|
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 |
March 4, 2014, 12:49 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
Is there a reason the Supremes are reluctant to consider carry rights?
If we have a right to carry, how would that affect federal buildings including courthouses? Would the US Supreme Court building be forced to install gun-check lockers near the door similar to what Arizona, Washington and a few other states do now in state courts and other state/local government buildings?
Is it possible the Supremes (including one or two of the "Heller 5") fear this and are hence unwilling to take up a "carry case"?
__________________
Jim March |
March 4, 2014, 01:31 PM | #2 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
We're not sure they're reluctant. They could just be waiting for the right case and right situation, like a circuit split.
Furthermore, we need at least four Justices who want to hear such a case. Any case they take is going to be controversial, and as a result, very time consuming. This is on top of an already crowded docket. Even if we get a case heard, and we get a favorable outcome, they can ban guns from courthouses. Most states already do, so there's precedent for that. I really doubt such a thing weighs on their decision of whether or not to hear a case.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
March 4, 2014, 01:51 PM | #3 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
Quote:
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Hatfield ...and that story has been repeated since. All it would take would be some woman called for jury duty or whatever who had a solid restraining order out...
__________________
Jim March |
||
March 4, 2014, 02:23 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 17, 2010
Location: Brooklyn, NYC
Posts: 610
|
Keep in mind there are THOUSANDS of cases per year that want to be heard by the Supreme Court. And they can only do a couple dozen at best. It's a simple matter of odds. Gun rights aren't the only important issue in this country that requires the SC's attention.
They're not our personal arbiters of gun rights. They still have to maintain an image of impartiality and legitimacy. If all they hear are carry cases brought before them by pro-gun groups. Then suddenly they look like some one-issue activist court. They try very hard to avoid that since it seems the Supreme Court is really the only branch of our government that still has any shred of respect and dignity left in the eyes of the people. |
March 4, 2014, 02:30 PM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
I think the simplest explanation is probably correct: They are very busy and aren't willing to grant cert until a circuit split forces them to.
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
|
March 4, 2014, 07:25 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,135
|
I think another reason SCOTUS has not granted cert in earlier cases is because it wants input from the various circuit judges. Remember that, in many ways, this is "new" ground the Supreme Court would be plowing. The Supreme Court would undoubtedly like having the benefit of opinions from a variety of jurists before diving off the deep end.
|
March 5, 2014, 10:32 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 30, 2011
Posts: 686
|
I think after citizens united the SCOTUS is in pretty low standing. Not looked on as low as congress but that is not a very high bar.
There is an ebb and flow to our rights. As much as we like to think of them as being hard and fast this is just not the case. Compared to free speech/press and the 4th amendment the 2ed amendment is doing pretty well. Society is struggling with the 14th amendment as well. |
March 5, 2014, 10:41 AM | #8 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
March 5, 2014, 11:22 AM | #9 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
And that is perhaps part of the reason the Founding Fathers shielded federal judges from the direct political influence of the body politic.
__________________
"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 |
|
March 5, 2014, 11:27 AM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,604
|
Quote:
SCOTUS gets swamped by requests. They can only hear a few. That means that every year thousands of cases, all of which are important to someone, don't get heard. They cherry pick which cases they are going to hear. One of the things that gets their attention is splits between the various circuit courts. Such a split may come up in the near future with the Peruta v San Diego case. So patience. The Supreme Court moves at the speed of history, not our expectations. |
|
March 5, 2014, 11:56 AM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
The Constitution says there is only 1 Supreme Court, but it doesn't say how that can be implemented. There is the same number of Supreme Courts today as there were 200+ years ago, and we have 60 times the population. They are clearly a bottleneck in our legal system, so it's not unreasonable to suggest there should perhaps be 540 SCOTUS Justices in 60 chambers, hearing cases at 60 times the current rate. |
|
March 5, 2014, 12:27 PM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
|
March 5, 2014, 12:54 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 17, 2010
Location: Brooklyn, NYC
Posts: 610
|
Well that wouldn't be the same thing since each circuit still only oversees their own chunk of the country. so a difference in rulings between circuits means you have different laws in different parts of the country.
A larger Supreme Court with several chambers would still set the standard nationwide regardless of which chamber the case goes to. Sure there would be the issue where the outcome of your case still depends on which particular group of judges hears is. But it's not much different from what we have now where the outcome depends on which particular judge dies and which replaces him. Just change it so that whichever particular group gets the case, the have final say and it applies throughout the nation. No whining, No appealing to a different group of supremes. |
March 5, 2014, 02:17 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
It's hard enough now to get Senate confirmation of Federal judicial appointments, including those of Supreme Court nominees. The prospect of multiplying 9 appointments by a factor of X, presumably in one fell swoop, is, um... not pretty.
And, in any case, I don't think that having more than one group of judges as the final arbiters of Constitutional law would work out too well -- there would inevitably be conflicts, and what then?
