danb
dont be a dumbass
Tuesday is too early for either a per curiam or dissent from denial.
Can you foresee any way they could accept Binderup, and (assuming we win) GVR Peruta?If so, it probably won't be on Tuesday. Too soon. Maybe on the last order day of the Term. Binderup has a better chance of a grant on the SG's petition, but that has been relisted 3 times too. Tuesday may be interesting.
Can you foresee any way they could accept Binderup, and (assuming we win) GVR Peruta?
Or are the two cases so completely unrelated that a victory in Binderup cannot influence Peruta.
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
The most likely result is a cert denied in both cases with a written dissent from the denial in Peruta.
Is it correct that Peruta asks "Is there a right to carry in some manner?" and Norman asks, "Is the right Open Carry?"
If that's the case, it seems reasonable to think that Norman is the appeal more likely to be heard. Am I wrong?
Thank you, Press1280.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but since Peruta sought only a CCW, wouldn't the 9th CA en banc decision be reasonable: "There is no right to carry concealed"? Of course, because the right is Open Carry? If that's how SCOTUS sees it, then Peruta is toast.
If Open Carry is indeed the right, then it could be that Norman, offering an unambiguous approach to that issue, might be the one the Court has been waiting for, no?
Thank you, Press1280.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but since Peruta sought only a CCW, wouldn't the 9th CA en banc decision be reasonable: "There is no right to carry concealed"? Of course, because the right is Open Carry? If that's how SCOTUS sees it, then Peruta is toast.
If Open Carry is indeed the right, then it could be that Norman, offering an unambiguous approach to that issue, might be the one the Court has been waiting for, no?
The only reason why the Peruta en banc can be considered reasonable is that Peruta failed to challenge the historical ban on CCW. All we really know is that there has been a historical ban. What is unknown is whether that historical ban can be overturned due to changing circumstances. I believe you just need to argue the case correctly.
I think the right is to be able to carry in public, but the legislature has the right to determine whether it is open or CCW. I think Peruta argued the right correctly, but lost on a technicality. FL has CCW so it can ban open carry.
There are definitely negative societal implications to open carry. In todays society, some people get hysterical at the sight of a gun. The police get called and need to verify that this person is not a criminal. CCW tends to resolve the negative societal implications.
I'd agree with this too, for example, I've gotten into arguments with Nichols over CCW vs. OC. He maintains the court should view the right as identical to how it was in Chandler & Nunn (CC ban, OC allowed). I would maintain that the courts in those days did no analysis over why CC was banned. It was simply a "given" that hiding a weapon meant your intentions were nefarious. We now know with a ton of statistics that millions carry concealed with no ill affects to society. There's also considerations for how someone dresses (OC during extreme cold is not easy), not part of the discussion in the mid 1800's. Someone covering up with a coat does not make them all of a sudden any more dangerous than if open carrying.
It's also worth pointing out the very first CCW case (based on the KY RKBA) was Bliss v. Commonwealth in 1822 which ruled concealed carry was protected. Granted it did not mention the 2A specifically, but I can't see anything that would point to the KY RKBA being so divorced from the 2A that the judges would think CC could be banned under the 2A either. From that point on a number of state constitutions were amended to specifically exclude concealed carrying. Seems odd to change the constitution to specifically exclude something but maintain it wasn't there before!
Then I wonder if they are going to hold it over until the Florida case is before them and combine them or someone a per curium or only the supreme know what is going on.... IMO This is getting to be very interesting since their are no orders or anything yet on this case...
The en banc panel, twisted the argument into CC v. OC.
There are still a lot of cases open (53?) from the May 25th conference, and many like Graham v. United States (cell site 4th amendment case) and Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (cakes for same-sex weddings) have been relisted and rescheduled multiple times.
We are not getting dissents from denial of cert in all these still-open cases from 25th conference, and it's highly unlikely we are getting a PC opinion in a case like Graham v. United States or Masterpiece Cakeshop.
Best explanation is a bottleneck, and the court is carefully weighing each case.
Pertua let them do this because they did not address the historical ban on CC. The court cannot grant something that historically does not exist (according to Heller).
Don't you think it also may be due to the plaintiffs not asking for the OC ban to be overturned?