SAF CHALLENGES INTERSTATE HANDGUN SALES BAN

[ryan_j 0]

No, they can drag out cert while they figure out what to do. I suspect the delay is debate rather than ignoring it. Other than Obama, the notion that if everyone gets screwed and it works for nobody isn't generally accepted as the best solution, even on capital hill.

 

Actually the delay is because Gura asked them to hold it. He also asked them to extend the deadline for the NJ case. It's getting interesting because there's Baker and Peruta in CA9 as well, and there's the case in DC at the district level.

 

It's hard to get a feel but I believe something big is brewing here.

 

DC will most certainly have to strike down the law or it will create a massive circuit split like the grand canyon. Remember this is a place that will nail your balls to the wall if they catch you with a spent casing. 

[raz-0 1,259]

Hmm, looking into this deeper, nobody can say why they held it. There's no official statement form anyone involved. Holder did ask, but it looks like he wants to hold it to see the outcome of the NRA case and this one would just be a matter of handing it back to the lower court with a version of "yeah that was fine", or "you screwed up, fix it" rather than a ruling. 

 

AT this point the legal wrangling is getting above my level of understanding, and frankly I would suggest that anyone not privy to whatever SAF/GURA/NRA's strategy is at this point couldn't say what they are planning or how well it is going. 

 

The last thin Gura publicly stated was back in mid october, and he didn't seem to think it was going so well and that he was counting on increased disagreement on various subjects from lower courts spurring them into action. On that point, I'd argue that more often than not it seems the lower courts are ignoring the USSC's admonishment that rational basis is not sufficient scrutiny for 2a cases, and the USSC is not taking them to task on it. This is not what I would consider good news, but I am not a constitutional lawyer. 

 

They appear to be currently trying to stir up cases in other districts as the split between 2, 3 and 7 was not enough to get it done. Given the shall issue status in lots of states, that has them hitting 8 and 10 for legal resident alien prohibitions, and they hit up 9 over CA carry laws as practiced. There are additional cases from CA rotting in the 9th with various people backing them. Right now there is a circle jerk of case one is on hold penidng the outcome of case t2 wihcih is on hold pending the outcome of case 4 which is on hold pending the outcome of case 1. Good luck with that. He's also going for a do over by trying to get cert for the NJ case we lost in 3. 

 

Honestly, form my place here int the cheap seats as a guy with a good vocabulary, a grasp of logic, a willingness to read through this crap, and some common sense, we have zero traction at the moment and are trying the throw everything at the wall till something stick plan. The one out to that may be the USSC playing politics and delaying things until closer to the mid term elections. The most optimistic take is the possibility they are letting illinois and the ruling in the 7th generate some empirical evidence on the compelling state interest of increasing safety by restricting the number of guns legally out and about in public. If it follows the trend in other states where there were now ild west shootouts and no blood running in the streets and violent crime numbers drop some amount, it would be excellent fuel for handing the 2nd and 3rd their asses with rational basis tests. Especially the decision on NJ where it was argued like poop and the argument was that it was a compelling state interest and we approve most of them anyway. 

[raz-0 1,259]

oh yeah, in trying to do a bit more digging, I found this page, very useful 

 

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=110

[Scrappy 0]

Thanks for posting.

[siderman 1,140]

Hmm, looking into this deeper, nobody can say why they held it. There's no official statement form anyone involved. Holder did ask, but it looks like he wants to hold it to see the outcome of the NRA case and this one would just be a matter of handing it back to the lower court with a version of "yeah that was fine", or "you screwed up, fix it" rather than a ruling. 

 

AT this point the legal wrangling is getting above my level of understanding, and frankly I would suggest that anyone not privy to whatever SAF/GURA/NRA's strategy is at this point couldn't say what they are planning or how well it is going. 

 

yes, thanx for posting. I appreciate your researched insight.

 

The last thin Gura publicly stated was back in mid october, and he didn't seem to think it was going so well and that he was counting on increased disagreement on various subjects from lower courts spurring them into action. On that point, I'd argue that more often than not it seems the lower courts are ignoring the USSC's admonishment that rational basis is not sufficient scrutiny for 2a cases, and the USSC is not taking them to task on it. This is not what I would consider good news, but I am not a constitutional lawyer. 

 

They appear to be currently trying to stir up cases in other districts as the split between 2, 3 and 7 was not enough to get it done. Given the shall issue status in lots of states, that has them hitting 8 and 10 for legal resident alien prohibitions, and they hit up 9 over CA carry laws as practiced. There are additional cases from CA rotting in the 9th with various people backing them. Right now there is a circle jerk of case one is on hold penidng the outcome of case t2 wihcih is on hold pending the outcome of case 4 which is on hold pending the outcome of case 1. Good luck with that. He's also going for a do over by trying to get cert for the NJ case we lost in 3. 

 

Honestly, form my place here int the cheap seats as a guy with a good vocabulary, a grasp of logic, a willingness to read through this crap, and some common sense, we have zero traction at the moment and are trying the throw everything at the wall till something stick plan. The one out to that may be the USSC playing politics and delaying things until closer to the mid term elections. The most optimistic take is the possibility they are letting illinois and the ruling in the 7th generate some empirical evidence on the compelling state interest of increasing safety by restricting the number of guns legally out and about in public. If it follows the trend in other states where there were now ild west shootouts and no blood running in the streets and violent crime numbers drop some amount, it would be excellent fuel for handing the 2nd and 3rd their asses with rational basis tests. Especially the decision on NJ where it was argued like poop and the argument was that it was a compelling state interest and we approve most of them anyway.

 

[siderman 1,140]

Raz-O, thanx for the post appreciate the researched insight.

[ryan_j 0]

Certiorari DENIED. So this case is dead. Get used to applying for those PtPs and OGAM. 

[boo 6]

So if I understand correctly, it's now impossible for a DC resident to legally buy a handgun? Wow...

[ryan_j 0]

So if I understand correctly, it's now impossible for a DC resident to legally buy a handgun? Wow...

 

I don't think so, because Sykes got another location and is back in business. 

 

There's also another FFL in DC.

 

http://dcgunworks.com/

 

But it's dangerous because if NJ wanted to ban handgun sales it could just drive FFLs out of business.

[raz-0 1,259]

I don't think so, because Sykes got another location and is back in business. 

 

There's also another FFL in DC.

 

http://dcgunworks.com/

 

But it's dangerous because if NJ wanted to ban handgun sales it could just drive FFLs out of business.

 

 

I don't know about that. There is a big difference between haivng one guy close up shop and a concerted effort to shut down all FFLs. The two acts may be viewed in drastically different light by the supreme court, especially given that the one FFL is apparently now back in business. 

[ryan_j 0]

I don't know about that. There is a big difference between haivng one guy close up shop and a concerted effort to shut down all FFLs. The two acts may be viewed in drastically different light by the supreme court, especially given that the one FFL is apparently now back in business. 

 

Could be, but what if local zoning got together and did something really creative they could ban gun shops or just make it really ridiculous to own one. Things like proximity to school, window displays etc.