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
March 5, 2014, 02:33 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
So the Conservative Court A takes an abortion case, and somehow finagles overturning Roe. Abortion is now illegal. At the same time, Liberal Court B is doing the same thing to Heller. So while Court A takes a case to re-establish Heller, Court B re-establishes Roe, then expands Fair Housing to cover Purple People from Planet Xylon. Conservative Court A gets a little miffed, and not only gets rid of protection for the Purple People from Planet Xylon, they strike the Fair Housing Act altogether for discriminating against people not in a protected class at all. And they continue back and forth. Not only does everyone have to keep track of both courts to know what the supreme law of the land is, it's flipping back and forth as the two courts bicker with each other. So you may have had a right to concealed carry when you applied for your permit but by the time the State gets around to issuing it, you don't. So they refuse. Then they have to issue it, and the day it shows up in the mail, they no longer have to issue it, so they revoke it that day. Even worse, what happens if they take the same case? People for Superpacs sues the FEC to be able to donate more to political campaigns gets taken up by one court, while People for Individual Expression suing the FEC because they think ANY money from superpacs are destroying the one-man-one-vote concept. Then on the same day they issue opposing rulings. Then what? |
|
March 5, 2014, 08:08 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
Just getting one Supreme Court Justice approved by congress is a challenge. Can you all, even in your wildest imagination, see another entire panel nominated by this or any president, passing congressional approval?
|
March 5, 2014, 10:03 PM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,135
|
Quote:
So, with intermediate appellate courts, no trial court duties, and larger staffs, I'm not sure the actual workload on the justices is really any greater than it has traditionally been. While they (or their staff) may have to review thousands of requests for review, most are clearly not worthy of review and are easily disposed of. |
|
March 6, 2014, 12:19 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
In my opinion, the reasons the Supreme Court has not accepted a carry case outside the home are:
1. Moore did not create a true split, at least not technically in regards to its holding and the holdings in the other circuits on the east coast. 2. The Ninth Circuit had not weighed in when those other cases were considered, and until it issued Peruta, was the last remaining circuit in which a "may issue" law was in effect (in California and Hawaii.) I believe the Supreme Court wanted to hear from the Ninth before acting--and had Peruta come out affirming the concealed carry law, there would be no split and nothing for the high court to resolve. Pertuta created not just a split but a chasm--that is, as long as it remains the controlling authority in the circuit. IF affirmed on en banc, or if en banc is declined, there is a substantial probability that the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court, and that the Supreme Court will take the case to resolve the massive philosophical split on the scope of the Second Amendment outside the hoe, as well as the massive confusion as to the manner in which "intermediate scrutiny" is to be applied. |
March 6, 2014, 02:37 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
Quote:
If the grabber side wanted a "carry case" at the Supreme Court they would have appealed Moore v. Madigan instead of allowing IL to go shall-issue. "Losing" Chicago to the pro-gun side was an enormous blow for the bad guys. In a year or two when crimes drops in Chicago and "blood doesn't run in the streets" what are they going to say? Why did they agree to the loss? Because the "Heller 5" were still there. Still are NOW. The grabbers aren't going to appeal a loss for their team in Peruta to the Supremes. To en banc, yes, absolutely. Unless Kamela Harris is just...incredibly stupid. Their side needs to delay a carry case until Obama or his successor gets a chance to replace a Heller 5 justice. Our side needs to hurry it up before that happens.
__________________
Jim March |
|
March 6, 2014, 08:09 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
The problem with Moore for the grabber side is that it merely concluded and directed that Illinois enact a carry law--but did not direct what kind of carry law. Illinois was perfectly free (aside from politics) to enact a "may issue" concealed carry law, or even an open carry law. Although you see the argument often enough (as in the Brady Campaign motion for rehearing in Peruta, and the similar arguments made by LCAV), there is a substantial likelihood that the Supreme Court will recognize a right to "bear" arms outside the home--Heller tells us as much, no matter how often that specific language is ignored by the anits.
So instead what they are trying to do is to ban or severely restrict concealed carry, arguing that even if there is a right to carry, concealed carry may be constitutionally banned. That is what all of the east coast cases have said and where they want the Ninth Circuit to go. Moore therefore was not a good case for the banners to appeal. And they've won all of the others at the Circuit level, so it is only the 2A supporters who are appealing, not governmental authorities or associated anti groups. Peruta, on the other hand, is a must win case for their side--the only reason "they" would not appeal it is because of an interest in preserving the decisions they've gotten in 2, 3, and 4. But none of those groups get to tell Kamala Harris what to do--and unless she is denied intervention, or fails to obtain a reversal through en banc proceedings, will likely appeal no matter. You have to understand that she is a true believer in gun bans, gun registration and a ban on concealed carry for the whole state of California, nor is she beholden to any activist group, and as far as can be ascertained from the pleadings, did not coordinating with them before filing her motions. Last edited by 62coltnavy; March 6, 2014 at 08:15 PM. |
March 7, 2014, 08:54 AM | #21 |
Member
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
|
Interesting analysis and one with which I largely agree. It seems to me that the AG really screwed up in failing to intervene earlier. She stands a real risk of having her motion to intervene denied, as California's statute is not directly implicated by the panel's decision. They were either ignorant or arrogant in failing to intervene earlier and, given the repeated opportunities, I doubt they were merely ignorant. You have to enjoy the fix in which they find themselves now. I rather hope that the motion to intervene is denied and the court lets them stew in it.
|
March 7, 2014, 01:43 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
March 7, 2014, 03:45 PM | #23 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Kamela Harris is elected to the position of Attroney General. So it is the people that can "fire" her.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|