NRA CHALLENGES CONSTITUTIONALITY OF FED. HANDGUN BAN FOR LAW ABIDING 18-20 YEAR OLDS

[Boxcab]

Ouch.

 

[Kharn]

Well, there's technically no split (yet), and I'd rather them take Drake or even Peruta (if it's appealed) which are may issue cases.

There is a split, abiet slight, in Lane and BATFe, Lane held the citizen did not have standing to sue, while BATFe found they did,

 

[T'Challa]

There is a split, abiet slight, in Lane and BATFe, Lane held the citizen did not have standing to sue, while BATFe found they did,

These cases were never going to be granted Cert. SCOTUS will not touch any gun case where a state has limited a right. So long as there is no outright ban on 2A, the SCOTUS will not take a case. You can have a split in the Circuit Courts all day long and no case is going to be granted cert. So long as a state issues permits in some way, they are going to be deemed constitutional. The SCOTUS will not in this lifetime answer the question "Does the 2nd Amendment apply to outside of the home?" They believe it does because but they also believe that State's rights can limit the 2nd.

 

[ConservativeNYer]

These cases were never going to be granted Cert. SCOTUS will not touch any gun case where a state has limited a right. So long as there is no outright ban on 2A, the SCOTUS will not take a case. You can have a split in the Circuit Courts all day long and no case is going to be granted cert. So long as a state issues permits in some way, they are going to be deemed constitutional. The SCOTUS will not in this lifetime answer the question "Does the 2nd Amendment apply to outside of the home?" They believe it does because but they also believe that State's rights can limit the 2nd.

This.

 

[esqappellate]

These cases were never going to be granted Cert. SCOTUS will not touch any gun case where a state has limited a right. So long as there is no outright ban on 2A, the SCOTUS will not take a case. You can have a split in the Circuit Courts all day long and no case is going to be granted cert. So long as a state issues permits in some way, they are going to be deemed constitutional. The SCOTUS will not in this lifetime answer the question "Does the 2nd Amendment apply to outside of the home?" They believe it does because but they also believe that State's rights can limit the 2nd.

Never is a long time. I agree that the Court has displayed a great reluctance to grant cert where a state or federal statute has been sustained. That will change where a statute has been struck down as unconstitutiional and the federal government or a state is petitioning. Everyone knows that of course, so there is a reluctance among the defendants to seek cert. so as to avoid the Court. There was much criticism against DC taking up Heller for that reason. Illinois really didn't want to seek cert in Moore/Shepard and it looks like SD doesn't want Peruta in the SCT either. This split won't last forever. There is too much energy on both sides and the Court won't forever let half the population live under a different 2A than the other half. They just don't do that to constitutional law.

There is a chance that Peruta will be final by the end of March. Drake doesn't go to conference until mid April. If Peruta is final (no en banc sought or voted down if a vote is requested sua sponte), then the split presented by Drake is completely unavoidable. Let's see what happens to Drake in those circumstances. If Peruta isn't final by mid April, then cert will be denied in Drake, in all probability. In the meantime, O'Scannlain will sit on Richards and Baker until he sees whether en banc is granted in Peruta. Peruta is thus a test case for the 9th Circuit. He is a very smart judge.

 

[ConservativeNYer]

Never is a long time. I agree that the Court has displayed a great reluctance to grant cert where a state or federal statute has been sustained. That will change where a statute has been struck down as unconstitutiional and the federal government or a state is petitioning. Everyone knows that of course, so there is a reluctance among the defendants to seek cert. so as to avoid the Court. There was much criticism against DC taking up Heller for that reason. Illinois really didn't want to seek cert in Moore/Shepard and it looks like SD doesn't want Peruta in the SCT either. This split won't last forever. There is too much energy on both sides and the Court won't forever let half the population live under a different 2A than the other half. They just don't do that to constitutional law.

There is a chance that Peruta will be final by the end of March. Drake doesn't go to conference until mid April. If Peruta is final (no en banc sought or voted down if a vote is requested sua sponte), then the split presented by Drake is completely unavoidable. Let's see what happens to Drake in those circumstances. If Peruta isn't final by mid April, then cert will be denied in Drake, in all probability. In the meantime, O'Scannlain will sit on Richards and Baker until he sees whether en banc is granted in Peruta. Peruta is thus a test case for the 9th Circuit. He is a very smart judge.

