SAF files for cert in Drake (NJ may-issue)

[Kharn]

If they deny Drake and McCraw, I suspect they're doing so because the 9th has not weighed in with Peruta, etc.

 

[Elliotte]

Sorry for the people that can't view my Scibd account but this is Madison's and CATO's amicus brief for Drake.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/206565379/Drake-Brief

Welp, someone's trying to push buttons here with this amicus brief.

ARGUMENT
THIS COURT MUST START CLARIFYING THE SCOPE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT BECAUSE THE LOWER COURTS ARE HOPELESSLY CONFUSED—MANY ACT AS IF HELLER NEVER HAPPENED—AND THIS CASE PRESENTS AN EXCELLENT VEHICLE FOR DOING SO

Now to read the rest

 

[ryan_j]

Sorry for the people that can't view my Scibd account but this is Madison's and CATO's amicus brief for Drake.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/206565379/Drake-Brief

Is that a serious brief? They used comic sans???

 

[Kharn]

Is that a serious brief? They used comic sans???

That, plus the alternate question presented, do raise some eyebrows...

 

[fightinbluhen51]

HOLY SHEET! Is that an alternate question in an amaci? WTF?!!? That cannot be real. Is it?

 

[ryan_j]

It almost looks like a spoof.

 

[wolfwood]

the formatting gets altered sometimes when I upload to that site. Its a real brief. If someone has another place to host it I can send the original word doc from the Madison Society's email over.

edit I saved it as a pdf and uploaded the file again
There should be no issues with viewing it on this link.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/206767763/Drake-Brief

 

[fightinbluhen51]

the formatting gets altered sometimes when I upload to that site. Its a real brief. If someone has another place to host it I can send the original word doc from the Madison Society's email over.

Just noted that this is a Cato brief...awesome! Bout time someone called these black robed punks to task.

 

[kcbrown]

If they deny Drake and McCraw, I suspect they're doing so because the 9th has not weighed in with Peruta, etc.

That excuse is getting thinner by the case.

SCOTUS didn't deny cert to Heller for McDonald, nor deny cert to McDonald for Doe v SF Housing Authority, nor deny numerous cases that followed up Brown v Board of Education just so that all the lower courts could "weigh in".

Quite clearly, the Court is, with respect to enumerated Constitutional rights, quite capable of taking on enumerated rights cases without the lower courts' "guidance".


So what'll it be if/when SCOTUS denies cert to Peruta and Richards? That it's waiting for Bonidy?


No, each such case that it denies cert to is part of the ever growing evidence that it is has no intention of upholding carry in public as a right.

 

[Kharn]

That excuse is getting thinner by the case.

SCOTUS didn't deny cert to Heller for McDonald, nor deny cert to McDonald for Doe v SF Housing Authority, nor deny numerous cases that followed up Brown v Board of Education just so that all the lower courts could "weigh in".

Quite clearly, the Court is, with respect to enumerated Constitutional rights, quite capable of taking on enumerated rights cases without the lower courts' "guidance".


So what'll it be if/when SCOTUS denies cert to Peruta and Richards? That it's waiting for Bonidy?


No, each such case that it denies cert to is part of the ever growing evidence that it is has no intention of upholding carry in public as a right.

DC was the only population directly under federal supervision that banned handguns, and Chicago was the largest of a handful of non-federal enclaves. Every state has carry laws, and 1-4 and 9th circuits each have at least one may-issue state.

We've heard from the 1st (Hightower), 2nd (Kachalsky), 3rd (Drake) and 4th (Woollard), but not the 9th. It is when the Supreme Court denies cert in Peruta, etc, that we should be worried. Until then, the Justices are just letting the case law develop.

 

[kcbrown]

DC was the only population directly under federal supervision that banned handguns

That's true, and one can probably make a solid argument that the right had to be established in a federal context prior to anything else. However, that only takes Heller out of my argument, but not anything else.

, and Chicago was the largest of a handful of non-federal enclaves.

And yet, the existence of those other non-federal enclaves was not sufficient to keep SCOTUS from taking on McDonald. However, it appears that Doe was settled in early 2009, so it may be that there wasn't anything left pending at the point McDonald was granted cert.

