whistlersmother
Peace through strength
Can we get enough petition together to sell the land under Souter's seat?
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
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.
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.
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.
I predict that this gets held, lol.
Seems like a pretty safe bet.
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
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.