Jump to content
gunforhire

ANJRPC 10 Round Magazine case has had our en banc petition denied.

Recommended Posts

ANJRPC 10 Round Magazine case has had our en banc petition denied. The next step is to ask the Supreme Court to review the Third Circuit's opinion. Off to the Supreme Court we go!
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kc17 said:

I meant for this en banc petition. From the link you posted:

"Judges Jordan, Hardiman, Bibas, Porter, Matey and Phipps would have granted the petition."

I read that as the six Judges that would have granted the petition were not enough.

I think there are 15 total? I forget. 

I read elsewhere that there were two other judges appointed by a Republican that voted no. 
 

all things considered that may be ok.  Faster to SCOTUS. 
 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, bennj said:

Oh good, on to the SCOTUS! They've been all in on 2A cases! Sorry for the sarcasm, and I do appreciate the efforts made by many to defend our rights, but the judicial process as it exists doesn't exude confidence to do what is right.

At the risk of stating the obvious (which Mr C already knows)  there’s a new sheriff in town

https://flashnewss.net/2020/11/26/supreme-court-votes-5-4-against-cuomos-covid-restrictions-on-religious-services/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, FXDX said:

At the risk of stating the obvious (which Mr C already knows)  there’s a new sheriff in town

https://flashnewss.net/2020/11/26/supreme-court-votes-5-4-against-cuomos-covid-restrictions-on-religious-services/

This is what we have been waiting for. Robert’s is now insignificant. 

From Dan Schmutter. Some hope!

 

Major Supreme Court decision yesterday on an application for an emergency injunction in a First Amendment religious liberty case.
This not only bodes well for Second Amendment rights during emergencies, but also shows the kind of difference a Justice Barrett can make.

In a 5-4 decision (with Barrett in majority), Court enjoins Cuomo from enforcing highly restrictive capacity rules on houses of worship In NY.  Roman Catholic Church v. Cuomo.  Majority opinion, as well as concurring options from Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, signal that Court is not willing to abdicate it’s responsibility to protect constitutional rights in emergency conditions.

From the opinion:

“Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area. But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten. The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty. Before allowing this to occur, we have a duty to conduct a serious examination of the need for such a drastic measure.”

From concurrence by Gorsuch:

“Government is not free to disregard the First Amendment in times of crisis.

***

Why have some mistaken this Court’s modest decision in Jacobson for a towering authority that overshadows the Constitution during a pandemic? In the end, I can only surmise that much of the answer lies in a particular judicial impulse to stay out of the way in times of crisis. But if that impulse may be understandable or even admirable in other circumstances, we may not shelter in place when the Constitution is under attack. Things never go well when we do.”

From concurrence by Kavanaugh:

“But judicial deference in an emergency or a crisis does not mean wholesale judicial abdication, especially when important questions of religious discrimination, racial discrimination, free speech, or the like are raised.”

This signals a clear willingness not to tolerate arbitrary exercises of power by executives, even in emergencies, exactly when liberty is at greatest risk of suppression.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, gunforhire said:

PS. Robert’s sided with the 3 liberals in this case as expected! 

He dissented on the grounds that the case is moot. NY had already changed its policy and brought its handling of religious locations and gatherings in line with secular ones.  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cuomo only changed the policy because he didn't want to get the SCOTUS involved, just like they did in the recent 2A case in NYC. Roberts disingenuously supported the idea of the issue being moot, knowing full well that Cuomo could/would have immediately gone back to the prior religious liberties restrictions he instituted once the court backed off. Roberts is clearly on the left, especially after pontificating that the SCOTUS doesn't have a partisan bone in it's body, and how dare we question their integrity. Have a Happy Thanksgiving all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, RUTGERS95 said:

as I said, it won't change until politicians and judges start getting shot as people become enraged and more desperate to preserve rights.  sad but true

ever ask yourself why islam is left alone?

You left out the the propaganda spewing progressive media talking heads and the government speech censors in the tech companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, revenger said:

possibly because the gas pumper moved on to another job?

If you read their response it’s because their lawyer is too busy with other cases.   Like, “sorry, Scotus.  You’re not the priority”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I admit I have a very hard time interpreting legalese, and am interested any time the courts take up a pro 2A case. But from what little I understand, SCOTUS took the case after rewriting the original petitioner's question from a broad 2A query to a very narrow one that will have limited results. If they rule in our favor it hardly would be a magnanimous victory, but I'll take any crumbs we can get. If I'm missing something (quite possible) I would be happy to be corrected. By rewriting the question as they did I feel they still punted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/5/2021 at 2:29 PM, bennj said:

 I admit I have a very hard time interpreting legalese, and am interested any time the courts take up a pro 2A case. But from what little I understand, SCOTUS took the case after rewriting the original petitioner's question from a broad 2A query to a very narrow one that will have limited results. If they rule in our favor it hardly would be a magnanimous victory, but I'll take any crumbs we can get. If I'm missing something (quite possible) I would be happy to be corrected. By rewriting the question as they did I feel they still punted.

I would read this: NYSRPA v. Corlett: The Supreme Court’s Next Big Gun Case, Explained (thetrace.org)

I remain very optimistic on this case as it is the first of it's kind. According to the article, there are a number of potential outcomes. The worst case scenario is that NY, NJ, CA simply ignore the ruling forcing us common folk to file individual lawsuits against the "issuing authority"  which would then result in the "issuing authority"  losing in court on an individual basis and being forced to issue a CCW permit. Though, based on what happened in Illinois and Washington DC, the states/city threw up their hands in defeat and accepted "shall issue". The best case scenarios is either a broad "originalist" ruling or a ruling to the lower courts to review 2a cases entirely different resulting in "shall issue". I feel good about this one, it's the first real gun case the supremes have taken in a decade, Are "crumbs" the only thing we have to look forward to? I think not! 22 States are "Shall issue" 21 States are "constitutional carry" there are only 7 states left that are "holdouts", they must and will be brought to heel by SCOTUS eventually. 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2021 at 7:57 PM, marlintag said:

I would advise against linking to anything from thetrace.org unless you advise people of the following (my emphasis added):
 

Quote

The Trace is an American non-profit journalism outlet devoted to gun-related news in the United States established in 2015 with seed money from the largest gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety, which was founded by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...