Jump to content

What Will SCOTUS Do?  

152 members have voted

  1. 1. What will the Supreme Court do with the Drake Case?

    • Deny the petition to hear the case and remain silent on whether Americans have the right to carry a firearm.
      65
    • Hear the case and rule that the second amendment does NOT guarantee the right to carry a firearm in public.
      10
    • Hear the case and rule that the second amendment DOES guarantee the right to carry a firearm in public.
      77


Recommended Posts

Thanks for the great post. The way you describe the non-split with 7CA makes a lot of sense, and it lends some method to SCOTUS's madness to see if a true split appears after en banc. It sounds to me like we have two options:

1) 9th denies en banc. Harris appeals to SCOTUS, and they will recognize a true split and hear it.

2) 9th grants en banc, most likely overturns, and leaves us without a split. We then either appeal the 9th decision and likely get denied cert again, or, perhaps more wisely, keep our powder dry and appeal it only if the court makeup changes in our favor. According to Newtonian, this will never happen on our relentless drive toward a full-fledged totalitarian state.

option 1 is the only true hope we have to see carrying become legal in NJ, there is always the case going to the NJ supreme court, but we have about a .000000001% chance of winning that case, and when we lose that case even if we appeal to scotus they will deny the hearing as the NJ Supreme will probably just affirm the 3rd circuits opinion leaving us  with no split between our state high court and our federal appeals court 

 

lets just hope the 9th denies en banc and doesnt take 10 years to do so 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think this talk of whether it's a true split or not is overthinking it. These aren't legal robots sitting on the Supreme Court, they're people with feeling and emotion. I doubt Sotomayor was thinking "We shouldn't grant cert because I don't think the 9th CA yet represents a true split", she was saying "People walking around with guns? Are you you crazy?".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bear in mind that it only takes four justices to grant cert.

 

If there isn't a fifth vote for the merits, the four liberals could vote to grant and take this opportunity to destroy the 2A for good, like they've wanted to. 

 

But why not?

I'm thinking the Heller five decided collectively to pass on this on their own, probably either in the hopes of something better, OR because they want to duck the question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean....like they do in 47 other states without significant incident?

 

My point isn't whether that's correct or not, I'm just saying that I doubt they're immune from making decisions based on their personal beliefs and ideologies.

 

And as Ryan stated, while I'm not happy with this, it's at least better than a granting of cert followed by an anti-2a decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the bigger question is, what if the 9th denies harris' motion to intervene.  then not only will they not hear it en banc, nobody will be able to file for cert

it is very likely they will deny Harris motion to intervene, but i believe the only reason they will deny her is because the 9th knows that once Hawaii goes through the district court again and loses this time around, it is more than likely the Hawaii AG will ask for en banc and if denied which is most likely again, then the Hawaii AG will probably appeal to scotus again with a true split 

 

remember Hawaii is more stringent on permits than NJ, i believe Hawaii has only one active ccw holder 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think this talk of whether it's a true split or not is overthinking it. These aren't legal robots sitting on the Supreme Court, they're people with feeling and emotion. I doubt Sotomayor was thinking "We shouldn't grant cert because I don't think the 9th CA yet represents a true split", she was saying "People walking around with guns? Are you you crazy?".

true but its a lot more involved than that, remember scotus hates 2a issues, they want to avoid them at all costs,  so their thinking i believe is why take the case if we dont have to

 

what i believe is the reason they re-listed drake a few times is they wanted to review that case and other similar cases like the 9th, when they realized that there isnt a true split among the courts yet from their research, they then probably decided against the case, basically thinking the 9th decision can still be reversed in an en banc decision

 

i believe they want to see how the 9th plays out, if its reversed then they'll be happy because they can go on avoiding the 2a issue again, if its not reversed in the 9th, or en banc is denied then their hands are basically tied and they have to solve the split 

 

scotus knows more cases like drake are coming, they just want to see if they can avoid the issue or if they have to solve the split at the last second 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the bigger question is, what if the 9th denies harris' motion to intervene.  then not only will they not hear it en banc, nobody will be able to file for cert

and just to add a little more info. if Harris is denied and nobody files for en banc including Hawaii then the 9th decision goes to being a true circuit split and then there is one more case that can be appealed to scotus with that split, its the NJ case thats going to be heard by the NJ supreme court that well probably lose, so theres other cases available to scotus to choose if the split becomes finalized 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

true but its a lot more involved than that, remember scotus hates 2a issues, they want to avoid them at all costs,  so their thinking i believe is why take the case if we dont have to

