Downtownv 1,764 Posted April 9, 2020 U.S. Supreme Court Takes Another 2A Case To Conference Posted at 7:00 pm on April 8, 2020 by Cam Edwards We’re still waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. NYC, but in the meantime, justices will be considering another Second Amendment-related case in conference later this month. Rodriguez v. San Jose is a case out of California, and the issue before the court is whether or not a woman’s Second Amendment rights were violated when police seized her firearms and refused to return them, because they believed her husband to be a danger to himself or others. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals bizarrely ruled that Lori Rodriguez had no right to keep her firearms, though they also noted that there was nothing illegal about her buying a gun either. The court argued that because police believed that her husband (who according to Rodriguez did not have access to her firearms) could pose a threat to public safety, firearms that had been seized from their home when her husband was taken into custody under a mental health hold did not have to be returned to her. Lori contended in the state court proceedings that Defendants were violating her “right to keep and bear arms” by refusing to return the firearms because of her husband’s prohibited status, even though “she was not prohibited from acquiring or possessing firearms and had promised to take all steps required under California law to secure the firearms in a gun safe.” The California Court of Appeal expressly rejected this argument and the notion that the Second Amendment required returning her the guns. Highlighting that Lori had not pointed to any authority to the contrary, the court stated that the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago suggested that the Second Amendment did not “extend to keeping and bearing either any particular firearms or firearms that have been confiscated from a mentally ill person.” Ultimately, the court concluded “that Lori ha[d] failed to show that the trial court’s . . . order violate[d] the Second Amendment.” Under the 9th Circuit’s decision, you may have the right to own a firearm, but the police have the power to seize it and refuse to return it. As long as you can buy another one, says the court, your Second Amendment rights remain intact. Thankfully, this ridiculous decision has now reached the Supreme Court, though that doesn’t guarantee that they’ll accept the case. In fact, I’d say it’s unlikely that they’ll do anything with it until the decision in NYSPRA v. NYC is handed down. There are already a number of Second Amendment-related cases that have been in conference for months, including challenges to New Jersey’s concealed carry laws and a lawsuit taking on California’s microstamping law. Everything seems to be on hold until we get the opinion on the challenge to one of New York City’s gun laws, and depending on what that opinion says, we could see a number of cases dealing with the right to keep and bear arms accepted by the Supreme Court in the coming months. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downtownv 1,764 Posted April 10, 2020 Is this not posted in the correct forum? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CAL. .30 M1 2,101 Posted April 10, 2020 1 hour ago, Downtownv said: Is this not posted in the correct forum? It is...i just think no one cares - the world is in a coronavirus fog.... sadly. Even in times like this we need to be more focused in retaining our rights.... 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,417 Posted April 10, 2020 This is just saying the case is on the docket for consideration, right? SCOTUS hasn’t really done anything good yet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
siderman 1,131 Posted April 10, 2020 And it's the 9th, no one should be surprised at another absurd illogical contradictory down right stupid decision. Once again we wait for a Supreme intervention. And wait..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downtownv 1,764 Posted April 10, 2020 V9 the fact that it's finally being looked at after all these years is the best news for NJ Gun owners. The California and NY cases will completely blow up the NJ Gun Laws rendering them Unconstitutional. It is relevant for us. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downtownv 1,764 Posted April 10, 2020 Oh yea, in OUR case the NRA didn't do a focking thing for us, I believe this was done by other groups or individuals. Please weigh-in on the origin and who was behind it, if you know. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlDente67 563 Posted April 10, 2020 1 hour ago, Downtownv said: Oh yea, in OUR case the NRA didn't do a focking thing for us, I believe this was done by other groups or individuals. Please weigh-in on the origin and who was behind it, if you know. Now they trotted out new level of giving for lifetime members - for another donation, you can be lifetime "plus" or "fantastic supreme" or whatever they are calling it...for one easy payment of another $300 if you act now. They never stop grubbing for cash so Wayne and his buddies can keep up on the private jet lease. The last time they went begging, i asked them what they intend to do for us in NJ. And they flat out told me they have no intentions of doing anything for NJ owners because they considered NJ a lost cause. But how about "if I put you down for something less, like $50, can we count on your support?" I offered to send along a nice NRA canvas totebag in lieu of a check if they could prepay the postage. 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,417 Posted April 10, 2020 4 hours ago, Downtownv said: V9 the fact that it's finally being looked at after all these years is the best news for NJ Gun owners. The California and NY cases will completely blow up the NJ Gun Laws rendering them Unconstitutional. It is relevant for us. True. I don’t disagree it is good another case will make it up to scotus. But in this case the headline is misleading. The scotus hasn’t done anything. The case is following the normal progression and is now on the list for them to consider taking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
