Jump to content

raz-0

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    4,962

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

  • Feedback

    100%

Posts posted by raz-0

  1. Posted

    6 hours ago, maintenanceguy said:

    Submitted my application this morning.  The trooper at Bridgeton Barracks has always been very helpful and takes the time to explain everything. Some information I gleaned from our conversation:

    • So far he estimates that I'm the 20th person to drop off an application at the station.  I would have expected it was more.

    Keep in mind a lot of people didn't have a carry gun and are waiting on permits to buy one. I know of at least three people in that instance. 

    Then there's people like me where I have something I could use, but not what I want particularly. Additionally, I figure there will be lots of fucking around by the state. I'll let you guys figure it out and just gave money to FPC and ANJRPC instead. 

     

  2. Posted

    5 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

    "Legal reasoning" is a pretty broad usage. 

    It's is not typical for a remand to occur because a different case set a new precendent.. the lower courts "legal reasoning" is only being challenged because in light of NEW precedent. 

    A typical remanded case, ones we see all the time are ussually due to a procedural error by the court. 

    The remanding court shouldn't approve or disapprove of any judgement when an error occurred which it was the result of. But there may be an interest in having the case retried vs outright overturning. 

    In this case, the district and circuit courts didn't have a procedural error, error in law, or error in judgement of existing precedent. With the establishment of new precedent, SCOTUS should have overturned the lower courts. 

    The history of SCOTUS GVRs is not typically about a procedural error. It is very often about precedent. 

    I would argue on your last point that a huge portion of Thomas's ruling was saying that all this intermediate scrutiny stuff that keeps coming to them is a misunderstanding of heller, and they can all now go fuck right off. So arguably procedural? 

    The majority of GVR are due to a decision from the docket informing the matter of a case pending cert. There are multiple papers on this. 

    The peak year I could find for atypical GVRs, with the addendum that most papers admit that tracking of GVRs is broken to some degree, was 18% being due to procedural error, statute, change, etc. 

  3. Posted

    On 8/3/2022 at 10:57 PM, voyager9 said:

    Right.  It was SCOTUS doing the remanding.. technically a Grant, Vacate, Remand (GVR) back to the Circuit.  The way I read it is that the District is recalling their previous mandate (ruling) on the case because Scotus told them to.  

    Maybe? We'll see. 

    Bet You $20 to an RKBA org to be named by the winner that it goes back to the district. 

  4. Posted

    4 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

    Nowhere does it mention the District Court.  It just says that since Scotus vacated and remanded, the circuit court is recalling their prior decision (mandate) for additional proceedings.   

    Compare that with the 9th circuit, which has remanded the case to the District.  That order specifically says it is the circuit remanding to the district. 

    remand

     
    verb (used with object)
    to send back, remit, or consign again.
    Law.
    1. to send back (a case) to a lower court from which it was appealed, with instructions as to what further proceedings should be had.
    2. (of a court or magistrate) to send back (a prisoner or accused person) into custody, as to await further proceedings.

  5. Posted

    1 minute ago, JackDaWack said:

    To note, 

    This is kind of an unusual remand. SCOTUS didn't have to remand this case back down if they felt it would overturn the lower court rulings. 

    Most remands I've seen, were to prevent overturning a decision. Consider a criminal trial and conviction, where maybe something was inadmissible as evidence, but the courts allowed it. Instead of overturning the decision, they decided the case should be reheard without it. By doing so, it would actually prevent the overturning of the decision. It's not to get the "ruling/opinion" right, but rather to ensure the process was correct that lead to the decision. 

    In this case, either SCOTUS felt a reversal was bad for their image, or they had enough cases it wouldn't have been timely to hear it. 

    No, not really. 

    A remanded case pretty much always means the court finds the legal reasoning to be wrong. That takes two flavors typically. First, where the conclusion isn't necessarily disapproved of, but the legal reasoning is (or less common, some form of error has been disclosed in the interim, or change in the law.). Then there's the other, where the legal conclusion is garbage because the legal reasoning is garbage. 

    These were GVRed because they could not be consolidated. They just aren't similar enough. Given the volume of the cases vs the fact we still have one court and a growing legal system, GVRed is typically used for when a case has been impacted by precedent they just set with a similar case. 

    In the case of Bruen, they have stated clearly you cannot get to your conclusion via the method used in every one of these cases. They are very much "you can't get there from here" situations. They will have to start their reasoning over. They are free to try and get to the same destination, but it's going to be really hard given the constraints spelled out in the ruling. 

     

     

    • Like 1

  6. Posted

    17 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

    Right.  But the way it is worded the circuit court is recalling their decision because scotus vacated and remanded.   SCOTUS is the court that is remanding.  

    Scotus remanded the case to the circuit court of appeals. 

    Rather than change their ruling in any way, which they could have done, the circuit court recalled their decision and awarded the plaintiff their costs for the appeal. They then remanded it back to the district court for a ruling. That's what it says. 

     

  7. Posted

    9 hours ago, voyager9 said:

    That’s not how I read the notice.  The circuit court is recalling their prior decision for further proceedings because scotus vacated and remanded it back to the circuit court.   It never mentions the district court.  

    What do you think remand means? It means to be sent back. You can't send the case back to yourself. It's been remanded to the district court. 

  8. Posted

    13 minutes ago, Lakota said:

    No it doesn't.   It goes to your heirs.    Unless its the "cash for life" type of winnings.. then you are only guaranteed to get up to a certain amount.   "Cash for Life: Annuitant shall be paid their appropriate Jackpot Prize share or Second Level Prize share on an annual basis for their Measuring Life, or for the twenty (20) year term of the Guaranteed Annuity Portion, whichever is longer."

