SCOTUS: Court denies gun rights cases 02/24/14

[galapoola 102]

Court denies gun rights cases

The Supreme Court refused on Monday, as it has done repeatedly in recent years, to reopen the issue of whether Second Amendment rights to have a gun extend beyond the home.  The Court, without comment, denied three new petitions — two filed by the National Rifle Association.  The cases were 12-1401, 13-137 and 13-390.

(This post will be expanded following this morning’s oral arguments.)

[ryan_j 0]

Not our case, but it could have clarified possession outside the home. 

 

Our case isn't up for review until April or so. 

[RUTGERS95 890]

tagged to follow

[jrfly3006 42]

Does anyone know how do they make the decision not to hear a case?.. Do they vote as a whole or does Roberts make the call?

[njpilot 671]

Does anyone know how do they make the decision not to hear a case?.. Do they vote as a whole or does Roberts make the call?

I believe it was posted in one of the other threads that 4 justices have to vote to hear a case.

[keroberos 0]

Does anyone know how do they make the decision not to hear a case?.. Do they vote as a whole or does Roberts make the call?

 

Sort of like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz-PtEJEaqY

[jrfly3006 42]

I believe it was posted in one of the other threads that 4 justices have to vote to hear a case.

OK thx NJ

[JibbaJabba 7]

This decision makes me more optimistic about SCOTUS hearing Drake.

[wooly bugger 1]

You scared the S*** out of me with that post. I thought it was Drake. 

 

I looked through the documents, and for those who aren't intimately involved in the case, they are:

 

Lane vs. Holder:  Challenges legality of prohibition on buying handguns in states where one doesn't reside

NRA vs. BATF and NRA vs. McCraw: Challenge prohibition on carrying handguns by people 18-20 years of age.

 

I'm not terribly sad about losing the two NRA cases, but Lane is big: not just because it would relieve us of OGAM, but because without it, states can impose de facto handgun bans by simply driving all FFLs out of business.

 

If you want to read a slanted, anti take on these challenges, here is is:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/01/1272786/-NRA-Takes-Aim-at-the-Federal-Courts-NRA-v-BATFE-and-NRA-v-McCraw#

 

If you want to waste mouse clicks, you can even take the survey at the bottom. I was the 61st respondent. Yay!

[wooly bugger 1]

This decision makes me more optimistic about SCOTUS hearing Drake.

After recovering from my initial wave of despair when I realized this wasn't Drake, that was my thought, as well. 

[EX Carnival man 223]

This is not good news for NJ.  Whats left Just Drake?

[njJoniGuy 2,131]

These were:

Lane v DC (Gura for Lane)

NRA v ATF (Clement for NRA)

NRA v TX Dept Public Safety

 

Don't know their details, but apparently the nine haven't found the ONE they want yet.

 

As S&G sang once:

"April, come she will"

[fumanchu182 23]

This is not good news for NJ.  Whats left Just Drake?

 

It's actually good news for Drake.  Drake gets moved up in schedule as the other cases don't get approved.

[EX Carnival man 223]

It's actually good news for Drake.  Drake gets moved up in schedule as the other cases don't get approved.

Thank You thats a good way to look at it.   You made my day a little better

[Spartiati 63]

This is not good news for NJ.  Whats left Just Drake?

Why do you say bad for NJ?  None of these had anything to do with CCW.  Not surprised they didn't take these, though I had hoped for Lane.  Not sure if we can read anything from these as to whether SCOTUS will hear Drake.

[springfieldxds 0]

i still have hope, drake i believe is the one they are waiting for, the other one of the 3, not sure which one, dealt with 18  year olds carrying guns i believe, scotus probably doesnt want to touch that issue with a 50 foot pole

 

on another note, can scoutus clarify guns outside the home without actually taking the case? 

[illy 1]

Not sure if we can read anything from these as to whether SCOTUS will hear Drake.

 

The only thing I can think of is that they don't want to be doing 2A cases every term. So, if they had taken one of these, it may have reduced the likliehood of hearing Drake.

