're giving the panel a little too much credit. All three of them have a well established 2A track record on the First Circuit. There's no reason to think that they'll struggle with their opinion. They were just doing what they think is their due diligence.

Barron also clerked for John Paul Stevens and his wife ran for MA governor. His progressive credentials are well established. He's smart and doesn't give anyone a pass as you can tell from the Pullman Arms hearing. But there's no way he's going to come down on our side.

They have nothing to lose by sticking to their guns. Their thinking is in line with the other AWB cases that have been denied cert and there's nothing to be gained by creating a circuit split. SCOTUS continues to deny cert on AWB and other 2A cases, so from their perspective they are on very safe ground affirming the district court decision.

 

[Not_an_outlaw]

The test proferred by the state seemed to be if the military used it, it was inherently dangerous and it could be regulated.

 

[krucam]

Loss at CA1...

https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/18-1545/18-1545-2019-04-26.pdf?ts=1556310605

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/18-1545/18-1545-2019-04-26.html

 

[Occam]

So ... the court finds that none of the plaintiffs could provide a single example of home defense that used more than 10 rounds, and not a single example of the use of an “assault weapon” (as they’re defining it) for self defense?

And... they’re sticking with the “since you can always buy a different gun, banning the ones on this list isn’t a real burden on your rights” along with “the government’s need to keep these particular guns out of the hands of criminals outweighs your rights, since only intermediate scrutiny is really needed here, because we say so.”

Up the judicial food chain this goes, I hope!

 

[Kharn]

Gary Fadden with his AC556?
And Heller specifically said shotguns and rifles weren't acceptable substitutes for handguns.

 

[whistlersmother]

Just a case in Texas with a guy using AK47 against 5 armed home invaders. 3 dead, two injured.

The court is just maintaining its power over the citizens - can't allow the citizens to have the tools to put the judges out of business by installing new judges.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[danb]

another case that will be held pending NYSRPA then remanded....

 

[jcutonilli]

So ... the court finds that none of the plaintiffs could provide a single example of home defense that used more than 10 rounds, and not a single example of the use of an “assault weapon” (as they’re defining it) for self defense?

And... they’re sticking with the “since you can always buy a different gun, banning the ones on this list isn’t a real burden on your rights” along with “the government’s need to keep these particular guns out of the hands of criminals outweighs your rights, since only intermediate scrutiny is really needed here, because we say so.”

Up the judicial food chain this goes, I hope!

The lack of plaintiffs that have used an "assault weapon" in self defense is a plaintiff problem, not a court problem. When bringing these cases you need to make sure you have the correct plaintiffs. Kolbe had the same problem as did the MD HQL lawsuit. Seems like another poorly argued case.

Al least the court did not adopt the Kolbe reasoning that these firearms were not part of the second amendment.

 

[delaware_export]

From the non lawyer, I just give this observation...

If the court says well, this particular plaintiff didn’t use a military style weapon for self defense so we can’t consider that.

But when states make a case against the things, if none of the plaintiffs have use those weapons to assault anyone how can that be considered?

In listening to the orals when the Maryland AR case, I think it was en banc, the repeatedly cited criminal use of rifles that was in no way related to the plaintiffs. Newtown CT was mentioned.iirc.

As a non legal type, when I read your evaluation, it just seems as is there is a disconnect with the real world and the court. When it pleases them at least.

Sort of throwing the innocent until guilty theory on its ear. And when plaintiffs can show others have used an AR for defense, but not this particular person, they don’t want to hear that.

FWIW I am not knocking what you say, just trying to understand, from a layman’s perspective.

The lack of plaintiffs that have used an "assault weapon" in self defense is a plaintiff problem, not a court problem. When bringing these cases you need to make sure you have the correct plaintiffs. Kolbe had the same problem as did the MD HQL lawsuit. Seems like another poorly argued case.

Al least the court did not adopt the Kolbe reasoning that these firearms were not part of the second amendment.

 

[jcutonilli]

From the non lawyer, I just give this observation...

If the court says well, this particular plaintiff didn’t use a military style weapon for self defense so we can’t consider that.

But when states make a case against the things, if none of the plaintiffs have use those weapons to assault anyone how can that be considered?

In listening to the orals when the Maryland AR case, I think it was en banc, the repeatedly cited criminal use of rifles that was in no way related to the plaintiffs. Newtown CT was mentioned.iirc.

As a non legal type, when I read your evaluation, it just seems as is there is a disconnect with the real world and the court. When it pleases them at least.

Sort of throwing the innocent until guilty theory on its ear. And when plaintiffs can show others have used an AR for defense, but not this particular person, they don’t want to hear that.

FWIW I am not knocking what you say, just trying to understand, from a layman’s perspective.

The court can consider it because the state makes that argument that "assault weapons" cause harm to society. The problem is that the plaintiffs don't really address it. The main argument is that strict scrutiny should be used. They also try and defend against the state's argument by arguing that those firearms are not as bad a the state says.

You can read how this turns out by reading the courts opinion beginning on pg 27. The plaintiff's argument as to why this should fail is because the law "make no exception for law-abiding, responsible citizens to keep these arms for lawful purposes like self-defense in the home." They then go on to talk about how it is the legislatures responsibility to determine policy judgments.

The lawyers are the same ones in the Kolbe case. I have quickly looked through the en banc brief and see essentially the same argument that was make in this case.