Which means that if Peruta is later finalized, the only way to create a "new" split would be to bring another challenge in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Circuits. Of course they will end up with the same result.

 

[ryan_j]

Which means that if Peruta is later finalized, the only way to create a "new" split would be to bring another challenge in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Circuits. Of course they will end up with the same result.

Not necessarily. It could also be a challenge via the state courts of last resort. It just so happens that another NJ case, Pantano, is in the pipeline and should be argued before the NJ Supreme Court around June sometime.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1623921.html

 

[wolfwood]

Which means that if Peruta is later finalized, the only way to create a "new" split would be to bring another challenge in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Circuits. Of course they will end up with the same result.

Since SAF screwed up with the plaintiff in Hightower they are already doing a case in the first. Then there is Palmer and the New Jersey State case

 

[esqappellate]

Which means that if Peruta is later finalized, the only way to create a "new" split would be to bring another challenge in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Circuits. Of course they will end up with the same result.

No, not really. O'Scannlain will decide Baker and Richards after Peruta becomes final. Baker has real potential, as it basically extends to the entire state of Hawaii. Not sure that Hawaii could resist seeking cert., given how anti that state is. DC is another future candidate if the dct ever decides Palmer. DC is the only jurisdiction in the Union that still imposes a de jure ban on outside the home (no permitting system at all). The D.C. Circuit heard argument in Dearth II and then specifically sought supplemental briefing on whether the right extends outside the home, thereby signaling that they may decide that question in Dearth. That's a federal statute at issue and if it is struck down, even in part, then the SG will be under considerable pressure to defend a federal statute by seeking cert from that decision. Sooner or later a case could also emerge from another case in which the issue is presented. You just don't know. Honestly, I thought that the NRA just bit off more than the courts were willing chew with McCraw and BAFT on the 18-20 year olds. Winning is important. You have got to pick your cases. Go for singles and doubles, not home runs.

 

[ConservativeNYer]

No, not really. O'Scannlain will decide Baker and Richards after Peruta becomes final. Baker has real potential, as it basically extends to the entire state of Hawaii. Not sure that Hawaii could resist seeking cert., given how anti that state is. DC is another future candidate if the dct ever decides Palmer. DC is the only jurisdiction in the Union that still imposes a de jure ban on outside the home (no permitting system at all). The D.C. Circuit heard argument in Dearth II and then specifically sought supplemental briefing on whether the right extends outside the home, thereby signaling that they may decide that question in Dearth. That's a federal statute at issue and if it is struck down, even in part, then the SG will be under considerable pressure to defend a federal statute by seeking cert from that decision. Sooner or later a case could also emerge from another case in which the issue is presented. You just don't know. Honestly, I thought that the NRA just bit off more than the courts were willing chew with McCraw and BAFT on the 18-20 year olds. Winning is important. You have got to pick your cases. Go for singles and doubles, not home runs.

Interesting. Thanks. I haven't followed Dearth at all. Honestly, the fact that the Republicans had a supermajority + Presidency from 2000-2006 and didn't completely eliminate D.C.'s gun laws nor impose carry reciprocity says to me that they are not really on our side.

 

[jrosenberger]

Which means that if Peruta is later finalized, the only way to create a "new" split would be to bring another challenge in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Circuits. Of course they will end up with the same result.

Don't forget Palmer, languishing in the DC district court for 5 years. If Drake is denied and none of the CA9 cases go up, that's my bet. Also there's the case awaiting decision in the MA district court that was filed after CA1 dodged the real 2A issues in Hightower.

 

[esqappellate]

Interesting. Thanks. I haven't followed Dearth at all. Honestly, the fact that the Republicans had a supermajority + Presidency from 2000-2006 and didn't completely eliminate D.C.'s gun laws nor impose carry reciprocity says to me that they are not really on our side.

Let's face it, the 2A is important to us, but the rest of the body politic just doesn't care that much, republicans included. Republicans and Democrats will do what they need to do to get elected and reelected in their districts. None of them will lose an election because they didn't change DC's gun laws.

