En banc Decision in Peruta -- a loss

[ironpony]

Carry definition expanding?
I believe this is the thread mentioning forms of carry so ... I just saw the article showing a man was arrested and charged with carrying a weapon without a license while he was asleep in his hotel room, gun was in his car outside! Possible future SC case? sorry, didn't want to start a separate thread on this and it may be of interest/related?

Link

 

[redeemed.man]

Carry definition expanding?
I believe this is the thread mentioning forms of carry so ... I just saw the article showing a man was arrested and charged with carrying a weapon without a license while he was asleep in his hotel room, gun was in his car outside! Possible future SC case? sorry, didn't want to start a separate thread on this and it may be of interest/related?

Link

Doubtful. He will almost certainly take a plea bargain to avoid prison. Can't appeal what you agree to...

 

[GlocksAndPatriots]

Carry definition expanding?
I believe this is the thread mentioning forms of carry so ... I just saw the article showing a man was arrested and charged with carrying a weapon without a license while he was asleep in his hotel room, gun was in his car outside! Possible future SC case? sorry, didn't want to start a separate thread on this and it may be of interest/related?

Link

In D.C., you need a permit just to possess.

 

[HaveBlue]

Yeah this isn't related to Peruta. I started a new thread for this.

 

[777GSOTB]

In D.C., you need a permit just to possess.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER, 554 U.S. 570, (2008)

"Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not “have a problem with . . . licensing” and that the District’s law is permissible so long as it is “not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75. We therefore assume that petitioners’ issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement."

 

[press1280]

This has been posted before but I figured still relevant with the number of relists of Peruta: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/10/the-statistics-of-relists-redux-october-term-2015/

Our chances of this being granted and heard by SCOTUS are dwindling. Chances of granting via summary disposition (GVR for example) or a denial with a written dissent/concurrence also go up. But I just don't see a summary disposition scenario.

 

[pcfixer]

This has been posted before but I figured still relevant with the number of relists of Peruta: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/10/the-statistics-of-relists-redux-october-term-2015/

Our chances of this being granted and heard by SCOTUS are dwindling. Chances of granting via summary disposition (GVR for example) or a denial with a written dissent/concurrence also go up. But I just don't see a summary disposition scenario.

yep. With 5 'rescheduled' and 9 "DISTRIBUTED for Conference".

 

[motorcoachdoug]

I would not be surprised if they place this on hold and wait for the case from the Florida State Court that is at odds with the fed courts..

 

[HaveBlue]

This has been posted before but I figured still relevant with the number of relists of Peruta: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/10/the-statistics-of-relists-redux-october-term-2015/

Our chances of this being granted and heard by SCOTUS are dwindling. Chances of granting via summary disposition (GVR for example) or a denial with a written dissent/concurrence also go up. But I just don't see a summary disposition scenario.

Interesting article. I hadn't seen it before. I'm doubtful that statistics are good way if predicting outcomes if inherently unique events as court cases. ( if the stats pointed my way I might feel differently ). The observation that the re-lists could be used to allow time for the justices to produce a written result does sound reasonable.

The wildcard is Gorsuch's tenure. That data is from 2015. At that time Kagan had been on the bench for 5 years.

I admit to being irrationally optimistic which is why I don't buy stock or gamble often.

 

[press1280]

Interesting article. I hadn't seen it before. I'm doubtful that statistics are good way if predicting outcomes if inherently unique events as court cases. ( if the stats pointed my way I might feel differently ). The observation that the re-lists could be used to allow time for the justices to produce a written result does sound reasonable.

The wildcard is Gorsuch's tenure. That data is from 2015. At that time Kagan had been on the bench for 5 years.

I admit to being irrationally optimistic which is why I don't buy stock or gamble often.

I don't think things would change drastically from that term since almost all of these actions surveyed take more than 1 justice. As far as Gorsuch's impact the only thing I can gather is possibly cases get drawn out longer due to him not participating in the cert pool.

 

[pcfixer]

I don't think things would change drastically from that term since almost all of these actions surveyed take more than 1 justice. As far as Gorsuch's impact the only thing I can gather is possibly cases get drawn out longer due to him not participating in the cert pool.

Wow, I didn't know that little bit of information.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/gorsuch_joins_alito_in_breaking_with_this_arrangement

 

[krucam]

Nothing on Masterpiece Cakeshop, and nothing on Peruta v. California or Sessions v. Binderup in today's orders.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/060517zor_e18f.pdf

 

[esqappellate]

Nothing on Masterpiece Cakeshop, and nothing on Peruta v. California or Sessions v. Binderup in today's orders.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/060517zor_e18f.pdf

and the suspense builds....

 

[Inigoes]

16-402 "Carpenter v. US" is interesting:

Issue: Whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cell-phone records revealing the location and movements of a cell-phone user over the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment.

 

[krucam]

16-402 "Carpenter v. US" is interesting:

Issue: Whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cell-phone records revealing the location and movements of a cell-phone user over the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment.

Believe there's another one in limbo from CA4 on cell records...

 

[CrazySanMan]

16-402 "Carpenter v. US" is interesting:

Issue: Whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cell-phone records revealing the location and movements of a cell-phone user over the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment.

Believe there's another one in limbo from CA4 on cell records...

Speaking of 4th amendment cases, has the TSA ever gone to SCOTUS for violating the 4th amendment?

 

[danb]

The other thing that is interesting about Carpenter is that it was relisted 8 times (and also rescheduled once).

It clearly took a while to get to this. There are still a few in limbo of both historical and real-time cell site records.

 

[press1280]

Nothing on Masterpiece Cakeshop, and nothing on Peruta v. California or Sessions v. Binderup in today's orders.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/060517zor_e18f.pdf

Carpenter v. US got cert after 6 relists, and one of the NC redistricting cases got a per curiam. All other old relists it appears were relisted again

 

[krucam]

Carpenter v. US got cert after 6 relists, and one of the NC redistricting cases got a per curiam. All other old relists it appears were relisted again

Good to hear, many thought the amount of relists was surely an indication of writing a dissent from denial. This is still plausible, but not necessarily true. Stay tuned...

 

[danb]

Town of Chester v Laroe got decided today and it was unanimous.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-605_kjfl.pdf

A litigant seeking to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2)
must meet the requirements of Article III standing if the intervenor
wishes to pursue relief not requested by a plaintiff.

Sheriff Gore did not seek relief and declined to participate, and the 3-judge panel denied intervention by the State.

I am taking the longshot that Peruta gets vacated and remanded to reconsider the motion to intervene in light of Chester.

The Court of Appeals is to address on remand the question whether Laroe seeks different relief than Sherman.

Pretty clearly true in this case, since Gore did not seek any relief whatsoever....

Also, I know someone will say "but the parties waived it"... The Supreme Court can always consider at a procedural issue, and might, if only to protect procedural integrity of the process.