    All regular annuities go to your your estate upon death.

    It depends on the specific lottery, the state you win it in, and what probate law is in the state you die in. 

    Don't count on the annuity paying out properly after your death. 

    For example the powerball and mega millions seem to have adjusted theirs over the years, likely due to the large jackpots. They try to cash it out on death and hand it to the estate as a lump sum. Which may not be legal in every state. 

    Some will pass your annuity to your next of kin. Which if you are old and married, may be your spouse who kicks it shortly after the first new years after you die. Then the state keeps what's left as the annuity in that case was property of the estate and can not be passed on by the inheritor. 

    You gotta read the fine print every time. Assume they are planning to fuck you over. 

  9. Posted

    1 hour ago, 45Doll said:

    My understanding is if you take the annuity payments (typically 30 years) you wind up with the most money. More total payout and less taxable income every year. Of course you have to live that long to collect it. So your age may factor in.

    With the annuity, I'm wondering if your outstanding payments become part of your estate if you die. If yes and you're not greedy in this life, you could pass on the balance to your heir(s). 

    If you did that, just watch your six. :ninja:

    The annuity goes to the state if you die. It's pretty much why everyone takes the lump sum. 

  10. Posted

    8 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

    I don't beleive the appellate courts would kick a remanded cases down to lower courts with respect to this case for 2 reasons. 

    1. Both Appellate and District court rulings were the same. To remand the case again, to an even lower court would suggest the appellate decision was wrong in some respect, but they already ruled on it... that ruling is what's being challenged. I don't beleive a case that's already been ruled on can be struck and remanded. If for example the lower district court reversed opinion, the appellate courts decision still takes precedent because it's a higher court. 

    2. SCOTUS remanded the case which explicitly states for the appellate court to rehear the cases under Bruen.. 

    Cool belief. Too bad they already did.  It’s literally the op this thread.  That’s what that says. The circuit court (i.e. the federal appellate court)  is remanding it back to the federal district court. 
     

    Scotus gvred the case. The only thing the Sprite court is compelled to do is to not stick with their original ruling and reasoning. 

  11. Posted

    22 minutes ago, Krdshrk said:

    Wasn't it part of the NYSRPA v Bruen Supreme Court ruling that they had a finite time to rule on this?

     

    Not anywhere i read. There was a warning about slow walking ccw permits specifically to deny rights. 
     

    The upside of the mag bag cases is that the delay can only be so long unless we ares screwed. DC has a case, and its path To scotus is shorter. 

  13. Posted

    What this says is that the circuit court isn't deciding on this. They have passed the buck back down for some lower court judge to put their name on a bad decision. Then it will be sent back up. Then they will likely pull a panel of three that will say yeah a mag ban is no bueno. Then they will say but no... and call for en banc. Then they can proceduraly drag that out for years. Then they will say mag ban fine. Then it will go back to the supreme court. 

    I'm hoping that's not the way it goes, but it sure it looking like it. 

    California will get full cap mags before we do... cause they are doing the same thing, but that means it is going back to St. Benitez.

    • Agree 1

  17. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Tunaman said:

    I am thinking possibly not deep enough.  He said he used multiple firearms with the same results.  Some primers need to go all the way in for them to go off.  Maybe that batch of primers are no good or wet or old?

    They look like solid strikes, which is why a profile shot would be useful. If they are proud at all after that hit, the issue is how they seat. 

    If they are just flush after that hit, possibly the same. 

    Like if I try to prime on my lee cast press, you don't get full depth seating. It'll work for most things, but sometimes not. So when I was using that for handgun ammo, I'd prime off press with a hand primer. The anvil needs to be braced against the bottom of the pocket. I'm suspicious of any primers that retain the profile they had in the box 100% when seated. They probably aren't seated well enough. 

  20. Posted

    1 minute ago, DirtyDigz said:

    First "post-bruen" test case for our circuit.

    What you linked is young vs. hawaii. Which is 1) not a mag ban, but a carry case, and 2) the 9th circuit, we are third. 

    But it looks like you just messed up the link cause judgement in ANJRPC vs. Bruck was decided today.  Hope it's interesting.

     

     

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1507.html

     

     

  25. Posted

    27 minutes ago, samiam said:

    2C:58-4 says: "three reputable persons who have known the applicant for at least three years preceding the date of application, and who shall certify thereon that the applicant is a person of good moral character and behavior". Nothing about "to the best of your knowledge" there. S. P. 642 has a small disclaimer on the reference's attestation that all of the infromation on the form is correct "I believe that the answers given by the applicant to the questions set forth in this application are complete, true and correct in every particular" (I find it odd that the endorsors are even asked to verfify information that, in may cases, they are very unlikely to be aware of) but not on the previous statement "I have known Him/Her for the past __ years to be a person of good moral character and behavior and who is capable of exercising self control". So. I would say that, by the standard you set, it is very much a mixed bag. Even if the language is just a statement of legal fact, I still find it curious that a municipality chooses to make it, and the NJSP does not. But if you are convinced that it could not possibly involve any attempt to "persuade" a potential sponsor into backing off, I guess I'll have to accept that. 

    Someone posted the clifton document, and I don't see that line about moral character and self control. It looks very much like the boiler plate I have seen from most towns for FPID except that it mentions concealed carry. The legal warning is basically saying don't lie or there may be legal consequences, which is true as you can get jacked up for lying to an investigator. All the questions are factual statements, or attestations to the best of your knowledge. 

    Anyone who would find that document scary to sign is either paranoid or shouldn't have been used for a reference.  

    I don't see it as being any more of a barrier than the fact references are part of the process is.

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...