SCOTUS Cert filed: Schrader, et al v. Holder, et al - Page 3

press1280 · July 6, 2013, 09:16 PM

Another well written petition by Gura. Could this be the 2A low hanging fruit that SCOTUS is looking for?

hermannr · July 6, 2013, 11:29 PM

And the total of this thread shows why there should be no, none, zero person that are not in custody that should be "prohibited".

To deny any person the right to bear arms in his/her own personal self defense basically states that the prohibited person's life is less valuable than any other person that may bear arms in their own personal self defense. (I do think there is an "equal protection" clause...no?

There were no "prohibited persons" prior to 1968, and it wasn't a problem. That there are persons who probably should not have firearms is not argued, but as everyone here knows and understands, those with criminal intent do not care what restrictions the law may place on them and will obtain their firearms illegally...but they will still obtain them.

Al Norris · October 25, 2013, 09:38 PM

All the filings have been done. The case is set for conference on Nov. 1, 2013. You can read the response and the reply at SCOTUSblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...ader-v-holder/

JERRYS. · October 25, 2013, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Schrader's problems became extent in 2008 when he was denied a purchase of a shotgun by the NICS system. Even though it appears that MD has no record of this prior misdemeanor conviction, the denial was based upon his 1968 misdemeanor conviction of assault.

this doesn't make sense. MD has no record of this but somehow the feds do?

leadcounsel · October 25, 2013, 11:39 PM

These laws, and their application (especially retroactively) are what really aggravate me about my profession and our system.

Ask 100 people in the abstract and 99 of them will tell you that these things are unfair, and don't make sense. But then you get 1 person who makes some obscure argument and, as applied to some political hot topic like gun control, and suddenly you get unjust results.

Change it from 'gun control' to 'right to get married, or free religion, or speech, or whatever,' and suddenly you'd get a different outcome.

Thanks for posting all of this...

JimDandy · October 26, 2013, 09:15 PM

Quote:

To deny any person the right to bear arms in his/her own personal self defense basically states that the prohibited person's life is less valuable than any other person that may bear arms in their own personal self defense

It may be a little cold, but I'd say people who have committed a felony serious enough to become a prohibited person have made their live less valuable than the people who have been good enough members of society not to do so. You're welcome to disagree, of course.

raimius · October 26, 2013, 10:25 PM

Perhaps not "less worthy" but less trustworthy to wield the rights of citizens.

I'm not opposed to restricting those who have been proven to abuse their rights. That said, I don't think tax fraud or similar non-violent crimes are a good reason to make someone a prohibited person.

Al Norris · November 2, 2013, 08:26 AM

Conference was held yesterday. At about 9:30 EST, Monday, Nov. 4, we may find out if cert was granted or denied.

gc70 · November 4, 2013, 12:15 PM

Cert was denied.

maestro pistolero · November 4, 2013, 01:53 PM

Very disappointing. It is becoming very difficult to remain optimistic in light of each new denial.

The court can only rule on the matter at hand for any particular case, and its hard to imagine identical facts to Schrader that could be addressed in any other upcoming case in the foreseeable future.

Could it be that NONE of these cases would have gone our way, and the Heller majority is merely exercising damage control via denials?

speedrrracer · November 4, 2013, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

Could it be that NONE of these cases would have gone our way, and the Heller majority is merely exercising damage control via denials?

I had hopes along those lines, but they seem pretty ridiculous.
Correct me if I'm wrong:

Assuming the Heller 5 no longer exist (because otherwise they'd just take the case and win it, right?) the bedtime story is that there's a Heller 4 who are preventing "permanent" damage to the 2A.

How are they preventing SCOTUS, with (now) a majority that will vote against the 2A? The thought is that these Heller 4 are not granting cert to cases? That doesn't make sense, since only 4 votes are required to grant cert, so the 4 anti-2A Justices from Heller, McDonald can simply grant cert without any Heller 4 involvement, and then use the (now-swinging-anti) swing vote to claim a majority and destroy the 2A.

JimDandy · November 6, 2013, 07:49 AM

From what I've heard in (I think the article ramping up the DOMA challenge) it's something of a naughty no-no to vote to grant cert on a case you already decided to uphold.

In other words, I'm under the impression it's not "illegal" but it's not very kosher to vote to grant cert to something, if you have no intention of changing the decision, but you just want to rubber stamp the lower court's decision.

ETA: I suspect that the swing vote in this case has a very narrow path they swing on. A right to bear arms, but not out in public. And only for people more pure than driven snow. We can be thankful they're holding the line, but we shouldn't expect a whole lot more. At this point, I suspect the only cases we have a reliable shot at winning would be procedural over activistic. I think we have more of a chance (re-)challenging the lack of ability to redress grievances in the 2A/closed office scenario than trying to get the judges to say someone who is prohibited shouldn't be prohibited. And that won't be a cakewalk.

Part of me wishes the judges were given LESS information- or were better at separating their politics from the law.

speedrrracer · November 6, 2013, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimDandy

From what I've heard in (I think the article ramping up the DOMA challenge) it's something of a naughty no-no to vote to grant cert on a case you already decided to uphold.

In your view, how does that mesh with Scalia's interview in which he says he "already know[s] the law", i.e., already knows the correct way (in his view, obviously) to vote on a case?

If he already knows how he'll vote on all of these cases, how can he, in good conscience, grant cert to any? OTOH, why would it be a naughty no-no to grant cert when you already know your vote but there's a circuit split and our rights need clarification? The nation needs a unifying decision for consistent application of law, doesn't it?

Quote:

ETA: I suspect that the swing vote in this case has a very narrow path they swing on. A right to bear arms, but not out in public. And only for people more pure than driven snow.

Let's assume you're correct. Is there a likely explanation for why wasn't this mentioned in Heller? Why then the language in Heller implying a right to bear in public, when they could have clearly stomped it out, right then?

JimDandy · November 7, 2013, 01:01 AM

In the case of a circuit split, they would vote for cert on the circuit case they plan/suspect to overturn, not uphold.

As for why this wasn't mentioned in Heller- the fact that you read Carry into Heller doesn't make it there. There was quite a bit of fence sitting language in Heller people attribute to "consensus building" or whatever you want to ascribe it to. I think the Justices made it pretty clear they were willing to draw a line in the sand, but that line is far behind where many people would have liked.

To be fair both sides are trying to twist that fence sitting language to their benefit. Dangerous and Unusual for assault weapons bans for example. That was nothing more than SOP to NFA, GCA and FOPA. Sensitive places-schools, jails, etc.

November 6, 2013, 07:49 AM	#62
JimDandy Senior Member Join Date: August 8, 2012 Posts: 2,556	From what I've heard in (I think the article ramping up the DOMA challenge) it's something of a naughty no-no to vote to grant cert on a case you already decided to uphold. In other words, I'm under the impression it's not "illegal" but it's not very kosher to vote to grant cert to something, if you have no intention of changing the decision, but you just want to rubber stamp the lower court's decision. ETA: I suspect that the swing vote in this case has a very narrow path they swing on. A right to bear arms, but not out in public. And only for people more pure than driven snow. We can be thankful they're holding the line, but we shouldn't expect a whole lot more. At this point, I suspect the only cases we have a reliable shot at winning would be procedural over activistic. I think we have more of a chance (re-)challenging the lack of ability to redress grievances in the 2A/closed office scenario than trying to get the judges to say someone who is prohibited shouldn't be prohibited. And that won't be a cakewalk. Part of me wishes the judges were given LESS information- or were better at separating their politics from the law. Last edited by JimDandy; November 6, 2013 at 07:58 AM.

July 6, 2013, 09:16 PM	#51
press1280 Senior Member Join Date: May 17, 2012 Posts: 228	Another well written petition by Gura. Could this be the 2A low hanging fruit that SCOTUS is looking for?

July 6, 2013, 11:29 PM	#52
hermannr Senior Member Join Date: March 24, 2011 Posts: 730	And the total of this thread shows why there should be no, none, zero person that are not in custody that should be "prohibited". To deny any person the right to bear arms in his/her own personal self defense basically states that the prohibited person's life is less valuable than any other person that may bear arms in their own personal self defense. (I do think there is an "equal protection" clause...no? There were no "prohibited persons" prior to 1968, and it wasn't a problem. That there are persons who probably should not have firearms is not argued, but as everyone here knows and understands, those with criminal intent do not care what restrictions the law may place on them and will obtain their firearms illegally...but they will still obtain them.

October 25, 2013, 09:38 PM	#53
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	All the filings have been done. The case is set for conference on Nov. 1, 2013. You can read the response and the reply at SCOTUSblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...ader-v-holder/

October 25, 2013, 11:39 PM	#55
leadcounsel Junior member Join Date: September 8, 2005 Location: Tacoma, WA Posts: 2,119	These laws, and their application (especially retroactively) are what really aggravate me about my profession and our system. Ask 100 people in the abstract and 99 of them will tell you that these things are unfair, and don't make sense. But then you get 1 person who makes some obscure argument and, as applied to some political hot topic like gun control, and suddenly you get unjust results. Change it from 'gun control' to 'right to get married, or free religion, or speech, or whatever,' and suddenly you'd get a different outcome. Thanks for posting all of this...

October 26, 2013, 10:25 PM	#57
raimius Senior Member Join Date: January 27, 2008 Posts: 2,199	Perhaps not "less worthy" but less trustworthy to wield the rights of citizens. I'm not opposed to restricting those who have been proven to abuse their rights. That said, I don't think tax fraud or similar non-violent crimes are a good reason to make someone a prohibited person.

November 2, 2013, 08:26 AM	#58
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Conference was held yesterday. At about 9:30 EST, Monday, Nov. 4, we may find out if cert was granted or denied.

November 4, 2013, 12:15 PM	#59
gc70 Senior Member Join Date: May 24, 2005 Location: North Carolina Posts: 2,903	Cert was denied.

November 4, 2013, 01:53 PM	#60
maestro pistolero Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2007 Posts: 2,153	Very disappointing. It is becoming very difficult to remain optimistic in light of each new denial. The court can only rule on the matter at hand for any particular case, and its hard to imagine identical facts to Schrader that could be addressed in any other upcoming case in the foreseeable future. Could it be that NONE of these cases would have gone our way, and the Heller majority is merely exercising damage control via denials?

November 7, 2013, 01:01 AM	#64
JimDandy Senior Member Join Date: August 8, 2012 Posts: 2,556	In the case of a circuit split, they would vote for cert on the circuit case they plan/suspect to overturn, not uphold. As for why this wasn't mentioned in Heller- the fact that you read Carry into Heller doesn't make it there. There was quite a bit of fence sitting language in Heller people attribute to "consensus building" or whatever you want to ascribe it to. I think the Justices made it pretty clear they were willing to draw a line in the sand, but that line is far behind where many people would have liked. To be fair both sides are trying to twist that fence sitting language to their benefit. Dangerous and Unusual for assault weapons bans for example. That was nothing more than SOP to NFA, GCA and FOPA. Sensitive places-schools, jails, etc.