Every state has carry laws, and 1-4 and 9th circuits each have at least one may-issue state.

We've heard from the 1st (Hightower), 2nd (Kachalsky), 3rd (Drake) and 4th (Woollard), but not the 9th. It is when the Supreme Court denies cert in Peruta, etc, that we should be worried. Until then, the Justices are just letting the case law develop.

Maybe. But as I said, that did not appear to be how the Court behaved with respect to the development of case law during the civil rights movement. Nor does it appear to be how it has behaved with respect to development of other civil rights.

No, what SCOTUS is doing here appears, as regards development of fundamental rights, to be unusual. I see nothing indicating that the same handling was given to, for instance, the abortion issue post-Roe, and that is with respect to an issue that doesn't even have a direct provision in the Constitution. And the same is most certainly true of the Court's handling of minority civil rights.

As such, given what I've seen of the history of the Court, the repeated refusal of the Court to consider the issue of carry in public must be considered evidence that the Court has no intention of addressing the issue at all.


While there is some chance that your view of things is correct, I'm forced by the evidence to conclude that said chance is slim at best.

 

[wolfwood]

That excuse is getting thinner by the case.

SCOTUS didn't deny cert to Heller for McDonald, nor deny cert to McDonald for Doe v SF Housing Authority, nor deny numerous cases that followed up Brown v Board of Education just so that all the lower courts could "weigh in".

Quite clearly, the Court is, with respect to enumerated Constitutional rights, quite capable of taking on enumerated rights cases without the lower courts' "guidance".


So what'll it be if/when SCOTUS denies cert to Peruta and Richards? That it's waiting for Bonidy?


No, each such case that it denies cert to is part of the ever growing evidence that it is has no intention of upholding carry in public as a right.

Heller involved a large Circuit split between the Circuit's as to whether the collective rights or individual rights theory was correct.

McDonald was predictable as incorporation is fairly obvious in light of the other amendments but needed to be ruled on. Moreover a law was overturned which highly increases the chances of a writ being granted.

This is the real problem. The natural result of 150 years of chipping away at federalism via expanding the scope of the 14th amendment and the commerce clause has made it so that cities will have less autonomy in deciding weapons rights than at 1791. Accordingly left wing academics who have spent careers regaling the virtues of legal realism and are delighted when a small town has to take down a monument or stop a long held tradition are reminding us of the role of federalism in our nation.

So does the Court tell San Fran and New York City that they have to be exactly like Salt Lake or does it wait until it can issue a ruling than narrowly expands the right outside the home but not in a manner which forces San Fran to be constitutional carry.

I think Pertua and Richards both make good vehicles for the Supreme Court because they both made facial challenges and both made as applied challenges. The as applied challenges give the Court a lot more leeway to issue a narrow ruling and since neither party filed a properly filled out notice of uncon the Court can avoid the facial aspect .

Then there is that third appeal by those Hawaii guys.

Is anyone really buying the Supreme Court is looking to strike down Texas's restrictive gun laws or admonish those activist judges at the Fifth circuit. Especially when the only plaintiff left is the NRA due to all other clients turning 21.

 

[Kharn]

Then there is that third case. Is anyone really buying the Supreme Court is looking to strike down Texas's restrictive gun laws or admonish those activist judges at the Fifth circuit. Especially when the only plaintiff left is the NRA due to all other clients turning 21.

Don't forget, Roe's child was born long before the Supreme Court even granted cert in Roe v Wade.

 

[wolfwood]

That doctrine is really more for appellate review and is construed pretty narrowly for that purpose. Ninth months is a bit different than 3 years because you can as did the plaintiffs get to the Fifth in three years. I 'm not saying that it can't be applied but the fact the NRA has throughout the case kept adding new 18 year olds suggests they think its a bit of a stretch as well. It was after they lost at the Fifth and was asking for cert that they tried and was not allowed to add the next 18 year old in the series.

Also the NRA should gotten 18-20 years olds certified as a class so they would not have to worry about this but that's just me

 

[kcbrown]

I think Pertua and Richards both make good vehicles for the Supreme Court because they both made facial challenges and both made as applied challenges. The as applied challenges give the Court a lot more leeway to issue a narrow ruling and since neither party filed a properly filled out notice of uncon the Court can avoid the facial aspect .