 

[redeemed.man]

Interesting. Thanks. I haven't followed Dearth at all. Honestly, the fact that the Republicans had a supermajority + Presidency from 2000-2006 and didn't completely eliminate D.C.'s gun laws nor impose carry reciprocity says to me that they are not really on our side.

They are on our side except when it is too close to home. They didn't want the same idiots that voted Marion Barry into office time and time again to be able to carry or even own guns in the city they work in everyday. It is truly amazing that the Fed. Govt. still pushes strict gun control in Federal areas/territories as if the 2A doesn't apply to the Fed. If anything the Federal territories should be a bastion of freedom.

 

[ConservativeNYer]

Let's face it, the 2A is important to us, but the rest of the body politic just doesn't care that much, republicans included. Republicans and Democrats will do what they need to do to get elected and reelected in their districts. None of them will lose an election because they didn't change DC's gun laws.

Yes. And the pro-gun people in the conservative states don't really care that their breathen trapped in the commie parts of America get screwed on a regular basis. If they did, they would have done something about it years ago.

 

[ConservativeNYer]

They are on our side except when it is too close to home. They didn't want the same idiots that voted Marion Barry into office time and time again to be able to carry or even own guns in the city they work in everyday. It is truly amazing that the Fed. Govt. still pushes strict gun control in Federal areas/territories as if the 2A doesn't apply to the Fed. If anything the Federal territories should be a bastion of freedom.

I don't think it's that, as most of those people would be disqualified from voting as felons. I think it's that they just don't care.

 

[ConservativeNYer]

Let's face it, the 2A is important to us, but the rest of the body politic just doesn't care that much, republicans included. Republicans and Democrats will do what they need to do to get elected and reelected in their districts. None of them will lose an election because they didn't change DC's gun laws.

I like to think I'm doing my part. I wrote Christie to tell him that unless Brian Aitken gets a full and complete pardon, I won't support him for school board, much less the Presidency.

 

[esqappellate]

Yes. And the pro-gun people in the conservative states don't really care that their breathen trapped in the commie parts of America get screwed on a regular basis. If they did, they would have done something about it years ago.

Not sure that is completely fair. People in the shall issue states don't vote in may issue states and their representatives don't represent the people in may issue states. Apart from supporting litigation, via the NRA, there isn't a lot these folks can do. We have gotten some good results from federal laws, e.g., carry on federal lands if you have a state permit. The House just passed the Share Act that is good. A step at a time. You have got to change the political climate. Take a look at the MSI chart on change of states permitting CCW. This is huge.

 

[Gray Peterson]

esqappellate, given that San Diego and Sheriff Gore is not appealing, what is the real chances of a call by a judge to go en banc (which would require a vote)? I've heard of situations where neither side asked for en banc but the government won and then there was a call for a vote. I haven't heard of it where the plaintiff wins, the government throws in the towel, and then a judge calls for it. Isn't there a lot of weight against something like that due to attorneys fees concerns, if the government isn't willing to fight a negative case against it then why should the court's time be wasted?

 

[ConservativeNYer]

Not sure that is completely fair. People in the shall issue states don't vote in may issue states and their representatives don't represent the people in may issue states. Apart from supporting litigation, via the NRA, there isn't a lot these folks can do. We have gotten some good results from federal laws, e.g., carry on federal lands if you have a state permit. The House just passed the Share Act that is good. A step at a time. You have got to change the political climate. Take a look at the MSI chart on change of states permitting CCW. This is huge.

I don't agree. Congress could easily pass a law (either under the nebulous "Commerce Clause" connection or as a 14th Amendment, Section 5 enforcement that would completely preempt all state and local firearms laws. Look at the way liberals in the blue states fight to the death to make sure that liberals in red states can get abortions or gay marriages. Gun rights supporters in red states should be doing the same.

 

[redeemed.man]

I don't agree. Congress could easily pass a law (either under the nebulous "Commerce Clause" connection or as a 14th Amendment, Section 5 enforcement that would completely preempt all state and local firearms laws. Look at the way liberals in the blue states fight to the death to make sure that liberals in red states can get abortions or gay marriages. Gun rights supporters in red states should be doing the same.

This is a great observation and very true.