revenger 472 Posted April 10, 2020 I think most of us that have been in this 2A fight for a while just look at all these court cases and just yawn. when things turn around for us here in NJ we will know not because of dreams of SCOTUS saving us but by the sound of gunfire in the next revolution. this covid event will be studied relentlessly by the powers to evaluate how a ban/confiscation will go for them. murphy is testing the waters as we speak with his gun store/ range closures as well as silencing our spokespeople. we are learning what the weak links are right now and should act appropriately . what makes a landscaper essential and a shooting range not, an anti-american politician does. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fslater 62 Posted April 23, 2020 My guess is they'll use the play book other blatantly anti-2A states use..... Keep their denial intact until a court they know will overturn it accepts it. Then reverse their decision (in this case return the woman's guns), thus muting the case leaving no record it ever happened and more importantly no precedent in future similar cases Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
father-of-three 235 Posted April 24, 2020 If they overturn the ninth's ruling, this could change the state's current duty to warn law (originally a1181) for the better, after it was changed into an anti-gun law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drjjpdc 39 Posted May 14, 2020 As gun owners we have been disappointed many times but I now agree about the floodgates.There are about 10 gun cases waiting for conference this week. There has never been that many at one time. As pessimistic as I have been can the Supremes really dump all those cases? That would be pretty blatant like asking if we really have a 2nd Amendment. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
njJoniGuy 2,129 Posted May 14, 2020 1 hour ago, drjjpdc said: As gun owners we have been disappointed many times but I now agree about the floodgates.There are about 10 gun cases waiting for conference this week. There has never been that many at one time. As pessimistic as I have been can the Supremes really dump all those cases? That would be pretty blatant like asking if we really have a 2nd Amendment. If you asked Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, or Breyer that question, the answer would be "Well, yes, we do, but it doesn't mean what you think it means" 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bennj 215 Posted May 15, 2020 I'm not a lawyer but my brother is, so that should count for something, right? With the current make up of the SCOTUS, do we even want them to take up a 2A case? I'm hopeful that the president can get at least another justice on there. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fslater 62 Posted June 6, 2020 On 5/14/2020 at 9:43 PM, bennj said: I'm not a lawyer but my brother is, so that should count for something, right? With the current make up of the SCOTUS, do we even want them to take up a 2A case? I'm hopeful that the president can get at least another justice on there. I agree with it would be great to have another Constitutionalist Judge on the Supreme Court (every one of them should be as mandated by the oath they took when appointed), I'm convinced Ginsburg is being held up and animated with props from "Weekend At Bernies" by house democrats until PRESIDENT TRUMP leaves office in 4 1/2 more yrs 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drjjpdc 39 Posted June 9, 2020 Now I have another question that I asked a few lawyers. Even with the wishy-washy attitudes of Justice Roberts we still have 4 Conservative Justices on the Court. Sounds like those gun cases in conference for certiorari should be able to get out of conference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drjjpdc 39 Posted June 17, 2020 I am so pissed off at Alito. A military man and was in the law enforcement too. He's from Hamilton, NJ and voted for Heller, etc. Why did he screw us over with the Rogers case? I expected the lib side to screw us but Alito? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,256 Posted June 20, 2020 On 6/9/2020 at 6:09 PM, drjjpdc said: Now I have another question that I asked a few lawyers. Even with the wishy-washy attitudes of Justice Roberts we still have 4 Conservative Justices on the Court. Sounds like those gun cases in conference for certiorari should be able to get out of conference. You don't want cert if you think you will just lose. Honestly I'm wondering if the problem was always roberts. Everyone says Kennedy was the wishy washy one. But he designated his hair apparent,and they had a pretty good 2a record. I'm thinking roberts was always the problem. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matty 810 Posted June 20, 2020 HAIR apparent? Too funny! Who's wearing the rug? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,256 Posted June 20, 2020 5 minutes ago, matty said: HAIR apparent? Too funny! Who's wearing the rug? Just laggy autocorrect on my phone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drjjpdc 39 Posted June 21, 2020 13 hours ago, raz-0 said: You don't want cert if you think you will just lose. Honestly I'm wondering if the problem was always roberts. Everyone says Kennedy was the wishy washy one. But he designated his hair apparent,and they had a pretty good 2a record. I'm thinking roberts was always the problem. You know I'm agreeing with you. Right now the Court is split 4-4 and Roberts has to break ties to pass conservative opinions. I guess he's waiting for Ginsburg to go on permanent retirement, so Trump can appoint another Conservative Justice so he's not responsible to break ties. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites