|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 1, 2013, 11:34 AM | #151 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
|
|
April 9, 2013, 10:22 PM | #152 |
Junior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2012
Posts: 4
|
Kachalsky v. Cacase - NY Carry - Cert Filed
This case has made SCOTUSBlogs 'Petitions to watch' as the first highlighted case... featuring "petitions raising issues that Tom has determined to have a reasonable chance of being granted""At its April 12, 2013 Conference, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as Second Amendment limits on licensing restrictions for carrying handguns outside the home"http://www.scotusblo...-april-12-2013/tick...tock... time is running out for the antis I think.
|
April 15, 2013, 08:46 AM | #153 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
|
April 15, 2013, 09:41 AM | #154 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 438
|
huge disappointment to residents such as myself in may issue states.
|
April 15, 2013, 10:02 AM | #155 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2005
Posts: 3,733
|
Sadly I expected this. Politically this was a hot potato and I believe Roberts would rather avoid it given the judicial yoga he already performed in the interest of politics last year.
__________________
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin |
April 15, 2013, 10:20 AM | #156 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
This just gave Illinois license to copy New York's statute.
|
April 15, 2013, 10:31 AM | #157 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Seems reasonable to me (guess where I'm coming from here - ).
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
April 15, 2013, 10:42 AM | #158 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
If I were a control advocate in any other May-Issue state I'd start looking at the differences and similarities between our Issue, and NY's to see what, if any, changes would be necessary.
|
April 15, 2013, 10:50 AM | #159 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
Quote:
Here's how I see the fallout: * Illinois: Madigan now has to calculate whether to appeal the state's loss in Moore to the US Supremes. If she doesn't the 7th Circuit's holding in Moore stands, which means all existing IL carry bans (open or concealed) vanish in...what, July, right? And it's dicey whether any new law will replace them at all, and if it does it'll be shall-issue, not may-issue. * California: there are now three carry cases before the 9th Circuit, two involving California. Because the Supremes have decided not to do anything (yet) they now have no grounds to hold off those decisions. In both the California cases lower-court Federal judges said that fair access to concealed carry could be withheld only so long as open-carry (unloaded) was legal. Well the next year, the morons in the California legislature banned unloaded open carry. Whoops. So those are now major hot potatos. * Hawaii: This is probably the only state now at risk of going may-issue based on the "logic" in Kachalski. Technically they're may-issue now, in practice they're zero-issue (which is at issue in the 9th Circuit case involving them, right?). * Maryland: Alan Gura is trying for a reconsideration in Woolard en banc. With the US Supremes side-stepping the question for now there's a better chance of an en banc hearing. * The Remaining May-Issue States: Alabama is now finally going formally shall-issue (via legislation) after being practically shall-issue for years. The remaining may-issue states will rely on Kachalsky for a while...Mass, DE and what, a few others left? Upshot: I think the US Supremes are going to let things shake out in the lower courts a little more before speaking on this issue. I think they want to see what the Woolard en banc thing holds, see what the 9th does in their three cases, etc. Remember, the exact method of saying there's a "right to bear arms" is complex: is it a right to "Vermont Carry"? A right to open carry where concealed permits aren't a right? And so on. I think (I sure as hell hope!) that Kachalski just came too early in the cycle.
__________________
Jim March |
|
April 15, 2013, 11:31 AM | #160 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
It's an evil thing to say, but for the sake of all of us, I'd ALMOST prefer Alabama went the other way... May-Issue, specific reason, with a bit of Jim Crow application. We all know May-Issue has inherent discrimination involved. The problem is, that discrimination isn't as visible and vilified as it needs to be to be recognized by the people not directly involved and affected.
|
April 15, 2013, 11:59 AM | #161 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Absent any other optimistic possibility, I have to hope the court is waiting for Woollard and Moore to fully ripen so they can settle them all at once. This is the only possible silver lining I can imagine before folks start sharpening their pitchforks.
|
April 15, 2013, 12:18 PM | #162 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
|
|
April 15, 2013, 12:23 PM | #163 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
Al Norris,
I'm new to this site, but not to gun rights, etc. Thank you for your great thread, and not just being knee-jerk, but reflecting on the reality of the situation. People forget, in the COTUS, the preamble states: Quote:
Those who think that the village idiot was allowed a gun when the founding fathers wrote the 2A are out of touch... nor were slaves allowed to, obviously. It was already a regulated right. The truth, however, is the the COTUS is a great document... but the right to defend one's self goes deeper than this great, yet flawed, document. Some call it "Supreme Law", call it what you will, but a free man will defend himself. Now, this carry issue, it could be a lynchpin to victory... and I'm happy to see NYS having some positive movement after decades of decay regarding the 2A. |
|
April 15, 2013, 12:41 PM | #164 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
|
|
April 15, 2013, 12:42 PM | #165 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
That they filed this case rather than just lumping it out...
|
April 15, 2013, 04:35 PM | #166 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
Agreed with what Jim is saying except for Woollard's chances with the en banc. I'd think with Kachalsky booted then any miracle longshot with an en banc just evaporated.
