The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 18, 2017, 01:48 PM   #26
motorhead0922
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
As steve4102 has mentioned, Peruta is now going before the SC.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2016...-to-california

I'm confused about that decision since, at best, the court will have the same ideological makeup as the court had between the time of Heller and the death of Scalia. I'd like to know why Peruta's attorneys think this will a better time to go to SC.

Scalia's replacement better be good.
__________________
NRA, SAF, NRA-ILA, ACLDN, IDPA, handgunlaw.us
My AmazonSmile benefits SAF
I'd rather be carried by 6 than caged by 12.
2019: It's pronounced twenty nineteen.
motorhead0922 is offline  
Old January 18, 2017, 04:55 PM   #27
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorhead0922
...Peruta is now going before the SC.
Don't count your chickens yet. Despite the misleading headline in the NRA-ILA link ("Peruta Case is Supreme Court Bound..."), all that has happened is that the NRA/CRPA legal team filed a writ of certiorari on January 12th.

There's no guarantee that the SCOTUS will grant cert and review the case. They're on an extended streak of refusing to hear 2A cases.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old January 18, 2017, 05:05 PM   #28
vicGT
Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2017
Posts: 30
carguychris, wasn't Caetano a Second Amendment case? I think the key is firearms...SCOTUS hasn't wanted to hear cases involving actual firearms.
vicGT is offline  
Old January 19, 2017, 10:41 AM   #29
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,066
Quote:
There’s a reason Mr. Clement and his clients are not simply claiming a free-standing right to carry a concealed weapon As Judge Fletcher pointed out, Justice Scalia’s opinion in Heller foreclosed that argument. In the Heller opinion, Justice Scalia wrote that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” adding that “the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.”
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/1...un-battle.html

This is a NY Times take on Peruta. I quote an interesting section that seems to indicate that, once again, Scalia is haunting us. It brings us back to the question of whether this is the right time for this case.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old January 19, 2017, 12:07 PM   #30
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,802
I've never liked the argument that heller said the right is not unlimited . I get that may be true how ever its been limited for quite some time . People/anti's seem to read that to mean they can keep piling on . I and they should have read it to mean they ruled the right is an individual one and when saying it's not unlimited they were making sure all previous laws ( NFA etc ) were not undone by the ruling .

I think it's time to stop asking what other laws can be inacted and start asking when do they stop .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old January 19, 2017, 12:25 PM   #31
vicGT
Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2017
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
I quote an interesting section that seems to indicate that, once again, Scalia is haunting us.
Glenn, your comment is interesting because of the discussion about the vacant seat on SCOTUS. I'm new to this stuff, and have mostly read posts to the effect that "even with Scalia on the Court, Second Amendment decisions were a dicey thing", which seem to be suggesting that Scalia was the Second Amendment's greatest champion on the Court (perhaps because of his hunting hobby?).

So either he was firearms' greatest friend or he's once again haunting us. Maybe it can be both? I wanted to ask you (collective 'you' knowledgeable people in this forum)....is it possible Scalia was the 'moderate' when it comes to firearms, and Roberts & Kennedy were pro-Second Amendment champions?
vicGT is offline  
Old January 19, 2017, 12:42 PM   #32
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,802
No he was very pro . It goes to what i was just saying . They had to put wording in the ruling to not undo all gun laws on the books at the time . Again our arguments now should be snd show all the laws on the books now and use that to show the right is not unlimited. Then argue it's time to stop adding more , there's enogh on the books now ( to many really ) and the restrictions are not unlimited either . It's ok to say no to a gun law .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old January 19, 2017, 06:07 PM   #33
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,066
While he was seen as pro, that doesn't mean his opponents could not use his words against him. Pragmatically, his reasoning is the core of the state restrictions being declared constitutional by the default of SCOTUS dealing with the state restriction cases.

So is Heller a net win - theoretically yes, practically - the jury is out on whether it advanced gun rights in many locales. Is DC practically better on gun ownership - I'm not tuned in the population there to know. Maybe someone does.

Gun rights are a tricky thing. A small but similar case is that of OC in TX. It passed after an acrimonious debate in the gun world as it might have negative practical consequences. I saw someone on another forum all excited recently about how it has been a success! WOW!

Practically, it is very, very rare. So it's utility is not being seen in the gun carrying behavior of the vast majority of Texas LTC holders.

What is has done is knock a big hole in the no-carry signs. Originally, TX businesses could ban carry with trivial signs like a Ghostbusters sign. Then clever gun folks got the legislature to modify the sign requirements for the 30.06 sign which was truly large and obnoxious. It had to be exact to be enforceable. Many businesses chose not to post them as they were obnoxious.