The plaintiffs have not really made the argument you are suggesting. It is a legal argument and not a policy one, but needs to be framed appropriately for the court to consider it a legal argument. The plaintiffs need to actually make that argument in order for the court to consider it however.

Yet another reason to demonstrate how poorly these cases are argued.

 

[motorcoachdoug]

All that time and money wasted because the lawyer who was to present the case before the judges should have recognized it was not presented properly and the right "evidence" was not used and or found as well. Even if they appeal upwards it will be denied and or they will affirmed the court judgement as well. They need to take a step back see where they went off the rails correct their mistakes and start again. I know its a long road but unless they want to keep losing ....

 

[krucam]

Wolfwood posted in another thread of a NAAGA Amicus in Worman. It’s now in the Cert phase at SCOTUS. Numerous other Amici were also submitted today.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-404.html

 

[danb]

I predict that this gets held, lol.

Seems like a pretty safe bet.

 

[Fedora]

I predict that this gets held, lol.
Seems like a pretty safe bet.

Given the six cases that have been held so far [Rogers / Gould / Cheeseman / Young (all "bear"); Mance ("interstate sales"), and Pena ("roster")], there's reason to expect a broad judgment.

Now Worman. People who know much more than I view the Worman position as poorly constructed (see relevant postings, above). If, in addition to the six cases above, Worman gets held notwithstanding the weakness of its argument, it would be reasonable to forecast an omnibus NYSR&P decision, no?

I am not panglossian, but I can't remember many times that the entrails have appeared so favorable.

Awaiting Malpasso.

 

[daNattyFatty]

If, in addition to the six cases above, Worman gets held notwithstanding the weakness of its argument, it would be reasonable to forecast an omnibus NYSR&P decision, no?

I have no legal education, but can the court even do that? If they don’t hear arguments on a case that has different circumstances, how can a decision in another case settle it?

The only way that happens is if by “omnibus”, they basically just say all “gun control” is unconstitutional.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Kharn]

I have no legal education, but can the court even do that? If they don’t hear arguments on a case that has different circumstances, how can a decision in another case settle it?

The only way that happens is if by “omnibus”, they basically just say all “gun control” is unconstitutional.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

It could resolve the standard of scrutiny, selecting intermediate or strict, or stating text/history/tradition (as was applied at Heller's Circuit Court and the Supreme Court) is the proper standard and sending everyone back for another shot.

 

[danb]

I am skeptical NYSPRA will be so broad as to affect all 6 cases. That is extremely unlike the Roberts court.

My 0.02 is that NYSRPA was taken precisely because it is narrow and an extreme outlier, and some justices want to see how the vote goes before they take other cases.

I expect a pretty narrow opinion in NYSRPA along the lines of what the US Solicitor general submitted on the merits brief. If that happens, then vacating and remanding the other 6 does nothing more than give the lower courts leeway for more resistance, to say "see, they didn't say you cant, so the law must be ok." If they remand and give the lower courts instructions to use "history text and tradition" I not sure that the 3rd, 9th, 2nd actually know how to do that so I am not sure we are in a better position."strict scrutiny" is both unlikely to come from this court, and also is meaningless because judges can interpret strict scrutiny however they like. I cant recall whether its Gura or Kopel, but one wrote good piece on the 2A 2-step how "strict scrutiny" can mean rational basis depending on the judge. If you doubt me, One of the Bloomturd lawyers groups submitted a brief asking for means-end scrutiny. If they like it, I dont. Its a trap.

In my mind the only way the lower court resistance stops if when the Supreme Court takes a few more cases.

 

[jcutonilli]

I have no legal education, but can the court even do that? If they don’t hear arguments on a case that has different circumstances, how can a decision in another case settle it?

The only way that happens is if by “omnibus”, they basically just say all “gun control” is unconstitutional.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I think you are misunderstanding what actually happens to these cases. If SCOTUS does GVR these cases, it does not actually settle the case. They grant the case so they can do something. The only thing they do is vacate the decision. No decision is made to settle the case on the merits. They then remand the case to the lower course so that the lower court can decide the case based on a newer precedent.

Since the new precedent case may not directly address all the issues, it is not guaranteed that this new precedent will change the outcome of the case. This is why SCOTUS remands the case to the lower court so that the lower court can make a new decision and allow SCOTUS to review that new decision.

We will have to wait to determine what any new precedent will say. It is entirely possible that these cases get denied cert because the new precedent is not broad enough to matter. It is also possible that one or more of the cases get granted cert so that the case does get decided on the merits.

 

[daNattyFatty]

I think you are misunderstanding what actually happens to these cases. If SCOTUS does GVR these cases, it does not actually settle the case. They grant the case so they can do something. The only thing they do is vacate the decision. No decision is made to settle the case on the merits. They then remand the case to the lower course so that the lower court can decide the case based on a newer precedent.



Since the new precedent case may not directly address all the issues, it is not guaranteed that this new precedent will change the outcome of the case. This is why SCOTUS remands the case to the lower court so that the lower court can make a new decision and allow SCOTUS to review that new decision.



We will have to wait to determine what any new precedent will say. It is entirely possible that these cases get denied cert because the new precedent is not broad enough to matter. It is also possible that one or more of the cases get granted cert so that the case does get decided on the merits.

Gotcha, thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro