Malpasso v Pallozzi SCOTUS Cert Petition Filed

[dblas]

They used to offer immediate processing for those that appeared in person at the Licensing Division who met a heightened criteria. It had to be an extreme need (like you just became the state's star witness against the mob on live tv), but you'd leave with a temporary permit that day for use until your real permit was processed. If you didn't qualify for the temporary permit, they just took your application and added it to the pile.

They also processed any police officer who appeared at the building under the same timeline, but they always left with the temporary permit.

I'm not sure if those pathways are still offered, they were the policy in 2004ish.

They are indeed still available, however, before they hand you your W&C permit, you need to submit training. There are several members on here that have received a W&C permit in less than a week, based on immediate need.

 

[xKtF]

I looked through the last few pages and didn't see anything on this. Can someone tell me once Malpasso v Pallozzi goes to conference on the 10th how long does it usually take for a decision or what happens after conference?

 

[danb]

I dont think its accurate that its scheduled for conference on the 10th. The docket does not reflect that its been distributed at all. Worman v. Healey has been distributed for 1/10, so has Guedes v. BATFE, but not this one.... or at least it does not say so on the docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-423.html

 

[jcutonilli]

I looked through the last few pages and didn't see anything on this. Can someone tell me once Malpasso v Pallozzi goes to conference on the 10th how long does it usually take for a decision or what happens after conference?

I dont think its accurate that its scheduled for conference on the 10th. The docket does not reflect that its been distributed at all. Worman v. Healey has been distributed for 1/10, so has Guedes v. BATFE, but not this one.... or at least it does not say so on the docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-423.html

It is not scheduled for conference yet. When it does, the docket will be updated. They typically wait at least two weeks to give the petitioner a chance to submit a reply brief. According to https://www.scotusblog.com/reference/educational-resources/supreme-court-procedure/ there is no specific deadline for filing a reply brief.

The Monday morning after the conference is typically when the orders come out. These orders determine whether cert was granted or denied for that conference. Any relists usually happen the Monday before the conference. For example we will likely find out on Monday the 13th what has happened to Worman v Healy. They have been holding many of the 2A cases this term so the docket file will not list any additional conference dates. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-824.html is an example where the last conference date was 23 May 2019.

 

[danb]

It is not scheduled for conference yet. When it does, the docket will be updated. They typically wait at least two weeks to give the petitioner a chance to submit a reply brief. According to https://www.scotusblog.com/reference/educational-resources/supreme-court-procedure/ there is no specific deadline for filing a reply brief.

A few sites that track these cases are reporting that its scheduled 1/10 (including MSI I think). I am not sure where they got this. While I do not think its accurate, there have been some times when the docket info on the SCOTUS website was incorrect and not updated.

 

[jcutonilli]

A few sites that track these cases are reporting that its scheduled 1/10 (including MSI I think). I am not sure where they got this. While I do not think its accurate, there have been some times when the docket info on the SCOTUS website was incorrect and not updated.

I would be more willing to accept the SCOTUS website as being correct. It is their website.

I suspect the other websites may just be making educated guesses based on the publicly available data. I seem to recall someone mentioning that one of the other websites listed one of the other 2A cases as being relisted. It turned out it was being held like many of the other 2A cases. You would be 99% correct to assume a case will be relisted if cert is not granted or denied, but they appear to be doing something unusual with many of these 2A cases.

Guessing that the 10th will be the conference date is certainly appropriate given the number of days since the BIO was filed. I am not sure they factored in the typical Christmas/New Years slowdown. We will likely find out more on Monday.

 

[BeoBill]

This is Maryland. You think they give two hoots and hollers about your personal safety? They specifically deny people their right to carry even with fairly high risk occupations unless they are the business owner.

And their loosening of the G&S to include TS holders in the Assumed Risk Pool is just a ploy to satisfy the legions of Federal workers in MD. There is NO outward sign to identify a TS holder as opposed to any other clearance holder or anyone else.

 

[teratos]

And their loosening of the G&S to include TS holders in the Assumed Risk Pool is just a ploy to satisfy the legions of Federal workers in MD. There is NO outward sign to identify a TS holder as opposed to any other clearance holder or anyone else.

Doctors are not an assumed risk profession....

 

[Allen65]

And their loosening of the G&S to include TS holders in the Assumed Risk Pool is just a ploy to satisfy the legions of Federal workers in MD. There is NO outward sign to identify a TS holder as opposed to any other clearance holder or anyone else.

It doesn't really help Federal workers that much because many SSOs view the info that MSP is asking for as being For Official Use Only, and MSP use is not official FedGov use, especially for a personal CCW permit.

Contractors with clearances seem to be having better luck with contractors' security officers.

 

[Kharn]

Doctors are not an assumed risk profession....

Neither are the TS clearance holders, they're being processed as "personal protection..."

 

[teratos]

Neither are the TS clearance holders, they're being processed as "personal protection..."

LOL. Doctors can’t do that either....

 

[danb]

LOL. Doctors can’t do that either....

Yeah but if someone tries to rob you, you stab them with a needle with 4mg of fentanyl. Obviously you dont need a gun

 

[teratos]

Yeah but if someone tries to rob you, you stab them with a needle with 4mg of fentanyl. Obviously you dont need a gun

LOL. There’s the rub. If someone points a gun at me, I WILL call them in fentanyl using my iPhone. It’s possible. Then they’ll shoot me.

 

[BeoBill]

Yup, the whole system is cockeyed.

And as far as contractor FSOs providing clearance info, an FSO has a correspondence training course they CAN take (yes, I did and have the certificate) that gives them "the basics", but there's no real pressure to take or complete it. Who can get clearance info is not really well covered. Obviously, the MSP is not one that can, but you're typically not dealing with the sharpest knife in the drawer for an FSO or SSA...

 

[danb]

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2020.

Reply of Brian Kirk Malpasso, et al. submitted.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-423.html

 

[teratos]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-423.html

Good read. Thanks for posting.

 

[rbird7282]

For us simple folk, what does this mean now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Occam]

For us simple folk, what does this mean now?

It means we now wait to see if they grant cert during their next conference. 3% change, roughly two weeks.

 

[motorcoachdoug]

It does make for good reading. Not in so many words but basically they called the response by MSP and Herr Frosh Lie rs and trying to mislead the SCOTUS as well. One thing the court does not like at all is being mislead and Lied to as well. We have NYC to thank for that. Once again Herr Frosh and boomburg plus company try to mislead and outright lie to SCOTUS.

 

[danb]

The simple answer: this means 2 weeks, plus 3%. That and 6% antimony wont even get a cup of coffee at Starbucks, so we will have to wait and see. Best guess, this gets held until we see what NYSRPA looks like.

Still a good read. They did a pretty good job demolishing the nonsense from Bloomberg lackeys.