Then came OC and the shenanigans of some of the OC folks marching around with ARs or AKs and the infamous Chipolte twins - less than attractive icons for the gun world. The idea of exposed carry guns was such that many businesses including major stores, buildings and restaurants started to post 30.07 signs that banned open carry. So it made practical OC quite a diminished utility. I can't (even if I wanted to OC in the biggest supermarket chain and many other places I frequent). Thus, I would have leave the gun in the car and prance around with an idiotic empty holster?

But even worse, as stores started to post the 30.07 signs quite a few added the 30.06 sign. If you have one antigun sign - might go for the whole nine yards.

Thus, the so-called expansion of a right hardly used caused a major loss of carry locales and the PR negative of kids and folks seeing signs saying gun carry is bad.

Now someone will post - Well, I don't go to businesses that ban, blah, blah. Good for you - it is not practical if you leave a normal life and are not bloviating. We lost practically but won theoretically.

There have been no effective boycotts or businesses folding over the issue. A long restaurant - only with a 30.07 - told me that they had two old coots having a hissy but that was it. Most folks were happy not to see the average OC type at dinner. The restaurant had no problem with concealment.

So to end this line of thought - was Heller a theoretic win but lead to practical and negative unintended consequences.

Perhaps, Trump could get enough Justices to take a case that would negative the state restrictions and overturn them. They might weaken Scalia's meanderings (supposedly well researched but not in the true theoretic mode of what I think the RKBA meant). But I don't trust even conservative justices. Plenty of conservatives go down the Zumbo, Metcalf road. I suspect the conservative moneyed classes might be skeptical of the lower classes with military style arms.

It might lead to the guillotine for CEOs who make $300,000,000 by raising the price of needed medicines to outrageous levels from previous reasonable prices.

We will see if Trump is true to his RKBA promises. Heller's meanderings might be undone with legislation. As civil rights legislation got rid of noxious state discriminatory laws, perhaps a similar approach to gun rights would lead to Gov. Brown and Gov. Cuomo standing in the doors of the gun shop and being removed by Federal Forces after they tried to get the state militias to forbid the free exercise of the RKBA. Wouldn't that make a great picture?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old January 19, 2017, 08:27 PM   #34
vicGT
Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2017
Posts: 30
Thanks, Glenn, I appreciate the context
vicGT is offline  
Old January 19, 2017, 08:29 PM   #35
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,066
That's why I get the SWAT Christmas basket (as do the rest of our hard working staff!)
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old January 20, 2017, 03:00 AM   #36
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
The problem that I have with Heller/McDonald is that the decisions did not lay down a single rule for evaluating the Second Amendment, suggesting that strict scrutiny does NOT apply outside the home, an implication that has allowed any number of courts in anti-gun jurisdictions to run with the ball and apply something they CALL intermediate scrutiny but which in practice amounts to no more than "rational basis" review. One example was the Highland Park AR ban case, in which the Seventh Circuit held that even in the absence of any evidence whatsoever that banning ARs would reduce crime, an "important public interest" was served simply because it made people "feel safer." [And this from a circuit which overturned the Illinois (Chicago) gun carry ban and just today ruled that Chicago's virtual ban of gun ranges through restrictive zoning was unconstitutional.] The Maryland circuit concluded that the carry law passed intermediate scrutiny despite the fact that the standard requires the State to establish a factual basis for the law--and the Maryland State Legislature had done no such thing.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old January 20, 2017, 10:31 AM   #37
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by carguychris
[The SCOTUS is] on an extended streak of refusing to hear 2A cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vicGT
carguychris, wasn't Caetano a Second Amendment case? I think the key is firearms...SCOTUS hasn't wanted to hear cases involving actual firearms.
Yes, Caetano did concern the 2A, and that's what I meant about firearms. I should have been more concise.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old January 22, 2017, 06:38 PM   #38
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
The difference with Peruta is that it seeks to present to straight up question, unresolved in Heller, as to whether there is a right to bear arms outside the home. Although the Ninth en banc panel ruled on the narrow grounds that there is no right to carry a concealed firearm, thus upholding the "may issue" system, it implied but expressly declined to rule whether that means that there is a right, protected by the Second Amendment, to carry firearms openly outside the home. This narrow ruling was very political: Plaintiffs contended and the State agreed that there [I]is[I] a right to carry firearms, and the issue that Plaintiffs sought to be decided was whether there was a right to carry in some manner. Critical to the case is the fact that California essentially bans the open carrying of firearms, loaded or unloaded, in all incorporated cities and towns, i.e., the very places where the need to carry is most critical. Plaintiffs argues that the State could chose either open carry or concealed carry )or both), but if the latter was chosen, it had to allow for "shall issue" in order to preclude the State/Counties from limiting the exercise of that right to a special few.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old March 14, 2017, 01:16 AM   #39
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
All petitions, oppositions, amici and replies have been filed, and the case distributed for conference 3/24. With the pending nomination of Gorsuch, and with the clear split in authority, from cases denying the existence of a right outside the home to others confirming it, and with no other cases in the pipeline, making the issue ripe for determination I suspect (hope) this case will be held over until a new justice is seated.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old April 14, 2017, 08:07 AM   #40
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by 62coltnavy
All petitions, oppositions, amici and replies have been filed, and the case distributed for conference 3/24. With the pending nomination of Gorsuch, and with the clear split in authority, from cases denying the existence of a right outside the home to others confirming it, and with no other cases in the pipeline, making the issue ripe for determination I suspect (hope) this case will be held over until a new justice is seated.
OK, the new Justice is seated.