 

In that sense, it may make it eaiser for them to hear Drake.

 

But who knows.

[Rysdad 5]

Every time I read stuff like this my heart sinks.  I know that these are not the cases we necesarily want but still.. Somewhere deep down I feel that this may be our last chance for the true 2nd amendment to survive in this country.  That being said, I don't know if I can stand to lose this chance and still live here.  I may have to go to the south.

[Howard 538]

Won't they have to hear an appeal of the 9th district as don't we now have Federal district rules at odds with one another?  If that is the case I don't believe they can opt out.

[Pythagoras 2]

Phew! I was also scared about it being Drake for a moment there.... Thanks for restoring my blood pressure back to normal, guys

[ryan_j 0]

It's actually good news for Drake.  Drake gets moved up in schedule as the other cases don't get approved.

 

No, that's not true at all. Nothing moves up.

 

It's neither good nor bad news for us. 

[raz-0 1,259]

Won't they have to hear an appeal of the 9th district as don't we now have Federal district rules at odds with one another?  If that is the case I don't believe they can opt out.

 

 

Yes they can opt out, but that would mean that effectively the ruling can be ignored. When dealing with say a 20 year old precedent set by a previous composition of the court, that may be a convenient option to essentially say we didn't like the reasoning there, lets see what current situations shake out and see if we need to hear the issue again. With something 4-6 years old depending on how you look at it? Not so much. 

 

Basically they had 2 cases regarding the mess that is legal rights regarding 18-21 year olds. It isn't just a RKBA issue, and it has existed for a while. Add to that that the prime violent criminal demogrpahic is 16-28 years old, and there's all sorts of reasons you might not get enough buy in to get it heard. 

 

Then you have the lane case, which asks a pertinent question regarding having rights abridged by local bureaucracy affecting the means of exercising those rights. The net result of which would have ot be either saying you aren't necessarily entitled to your rights thus undermining their own recent decisions (not likley to get traction for those who ruled in the majority for heller and McDonald), rule that basically all the existing BATFE regs regarding sales have to be thrown out (which is not a decision you would like to make if you believe the government has any regulatory authority, and thus isn't likely to get sufficient backing from either side), or to compel someone to be in the business of being an FFL (would you really like there to be precedent for SCOTUS to compel someone to open up shop, or for the government to be your FFL?). On top of that, this is really only a practical issue in DC. Everywhere else you have options within driving distance. 

 

If there is indeed feeling that BATFE has overstepped their bounds as set forth by laws passed as congress, odds are you could get to address them via Abramski vs. the US. So not only would the pro RKBA people on the court see a potential second opportunity to address what they have issue with, they may regard it is more appropriate overall. 

 

 

Then you have drake. Which deals with the fundamentals of the 2nd. There's three things to address. The militia bit, the keep bit, and the bear bit. Until you have established where you stand with those bits, everything else is getting the cart before the horse. The argument for drake is SO badly done that the SCOTUS could clarify their scrutiny standards to give lower courts less wiggle room and breathe new life into every case that has hit the circuit level as well. The potential downside is that the peruta case is out there, and might be a better fit if you want to declare that you can pick and choose between CCW and open carry and be compliant with the bill of rights. That gets maximally messy if the CA isn't planning on challenging it, but if the court or portions thereof want to wait on it. You also have enough states signed on as amicus to the SAF side of the argument to hold a constitutional convention. That sort of says something right there. 

 

It's messy and complex. Unless getting enough votes to hear it was a slam dunk and it is just waiting until April, I'm sure there has been spirited discussion over this. 

 

IMO if drake gets challenged rapidly, en banc hearings are refused, and they know it is coming on the docket, they may drop drake to avoid playing politics during the mid-term elections to hear Peruta instead. If not, I don't see the proRKBA side of the court feeling they will get better options soon, so then it may come down to what are they willing to horse trade votes on in terms of OTHER cases. Which is all serious guessing, because SCOTUS keeps the politics of their workplace a very opaque black box. 

