wooly bugger

This is a case where their twisting could be to our favor. By painting him as a moderate, low-key, reasonable professional and stating his very good reason for wanting to carry, it might get people thinking that it's not just the "nut jobs" mentioned in the article who want the right to carry. I liked his statement that he's not worried about getting robbed, because it's only money. He's worried about what happens when the robbers don't want to leave any witnesses. This is not a blood-thirsty vigilante looking for an excuse to pull a trigger. This is much better than if they'd twisted it the other way and portrayed him as a googly-eyed, foaming at the mouth extremist.

Great that they got this right. Unfortunately, I remember reading a Puffington Host article a while back reporting the same thing...then reaching the conclusion that, since the firepower is the same, these guns without evil features should also be banned. You just can't win with some people.

One word of warning: there are a lot of fake quotes out there on the internet. Things like George Washington calling guns our "liberty teeth" and mentioning that 99.9997% of guns remain silent. Fact check everything before believing it.

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.

1CA seems ripe. MA is not shall-issue, and many towns issue only restricted permits, so I'm sure one could find a Boston business owner denied an unrestricted CCW. Anyone know of anything percolating?

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.

I think we just learned yesterday that the lower courts can safely ignore the scrutiny standards outlined in Heller without consequence. Using the same reasoning in Drake, they can say that, "yes, 2A guarantees you the right to own guns in common use at the time, but the NJ legislature has used its 'predictive judgment' to determine that violating this provision is in the interest of public safety, therefore their 'compelling state interest' trumps your constitutional rights."

As I look ahead to the next couple of years of anti-gun onslaughts, I've wondered what will happen in 2016. I came across this article: http://www.wnyc.org/story/why-vote-christie-could-mean-youre-voting-guadagno-governor/ Key points: - According to the article, if Christie runs in 2016, he'll be "out of state a lot," leaving Guadagno in charge. It doesn't say he has to resign the governorship. - According to opponent in the race: "Silva says Guadagno is out of touch with voters when it comes to issues like marriage equality, gun regulations and women’s issues." On the other hand, there's this: http://articles.philly.com/2013-10-13/news/42970456_1_lieutenant-governor-guadagno-job-creation "Both candidates said they were for stringent gun control but not the legalization of marijuana for recreational use, though Silva said she favored decriminalizing possession of "small amounts" of the drug." Don't know what to make of this. Any other insights?

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.

The 2 relistings make me think that there was a lot of horse trading and one side or another pulled support for cert when they realized the decision wasn't going to go their way, so better to keep it grey for now and maybe take up the question when the composition of the court is more favorable. This may have actually saved us an outright denial of right to carry, but whatever was behind it, it sickens me to think that our fundamental rights depend on such lowly politicking. I don't see that how you come to the conclusion that they have no choice to hear it eventually. Even if Peruta is overridden en banc, there's still a split on an enumerated right that the court itself has determined is incorporated. That split isn't going away unless somehow the 7th circuit goes back and undoes Moore. How much clearer can it get? This is a case of politics overruling the court's fundamental duty. I have lost all respect.

All the more reason to go for the $1500 family life membership. It's a bargain now and will seem even more so in 10 years.

It's dispassionate, informative posts like this that are keeping me sane today. I suspect we might have had the votes to grant cert but the conservatives blocked when they realized we didn't have the votes to win.

I had the same thought. Realistically, I think we're done for my lifetime, but I have young kids. Despite all the amnesty panic, here's no telling what the country will look like in 40 years. The Italians and Irish used to be reliable Democrat votes until they became assimilated. I see no reason why the same may not happen with Latinos. Culturally, I think the average illegal is a natural republican. Better to leave the issue unsettled and while we go back to our lair and lick our wounds for a fee decades.

It's not a 100% given that we'll never have a republican president again. With a republican president and the right timing we may get a sixth conservative.

Ok. Trying to pull myself out of a black hole here. If someday in our lifetimes the composition of SCOTUS changes, is there a mechanism to put the question before SCOTUS again, maybe as an appeal to what I think is a likely en banc reversal of Peruta?

This is more than a defeat for the second amendment. It is a defeat for individual rights. SCOTUS has conceded that all that is necessary for denying an enumerated right is for a legislative body to determine, without evidence, that the benefits of denying that right outweigh the harms. It's tyranny of the majority. The Constitution is a dead letter.

Just watched the video. This guy is definitely unstable. I think he's a well-intentioned guy who made a stupid decision and is watching his business fall apart as a result. I feel sorry for him.

It's simple. You should just be able to show him your voter ID card, and that would eliminate all of the rampant FID fraud.

I'm getting an ulcer. Why do they play these games? We're but one advocacy group that hangs on these decisions as if they're life or death. It all seems a bit inhumane.

With apologies to Winston Churchill, that preposition rule is one up with which we should not put.

I read and respect Al Jazeera US and BBC. I used to read RT, but I lost all respect after they became a blatant propaganda machine after the Crimea invasion. American media is crap.

Join ANJRPC and you can get free legal advice from one of their attorneys on retainer.

Here's a truly day-brightening passage from the linked article on Scotusblog: "If indeed the Court has adopted a policy of relisting cases before granting, it may be akin to a “stop, look, and listen” after a provisional decision to grant – intended to give the Justices and their clerks additional time to review grant candidates for vehicle problems or other concerns. Maybe the Justices decided after dismissing three cases as improvidently granted this Term that they need one last check before giving a case the nod; perhaps it’s only a temporary measure." Trying not to get my hopes up too much, but this is nice.

I missed that. Thank you for pointing that out and brightening my day (a little.)

Not to be negative, but why is this huge? Isn't the only other option to write a summary judgment overturning the decision? I think we're back to square one, with the outcome probabilities conditioned in ways I don't understand by the fact that it was passed over last week.