Any idea when we will know whether the SC decides to here the case or not?
steve4102 is offline  
Old April 14, 2017, 09:56 AM   #41
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,656
So far (in anticipation of seating the new justice, I think), Peruta has been rescheduled three times:
Mar 8 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 24, 2017.
Mar 23 2017 Rescheduled.
Mar 27 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 31, 2017.
Mar 30 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 10 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017.
Apr 12 2017 Rescheduled.
Next dates for possible conferences are April 21 and April 28.

Check here: Docket for 16-894
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 9, 2017, 04:12 PM   #42
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,531
It's now been rescheduled for the fourth time. SCOTUSblog speculates that the Justices were kicking the can down the curb until they had a full bench.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old May 9, 2017, 09:20 PM   #43
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,656
That was my take also.
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 10, 2017, 08:20 AM   #44
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,802
Quote:
speculates that the Justices were kicking the can down the curb until they had a full bench.
Who gets to kick the can ? Does the chief justice him self decide that or is it the collective ?

Are they waiting for a full bench so all 9 can vote on cert ?

The tea leaves I've heard is that It's already been denied and they are giving the dissenting judge/s time to write there dissent ?
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old May 10, 2017, 12:51 PM   #45
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,531
Quote:
Are they waiting for a full bench so all 9 can vote on cert?
Most likely, they wanted 9 Justices before hearing it. It only takes 4 to grant cert.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old May 10, 2017, 01:37 PM   #46
motorhead0922
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
Non-attorney here. Please educate me. What happens next, and when? And after that?
__________________
NRA, SAF, NRA-ILA, ACLDN, IDPA, handgunlaw.us
My AmazonSmile benefits SAF
I'd rather be carried by 6 than caged by 12.
2019: It's pronounced twenty nineteen.
motorhead0922 is offline  
Old May 11, 2017, 12:31 AM   #47
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 8,770
Quote:
Non-attorney here. Please educate me. What happens next, and when? And after that?
When deciding on whether to grant review, the Supreme Court hears potentially meritorious cases in a non-public conference where they can vote to accept or deny review. In Peruta, that conference was rescheduled several times with the first actual conference held April 28th. As others have noted, the thought is that the other members of the Court wanted the 9th member aboard before deciding whether to accept review.

In the April 28th conference, the justices decided to "relist" it which simply means they want to talk about it some more in their May 11th conference. It is very difficult to interpret anything from this, other than they are still looking at it. The decision on whether to accept review may be made at the conference or again relisted. It is possible the case was relisted to allow Justice Gorsuch and his staff to get up to speed. He joins Justice Alito as the only justices who do not participate in the "cert pool." The other justices all pool their law clerks to rotate in reviewing certiorari requests, though I suspect that high profile/important cases may get extra attention.

Most decisions to deny review are summary in nature, meaning the court gives no explanation. Every so often, one or more justices who disagree and want to accept review will write a dissent and this will slow down the public announcement on the certiorari request.

Bottom line, nobody knows exactly when the decision to review the 9th Circuit decision will be made, or at least announced. If it's not relisted following the conference later today (the 11th), then a decision has probably been made.
KyJim is offline  
Old May 14, 2017, 11:30 PM   #48
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
Relisted again, so still alive. rumor has it that Kennedy may announce his retirement at the end of the term, which could result in this being continued to the fall calendar. This is one decision the court will hold until it has a full bench due to its importance. this is one they don't want a 4-4 tie.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old May 15, 2017, 10:58 AM   #49
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 750
No new cert grants today, Peruta was neither granted nor denied.
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old May 15, 2017, 01:22 PM   #50
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,876
They kicked the can again:

Quote:
May 15 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 18, 2017.
thallub is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10092 seconds with 8 queries