[springfieldxds 0]

i dont believe peruta is a good case for them, they can throw out the case saying that it only deals with concealed carry which in their opinion isnt protected by the 2nd amendment (9th circuit plus scotus made this clear with their historical analysis, seems like the 9th circuit believes open carry is protected and conceal isnt, but they believe that in today's age you can ban open carry if conceal carry is allowed because open carry can cause public panic)

 

and if you want to test the legality of an open carry ban bring up a new case thats focused on that 

 

imho it seems like the dissent was pretty dead on about that, the case challenged the permitting scheme to conceal carry, it didnt challenge the open carry ban so there is a slight possibility that scotus will say the 9th over steeped their boundaries 

 

at least in NJ there is no open carry ban you just need a licence, there is also no distinction between open and concealed carry when you get your licence, that to me seems like a better suited case but then again im not a lawyer 

[NicePants 58]

April can't come fast enough.

[ryan_j 0]

Won't they have to hear an appeal of the 9th district as don't we now have Federal district rules at odds with one another?  If that is the case I don't believe they can opt out.

 

They don't have  to hear anything but a circuit split is a major factor.

[ryan_j 0]

i dont believe peruta is a good case for them, they can throw out the case saying that it only deals with concealed carry which in their opinion isnt protected by the 2nd amendment (9th circuit plus scotus made this clear with their historical analysis, seems like the 9th circuit believes open carry is protected and conceal isnt, but they believe that in today's age you can ban open carry if conceal carry is allowed because open carry can cause public panic)

 

and if you want to test the legality of an open carry ban bring up a new case thats focused on that 

 

imho it seems like the dissent was pretty dead on about that, the case challenged the permitting scheme to conceal carry, it didnt challenge the open carry ban so there is a slight possibility that scotus will say the 9th over steeped their boundaries 

 

at least in NJ there is no open carry ban you just need a licence, there is also no distinction between open and concealed carry when you get your licence, that to me seems like a better suited case but then again im not a lawyer 

 

 

Peruta actually deals with both open and concealed carry. The opinion basically said that they had to allow some form of carry and it could be open or concealed carry (or both).  

[ryan_j 0]

Yes they can opt out, but that would mean that effectively the ruling can be ignored. When dealing with say a 20 year old precedent set by a previous composition of the court, that may be a convenient option to essentially say we didn't like the reasoning there, lets see what current situations shake out and see if we need to hear the issue again. With something 4-6 years old depending on how you look at it? Not so much. 

 

 

Well, typically SCOTUS doesn't overturn its own precedent.

 

 

IMO if drake gets challenged rapidly, en banc hearings are refused, and they know it is coming on the docket, they may drop drake to avoid playing politics during the mid-term elections to hear Peruta instead. If not, I don't see the proRKBA side of the court feeling they will get better options soon, so then it may come down to what are they willing to horse trade votes on in terms of OTHER cases. Which is all serious guessing, because SCOTUS keeps the politics of their workplace a very opaque black box.

 

I don't think politics has anything to do with it. They also can't hear Peruta unless Sheriff Gore petitions for a writ of certiorari to the supreme court. So the case has to come before the court before they'll consider it. 

 

Remember as well that there are a few other cases in the 9th circuit, and any one of these could be appealed.

 

But there are also state cases like our very own Pantano. So if Drake isn't taken up, there are still options. 

[Hooligan 0]

I don't practice legal-fu, but it seems at first glance that SCOTUS may have to hear one 2A case this year, so they're waiting for the biggest one.

[galapoola 102]

It's actually good news for Drake.  Drake gets moved up in schedule as the other cases don't get approved.

Drake's timetable doesn't get moved by this, NJ has until March 14 to file a brief then SCOTUS will schedule for conference, then it is either ignored like these three or scheduled for oral arguments

[galapoola 102]

Won't they have to hear an appeal of the 9th district as don't we now have Federal district rules at odds with one another?  If that is the case I don't believe they can opt out.

Since Sheriff Gore opted not to ask for en banc of the full appeals court and said he wouldn't pursue any further, there is no one to appeal this up. Some have opined that the state of CA could but they weren't named as a defendant so they may not have standing