 

what i believe is the reason they re-listed drake a few times is they wanted to review that case and other similar cases like the 9th, when they realized that there isnt a true split among the courts yet from their research, they then probably decided against the case, basically thinking the 9th decision can still be reversed in an en banc decision

 

i believe they want to see how the 9th plays out, if its reversed then they'll be happy because they can go on avoiding the 2a issue again, if its not reversed in the 9th, or en banc is denied then their hands are basically tied and they have to solve the split 

 

scotus knows more cases like drake are coming, they just want to see if they can avoid the issue or if they have to solve the split at the last second 

What other cases? At this point, haven't all of the CAs ruled? If another Drake-type case were to arise, would it go to the CA again, or would CA refuse it on the grounds that they've already stated their position?

 

Why do they hate 2A so much? I would think that a legal scholar would find it fascinating, because it's the one part of the bill of rights that is actively and systematically being dismantled by legislative action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

scotus knows more cases like drake are coming, they just want to see if they can avoid the issue or if they have to solve the split at the last second

From where? 2, 3, 4 and 9 are done. 9 may not reach SCOTUS. 1 Maybe? That's about all that is left with the right setup to have a clean case that doesn't involve felony acts. Every other circuit has precedent that has been left standing or are in a wonky state like 9.

 

Unfortunately, I think the only thing you can really come to a conclusion about is that there were not 5 pro RKBA votes, unless some were technically pro in a very marginal way, which is effectively the same thing.

 

There may not have been 5 anti votes, but there could have been with the antis only not forcing cert due to mid-term elections.

 

IT could also be 3 3 3. With 3 very pro, 3 willing to endanger a lot of stuff to limit the 2nd in any way possible, and 3 who don't want to let those other two factions do what they want.

 

The most optimistic view at this point is that they expect 9 will settle down to something, and 1 will be a source of another case, and then they will have ALL the positions in an there is pretty much a guarantee at that point that any decision will not simply result in a repeat of ah not this crap again in short order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What other cases? At this point, haven't all of the CAs ruled? If another Drake-type case were to arise, would it go to the CA again, or would CA refuse it on the grounds that they've already stated their position?

 

Why do they hate 2A so much? I would think that a legal scholar would find it fascinating, because it's the one part of the bill of rights that is actively and systematically being dismantled by legislative action.

well the Hawaii case hasn't made it through the courts yet, basically the district court refused to hear the case at first, saf appealed that and the 9th circuit told the district court they have to hear the case and use the decision in peruta.  Basically the 9th told the district court in Hawaii to hear the case and rule that Hawaii's law is unconstitutional 

 

after the district court in Hawaii rules like they're supposed to it'll go back to the 9th where the same 3 judges in the peruta case will affirm the districts decision, after that, the Hawaii AG has the option to either, accept the decision and change their law (very unlikely), appeal for an en banc hearing which will most likely be denied and if it is denied then the Hawaii AG has the option of appealing the case to scotus (very likely) which will then be a true split among courts 

 

if Hawaii decides not to appeal to scotus after the en banc is denied, then we still have a true split among the courts because the whole appeals process is done and Hawaii admitted defeat and will comply with the 9ths ruling, if this is true we still have the NJ case which is supposed to be heard by the NJ supreme court, hopefully soon, the NJ supreme court will rule against us and after they do, Nappen (the lawyer defending us in the nj supreme court case) can appeal that decision to scotus and using the split between the 3rd circuit and the 9th circuit as a persuasion to kind of force scotus to hear the case to solve the split 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From where? 2, 3, 4 and 9 are done. 9 may not reach SCOTUS. 1 Maybe? That's about all that is left with the right setup to have a clean case that doesn't involve felony acts. Every other circuit has precedent that has been left standing or are in a wonky state like 9.

 

Unfortunately, I think the only thing you can really come to a conclusion about is that there were not 5 pro RKBA votes, unless some were technically pro in a very marginal way, which is effectively the same thing.

 

There may not have been 5 anti votes, but there could have been with the antis only not forcing cert due to mid-term elections.