But is not the same true of Woollard or Kachalsky? Most certainly, the same is true of Williams and Masciandaro (they were criminal cases. It doesn't get more "as applied" than that!), no?

It seems there is some lame excuse for every cert denial. The case was a criminal case. The case was only about concealed carry. The case was only about a permit. The case was too narrow. The case was too broad. There isn't enough development at the lower courts. On and on.

No, as far as I know, no other fundamental right has been treated by the Court in this fashion. For instance, did the Court wait for the entirety of the country to chime in on the question of freedom of the press before deciding Near v Minnesota? I see no evidence that it did.


I'm sorry, but the evidence before me compels me to conclude that the Supreme Court's continual refusal to hear carry cases is prima facie evidence that it has no intention of addressing carry. I will happily start a thread in which I proclaim to all how wrong I was if, in fact, the Court winds up taking a carry case while it retains its current composition (a change of composition can yield a substantial change in the Court's approach, though I expect that a change in our favor is more likely to result in a grant of cert to a carry case than would be a change against us, and a change against us is far more likely than a change in our favor).

Then there is that third case. Is anyone really buying the Supreme Court is looking to strike down Texas's restrictive gun laws or admonish those activist judges at the Fifth circuit. Especially when the only plaintiff left is the NRA due to all other clients turning 21.

If the Court is interested in addressing the age issue, it can do so via BATF. I expect it to deny cert to McCraw for the same reasons it has denied cert to all other carry cases.

 

[wolfwood]

Kachalsky was not a as applied case. I don't mean as applied in the normal sense i mean as the carry law is applied by the issuing municipality. That is why the Second was able to discuss the law in its most general form and defend the law based on how it is applied in all the rural parts of New York. Also the plaintiffs did not give any reason not even self defense for why they wanted permits. Kachlasky came out right before oral arguments for baker at the ninth so i remember it better than the others since I had to prep my friend that argued.

I don't remember woolard as well but I each one of these cases has been better done than the last. Remember Hightower did not even reach any of the core merits since SAF failed to vet their client properly and it turns out she lied repeatedly through the application process.

I think the Supreme Court says fine we'll take Peruta and Richards and we'll be better off for the wait because Gura is a much better attorney due to this adversity and he has Don kilmer in the Ninth to be his new Clark Nelly.

 

[kcbrown]

bbblaw is applied in all the rural parts of New York. Also the plaintiffs did not give any reason not even self defense for why they wanted permits. Kachlasky came out right before oral arguments for baker at the ninth so i remember it better than the others since I had to prep my friend that argued.

I don't remember woolard as well but I each one of these cases has been better done than the last. Remember Hightower did not even reach any of the core merits since SAF failed to vet their client properly and it turns out she lied repeatedly through the application process.

I think the Supreme Court says fine we'll take Peruta and Richards and we'll be better off for the wait because Gura is a much better attorney due to this adversity and he has Don kilmer in the Ninth to be his new Clark Nelly.

That's possible, of course, and I will be ecstatic if that turns out to be the case. But unless there has been a substantial improvement in the arguments brought forth (and even in the presence of such improvements), I have little reason to believe that SCOTUS will grant cert just because of that, particularly since I've seen no substantial difference in the arguments brought forth or in the laws challenged.

I hold out hope, but I regard my hope as a fool's hope. My expectations and my hopes are cleanly separated, as they must be, since my expectations are based strictly on logic applied to real-world evidence, while my hopes are based on what I wish to see happen.

 

[adit]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ght-against-new-jersey-concealed-weapons-law/

Wyoming and 18 others join in.

 

[Gryphon]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ght-against-new-jersey-concealed-weapons-law/

Wyoming and 18 others join in.

Makes me "want" to relocate to Wyoming, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota or West Virginia where the government works to protects its citizens rights and not trample on them like Merrylandistan. But I'm not going anywhere - yet. I have vested interest in slaying the tyrant(s).

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Notice what state is absent from that list now that Fast Terry is gov....oh that's right Virginia.

Gotta love the inept GOP.