As much as I hate to say it-NY's brief against cert. was correct when it pointed out this wasn't a split with Moore, and they also pointed out there were other cases out there that the court could review when the issue percolated some more. Probably enough to get a few of our justices to pass for now at least. |
April 15, 2013, 04:43 PM | #167 |
Member
Join Date: November 27, 2012
Posts: 33
|
As I said in Post 98 of this thread:
"The political reality is that there will never, ever, as long as the United States of America governs the country, be legal guns in the holsters, whether open or concealed, of citizens walking the streets of New York City. New York City is "different," "special." It's the headquarters of the United Nations. It has the New York Stock Exchange, Broadway, Times Square, Central Park. It's one of America's two truly international cities. It should properly be considered as America's Hong Kong. Until SAF and Gura recognize this basic political reality and craft a means of allowing New York City, or just Manhattan Island, not to be governed by the same gun laws that bind the rest of the state, Gura's going to lose, and our rights are going to pay the price. In Kachalsky, at any level, the court will first look at the case and consider the outcome of granting Gura his desired remedy. If this remedy includes citizens carrying loaded firearms up Seventh Avenue, he's gone too far, and he's going to lose. If the case were filed blind, where no state names, city names, party names were present in the case, where the pleadings contained merely the text of the disputed law, argument and the remedy requested, he'd probably win the case in a walk. Sadly, cases are not decided in abstract detachment." This case was a foolish and reckless gamble with our rights. It was an obvious loser from conception, and this ruling does far more harm than Heller did good. |
April 15, 2013, 04:47 PM | #168 | |
Member
Join Date: November 27, 2012
Posts: 33
|
Quote:
Gun rights were clobbered today. |
|
April 15, 2013, 04:55 PM | #169 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
|
|
April 15, 2013, 05:06 PM | #170 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
I didn't read all the way through the thread...
Can someone summarize? |
April 15, 2013, 05:26 PM | #171 | |
Member
Join Date: November 27, 2012
Posts: 33
|
Quote:
|
|
April 15, 2013, 06:30 PM | #172 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Let's stop being ridiculous about NYC. Nor should a local entity be able to define away the BOR.
We don't area bash - we support those who live there and fight the good fight.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
April 15, 2013, 07:05 PM | #173 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
The Supreme Court receives about 10,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each year. Of those it grants ceriorari in and hears about 70 to 80 cases.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper Last edited by Frank Ettin; April 15, 2013 at 07:30 PM. Reason: clarify |
|
April 15, 2013, 08:26 PM | #174 |
Junior Member
Join Date: February 6, 2013
Posts: 12
|
Frank. Frankly, you don't live here. Had to unload 3 rounds from each 10 round nanny mag today. If I get caught with 7 rounds in my 10 round nanny mag the penalty is worse than incest among other heinous crimes.
This WAS a loss. |
April 15, 2013, 08:33 PM | #175 |
Member
Join Date: November 27, 2012
Posts: 33
|
Have it your way, Frank. If we accept, arguendo, that New York didn't win, it's yet incontrovertible that gun rights lost. Gura was banking on the quite sophomoric premise that "circuit split! circuit split! circuit split!" was going to compel the Supreme Court to accept his case. Of course, the Supreme Court lets many circuit splits stand, and the Supreme Court was never going to allow guns in times Square, so Gura's confidence was well wide of the mark, and his brinksmanship spectacularly failed.
See if you have a lawyer friend who can explain in more detail the consequences of not receiving Supreme Court review. See if this friend can explain Shepardizing, and the treatment Kachalsky will receive. By the way, the Supreme Court opinion was fortunately not authored, as it would have been worse for our rights than the appellate ruling. Gura and Gottlieb far overplayed their hands, and gun rights were fronting the bankroll. Now, we all pay because Gottlieb wanted to pose with another check. Last edited by smoking357; April 15, 2013 at 08:43 PM. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|