 

IT could also be 3 3 3. With 3 very pro, 3 willing to endanger a lot of stuff to limit the 2nd in any way possible, and 3 who don't want to let those other two factions do what they want.

 

The most optimistic view at this point is that they expect 9 will settle down to something, and 1 will be a source of another case, and then they will have ALL the positions in an there is pretty much a guarantee at that point that any decision will not simply result in a repeat of ah not this crap again in short order.

we have the Hawaii case which still needs to go through the district court, after it does and the 9th confirms the districts ruling is in line with peruta, then the Hawaii AG can appeal for en banc, if thats denied which it most likely will be then the Hawaii AG can appeal to scotus with a true split between the 9th and the 2nd 3rd and 4th circuit courts 

 

if the Hawaii AG decides not to appeal to scotus then the split is finalized, after that we have the NJ supreme court case that were probably going to lose and when we do Nappen will probably appeal that decision to scotus and use the split as a reason for scotus to take the case and solve the issue 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a perverse idea. What if some municipality in the 5CA  were to be convinced to pass a restrictive law, similar to Nj. It could be tried by the conservative 5CA and overthrown in quick order. This would create our split.

very unlikely they'll do that with the fear that the 5th will rule its constitutional and then in return add more fuel to the anti gunners, too much can go wrong with something like that, we just have to wait till peruta and Hawaii are played out in the 9th and hope en banc is denied so the split can be finalized 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What other cases? At this point, haven't all of the CAs ruled? If another Drake-type case were to arise, would it go to the CA again, or would CA refuse it on the grounds that they've already stated their position?

 

Why do they hate 2A so much? I would think that a legal scholar would find it fascinating, because it's the one part of the bill of rights that is actively and systematically being dismantled by legislative action.

and the reason i believe scotus hates 2a issues is because there is too much politics and emotions involved in the issue, just like abortions, they ruled a few times in abortions and now they want to stay out of the issue and let the lower courts finalize the details, which they've been doing following the decision in roe, too bad we cant have the courts do the same with the decision in Heller, if the lower courts followed Heller like they do with roe, well we would have so form of shall issue by now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe hell will freeze over, and a bill like this one will pass through our state one day A2318 or S1287. Introduced and sponsored by legislatures from my district.

 

http://legiscan.com/NJ/comments/A2318/2014

 

Here is the list of other pro gun bills my elected members of Senate and assembly have introduced and sponsored.

A113, A155, A989/S251, A1861/S792, A2869, A3104/S1109, A3105/S649, AR13.

If these were to pass NJ could become a part of the rest of America. I would even bitch less about my taxes. For me to recite this to my neighbors is like preaching to the Choir. The guys here living in the cesspool counties of NJ need to get the word out. Make people understand, everyone you encounter that voting makes a difference. I even registered friends to vote this year for them, and called them to remind them to vote on election day. If we all did this things could change, and I won't have to move.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You only get one vote per person at the polling place and Mr. Vector is trying to get 800,000 of them to show up. You get like 30 or 40 votes each from a rooftop.

 

If you are saying what I think you are saying (shooting people from rooftops) then you are an idiot. If I'm misinterperting it, please explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe hell will freeze over, and a bill like this one will pass through our state one day A2318 or S1287. Introduced and sponsored by legislatures from my district.

 

http://legiscan.com/NJ/comments/A2318/2014

 

Here is the list of other pro gun bills my elected members of Senate and assembly have introduced and sponsored.

A113, A155, A989/S251, A1861/S792, A2869, A3104/S1109, A3105/S649, AR13.

If these were to pass NJ could become a part of the rest of America. I would even bitch less about my taxes. For me to recite this to my neighbors is like preaching to the Choir. The guys here living in the cesspool counties of NJ need to get the word out. Make people understand, everyone you encounter that voting makes a difference. I even registered friends to vote this year for them, and called them to remind them to vote on election day. If we all did this things could change, and I won't have to move.

 

None of those bills will ever, ever, ever pass in NJ. 

 

I'm sorry to say success in gun rights in this state will now be limited to slowing the constant onslaught of gun control bills.  The 10 round limit may or may not pass this year but eventually it will get through.  Totally crazy bills like annual home inspections will be defeated with constant effort by the 2A community, but gradually more and more "moderate" controls will pass every year.  Occasionally there may be a 2A "victory" with trivial improvements in the administration of the permitting process, like eliminating extra forms and speeding processing times. 

