Decision in Kolbe!

[Apd09]

I almost hate to ask, is this about Kolbe?



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...sault-weapons-bans-in-place.html?intcmp=hpbt2

Hope for strict scrutiny to be upheld, ban overturned or amended (with a free for all buying period) and then SCOTUS to refuse to hear.




Sent from a galaxy far, far, away....

 

[Clovis]

Sorry, think I mis-read , looks like we haven't gotten that far yet. Carry on.

 

[JamesH]

I almost hate to ask, is this about Kolbe?



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...sault-weapons-bans-in-place.html?intcmp=hpbt2

That's the Connecticut and New York case, Shew v Malloy. SCOTUS denied cert, so the lower court's ruling upholding the ban stands.

 

[DanGuy48]

This stuff makes my head hurt. I don't understand why the court can rule so forcefully in our favor in some cases and allow to stand restrictions on commonly used weapons on the other.

 

[MJD438]

If there are not 5 solid votes to rule in favor of the 2A, I would rather see them do what they did. Denying cert is not the same as taking the case and deciding in favor of CT (even though the media likes to play it up as being the same thing - SCOTUS rules even go so far as to advise the circuits that denial of cert is a non-precedent setting action). The latter creates binding precedent that applies to all circuits. Denying cert only applies to the 2CA. If they had accepted cert and the case had fallen to a tie vote, the ruling in 2CA would stand AND binding national precedent gets created.

 

[PharaohF4]

So is SCOTUS denying 2A cases on purpose? So that they can wait to have 9 justices and a majority ruling.

 

[DanGuy48]

So is SCOTUS denying 2A cases on purpose? So that they can wait to have 9 justices and a majority ruling.

That's also part of what's confusing me. From my simple view, it appears we've had some interesting cases that could make a difference but I guess the court does not think so.

The other thing is that I think, again from my limited perspective, that this court has a strong tendency to let the states shake out a lot of things for themselves.

 

[trickg]

The other thing is that I think, again from my limited perspective, that this court has a strong tendency to let the states shake out a lot of things for themselves.

I would tend to think that this is probably more likely. The SCOTUS doesn't take many 2A cases - Heller was a landmark and should really have set the tone for the future of gun ownership except for 2 things:

1.) Scalia conceded the licensing bit for DC.
2.) Scalia is no longer around to be able to say, "that's not what that means at all," when dipshits and libtards stretch what it says to parse out a different meaning to suit their purposes.

 

[esqappellate]

If there are not 5 solid votes to rule in favor of the 2A, I would rather see them do what they did. Denying cert is not the same as taking the case and deciding in favor of CT (even though the media likes to play it up as being the same thing - SCOTUS rules even go so far as to advise the circuits that denial of cert is a non-precedent setting action). The latter creates binding precedent that applies to all circuits. Denying cert only applies to the 2CA. If they had accepted cert and the case had fallen to a tie vote, the ruling in 2CA would stand AND binding national precedent gets created.[/QUOTE]

The last part (in bold) is incorrect. A 4-4 tie leaves the lower court decision standing, but does NOT create binding SCT precedent, one way or the other. See, e.g., Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 192 (1972).

 

[MJD438]

If there are not 5 solid votes to rule in favor of the 2A, I would rather see them do what they did. Denying cert is not the same as taking the case and deciding in favor of CT (even though the media likes to play it up as being the same thing - SCOTUS rules even go so far as to advise the circuits that denial of cert is a non-precedent setting action). The latter creates binding precedent that applies to all circuits. Denying cert only applies to the 2CA. If they had accepted cert and the case had fallen to a tie vote, the ruling in 2CA would stand AND binding national precedent gets created.

The last part (in bold) is incorrect. A 4-4 tie leaves the lower court decision standing, but does NOT create binding SCT precedent, one way or the other. See, e.g., Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 192 (1972).

Thanks for the correction! Glad to learn that.

 

[press1280]

That's also part of what's confusing me. From my simple view, it appears we've had some interesting cases that could make a difference but I guess the court does not think so.

The other thing is that I think, again from my limited perspective, that this court has a strong tendency to let the states shake out a lot of things for themselves.

The court shouldn't be viewed as taking cases to correct what they view as mistakes. Their function has become to resolve lower court splits, on some rare occasions like Caetano where the lower court goes off the rails they will intervene. Very rare cases come along where there's no split but the issue is just a one of a kind all important one like Bush v gore. I think 80 or 90 percent of the cases they hear involve a split among the lower courts.

 

[DanGuy48]

The court shouldn't be viewed as taking cases to correct what they view as mistakes. Their function has become to resolve lower court splits, on some rare occasions like Caetano where the lower court goes off the rails they will intervene. Very rare cases come along where there's no split but the issue is just a one of a kind all important one like Bush v gore. I think 80 or 90 percent of the cases they hear involve a split among the lower courts.

That's probably true, and a good point. However it does allow for a play pen for the lower courts to run amok, sort of like what we've been seeing.

 

[press1280]

That's probably true, and a good point. However it does allow for a play pen for the lower courts to run amok, sort of like what we've been seeing.

I think for most other cases the lower courts generally follow SCOTUS but the 2A has been put in a class all by itself and has gotten lip service almost every case.

 

[lonzo]

this is why quite a few states have signed up to do a constitutional convention, because SCOTUS has run amok...

 

[dblas]

this is why quite a few states have signed up to do a constitutional convention, because SCOTUS has run amok...

Including Maryland

 

[Decoy]

this is why quite a few states have signed up to do a constitutional convention, because SCOTUS has run amok...

Won't work, they will just stack the delegates against us.

 

[Brooklyn]

Won't work, they will just stack the delegates against us.

They cant.. and even if they could... the rules of ratification remain the same

Having a,few states with real assets offer to opt out of the union will get attention.

 

[JPG]

Including Maryland

What states have voted to do an Article 5 convention of states? I assume the governors would have to sign the law to move forward.

 

[Brooklyn]

What states have voted to do an Article 5 convention of states? I assume the governors would have to sign the law to move forward.

Not absolutely sure...but I think it's only up to the legislature of the several states..

The Governor does not get a direct say..


For info

http://www.conventionofstates.com

 

[Elliotte]

Not absolutely sure...but I think it's only up to the legislature of the several states..

The Governor does not get a direct say..


For info

http://www.conventionofstates.com

More specifically http://www.conventionofstates.com/how_do_the_state_legislatures_call_a_convention_of_states This is based on historical analysis of the writings and discussions of the founding fathers and the debates over the forming and writing of the US Constitution.