 

But in a world where you need a permit to read and the government limits how many books you can buy, does it really matter if you can buy 1, 4 or 12 books in a year or that the application is reduced from 10 to 8 pages?

 

If gun rights are important to you, find another place to live. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of those bills will ever, ever, ever pass in NJ.

 

I'm sorry to say success in gun rights in this state will now be limited to slowing the constant onslaught of gun control bills. The 10 round limit may or may not pass this year but eventually it will get through. Totally crazy bills like annual home inspections will be defeated with constant effort by the 2A community, but gradually more and more "moderate" controls will pass every year. Occasionally there may be a 2A "victory" with trivial improvements in the administration of the permitting process, like eliminating extra forms and speeding processing times.

 

But in a world where you need a permit to read and the government limits how many books you can buy, does it really matter if you can buy 1, 4 or 12 books in a year or that the application is reduced from 10 to 8 pages?

 

If gun rights are important to you, find another place to live.

I believe you miss the larger picture here. If they can get away with it here, eventually it will be everywhere. No matter where you move your new home state is not immune to gun control. It basically spreads like cancer. Imagine one more gun grabber is appointed to the SCOTUS by the current administration. Or the next Left wing liberal administration. Federaly were screwed (not that we aren't already). Basically my point is no place is completely safe from these morons.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you miss the larger picture here. If they can get away with it here, eventually it will be everywhere. No matter where you move your new home state is not immune to gun control. It basically spreads like cancer. Imagine one more gun grabber is appointed to the SCOTUS by the current administration. Or the next Left wing liberal administration. Federaly were screwed (not that we aren't already). Basically my point is no place is completely safe from these morons.

I totally agree with you on that point.  The lack of a SC decision affirming the right to bear arms outside the home leaves us vulnerable everywhere in the US and we cannot take for granted that even those places in America where gun rights are respected are safe. 

 

My point is simply that in lieu of federal court rulings imposing reform, NJ will continue to get worse.  Unless you intend to become a martyr it's time to abandon a sinking ship and continue the fight elsewhere, where the efforts are worth something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since history repeats itself, the future does not look good.

 

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html

 

Why is the USA not a British colony?

 

Why is the second amendment so important?

 

I usually ask the antis questions along these lines.

 

Next chapter may be along the lines of replacing the word British with American.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree with you on that point.  The lack of a SC decision affirming the right to bear arms outside the home leaves us vulnerable everywhere in the US and we cannot take for granted that even those places in America where gun rights are respected are safe. 

 

My point is simply that in lieu of federal court rulings imposing reform, NJ will continue to get worse.  Unless you intend to become a martyr it's time to abandon a sinking ship and continue the fight elsewhere, where the efforts are worth something.

Better analogy could be seeing  NJ (with current attitude towards 2A) as a cancerous body part. You cannot simply get rid of it, you cannot just ignore it.

 

Abandoning NJ may work fine for short term. But take a look at a long view and you can see that cancer slowly but surely spreading and taking over completely. 

 

As an example, would we not fight what JC does and just tell everyone from JC to move ?  That will only further what JC wants and in no time JC standards become NJ standards.

 

In my opinion, its important for NRA (and others) to continue help the fight in NJ for NJ is just not a body part that can be cut off and forget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better analogy could be seeing NJ (with current attitude towards 2A) as a cancerous body part. You cannot simply get rid of it, you cannot just ignore it.

 

Abandoning NJ may work fine for short term. But take a look at a long view and you can see that cancer slowly but surely spreading and taking over completely.

 

As an example, would we not fight what JC does and just tell everyone from JC to move ? That will only further what JC wants and in no time JC standards become NJ standards.

 

In my opinion, its important for NRA (and others) to continue help the fight in NJ for NJ is just not a body part that can be cut off and forget.

I believe I made the exact same analogy in my above post^^^ I said gun control "basically spreads like cancer". And I completely agree with what your saying as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe I made the exact same analogy in my above post^^^ I said gun control "basically spreads like cancer". And I completely agree with what your saying as well.

Just out of curiosity, to quote the old Tom Lerher song, "Who's Next?" :D

 

Which states (in order) do you think will be next to adopt NJ/NY/CT style gun control?

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...