Florida Concealed Carry banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
There probably will be a new 2A case soon.

The Supreme Court gets to hand pick what they hear most of the time. (What a great job, eh?) They can’t hear every case folks want to be heard and they have discretionary jurisdiction. What they do is to meet, Justices and law clerks, and committee a case, debating as to whether they think it’s the right case and the right time to get involved.

It’s been reported that they have met regarding 10 different 2A cases that are ready for their consideration and that there is motivation to take one.

Rumor has it they will announce soon one they will take and then it may be about a year before a decision. Cross your fingers!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,033 Posts
(y) 🍿
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,573 Posts
If Justice Ginsberg can hammer the 9th Circus and tell them they've gone too far, then anything can happen. I didn't think I'd ever see that day, so I would be hopeful should a 2A case get considered by SCOTUS. I wish it will be a case where there's a substantive issue, where they can decide on the meat of it rather than find some other defect that lets them keep kicking the can down the road.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,595 Posts
There probably will be a new 2A case soon.

The Supreme Court gets to hand pick what they hear most of the time. (What a great job, eh?) They can’t hear every case folks want to be heard and they have discretionary jurisdiction. What they do is to meet, Justices and law clerks, and committee a case, debating as to whether they think it’s the right case and the right time to get involved.

It’s been reported that they have met regarding 10 different 2A cases that are ready for their consideration and that there is motivation to take one.

Rumor has it they will announce soon one they will take and then it may be about a year before a decision. Cross your fingers!
After the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association debacle I'm not going to get my hopes up. Sure there was at least a seemingly valid argument for mootness, but I think Alito's dissent credibly countered that argument.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Pretty slippery move by New York, case was sent back to Appellate Court because of that. I liked the dissent too, Brian.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,941 Posts
Call me cynical, but what "really" happens is the Justices try to determine whether they have enough votes in favor of whatever position they hold.
Then, decide to take the case... or NOT.

It's not simply about hearing the case.
Sometimes it's better to let it sit, rather than risk a vote in the opposite direction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,573 Posts
Anduril I respectfully have to disagree with that notion because if that really was the process, it would have leaked out by now. We have statements, interviews, and speeches by current and former SCOTUS justices where they've addressed it in answering questions about it, and how they portray it is basically how Shark describes it, though they don't really mention much about the clerks' roles in it.

We also have a large number of living persons with experience clerking for SC justices, yet none of them have come forward saying despite what the Justices tell you, it really works like this. Some would never do it even if true out of loyalty, I suppose, but probably an equal number might see the dollar signs in a book deal and instant fame on cable news and come forward to tell the tale. Thing is though, they will run into a wall of doubt and if they don't have some tangible proof of their assertion, they'll just go the way of the Michael Avenattis of the world.

If it really was that way, I don't think such a secret could be kept in Washington DC for decades without someone wanting hold of it for political purposes. Do you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,941 Posts
If it really was that way, I don't think such a secret could be kept in Washington DC for decades without someone wanting hold of it for political purposes. Do you?
I'm not sure I agree with the notion that it is a "secret". Maybe an "open secret" wink-wink..
I'll have to research it, but I'm pretty sure I once saw an interview with Justice Scalia on this exact issue, where he was explaining his decision to deny certiorari in a gun case because he thought there were too many liberal votes on the bench, and had the case proceeded, it likely would have set back 2A rights.

Now, maybe that's just Scalia's view and I've attributed it to the Court at large? If so, my mistake.
But the older I get, the (sometimes) more cynical views I hold -- especially about government.
Maybe a better way to say that (since I'm generally a positive person), is that my eyes get further opened to certain realities in life.

I too would really like to believe that individuals in high levels of esteem are impervious to undo outside influences.
But then, on the other hand, maybe those same individuals (SCOTUS Justices, in this case) have the OBLIGATION to not grant certiorari in cases they support, but which would likely fail in the current political winds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,168 Posts
What is soooooo difficult????
The 2nd. amendment is in plain ENGLISH and very east to read and comprehend.
It is "NOT" written in some secrete code that needs to be deciphered.
The whole constitution is very easy to read and fully understand if you are not an idiot or too old to use your brain.
What the hell is wrong with these people that are supposed to be soooooo intelligent????????
Ronnie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,595 Posts
I'm not sure I agree with the notion that it is a "secret". Maybe an "open secret" wink-wink..
I'll have to research it, but I'm pretty sure I once saw an interview with Justice Scalia on this exact issue, where he was explaining his decision to deny certiorari in a gun case because he thought there were too many liberal votes on the bench, and had the case proceeded, it likely would have set back 2A rights.
I too had it in my mind that this concept was common knowledge, but that may have just been a faulty assumption on my part. A twofold assumption - 1) that it is true at all, 2) that most people know it.

I read a book many years ago called "Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall, and Future of the Modern Supreme Court". It was written by Edward Lazarus (ironic last name) who served as a clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun. Prior to reading the book I didn't realize how much power the clerks actually have within the court. Not de jure power, but de facto power. Some argue that Lazarus' tales violate the confidentiality agreements that the clerks sign.

I bring up the book because it covered a lot of the back room dealing that goes on in the court. I don't remember if this specific topic (a Justice voting not to grant cert because they do not feel the composition of the court would lead to what they see as a desirable outcome) was broached in that book or not. In any event, I have believed for quite some time that such maneuvering wasn't necessarily spoken of, but wasn't necessarily a secret either.

When I have an opportunity I plan to re-read Closed Chambers and if I come across anything on this topic I'll try to remember to come back here and post it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Bad news, Monday they issued orders and did not include any of the guns rights cases. Justice Kavanaugh had gone on record as saying they should consider Second Amendment cases in the near future but they did not add any new cases to their docket. They have conferenced on the 10 different gun cases twice and, as I understand they normally don’t add a case until it has been conferenced twice.

The 10 petitions were circulated to the justices for their May 1 conference and then apparently discussed again last Friday. I guess there’s no way of knowing whether or not they are still considering the time is right for a new Second Amendment case but this is generally bad news.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,235 Posts
I'm not sure I agree with the notion that it is a "secret". Maybe an "open secret" wink-wink..
I'll have to research it, but I'm pretty sure I once saw an interview with Justice Scalia on this exact issue, where he was explaining his decision to deny certiorari in a gun case because he thought there were too many liberal votes on the bench, and had the case proceeded, it likely would have set back 2A rights.

Now, maybe that's just Scalia's view and I've attributed it to the Court at large? If so, my mistake.
But the older I get, the (sometimes) more cynical views I hold -- especially about government.
Maybe a better way to say that (since I'm generally a positive person), is that my eyes get further opened to certain realities in life.

I too would really like to believe that individuals in high levels of esteem are impervious to undo outside influences.
But then, on the other hand, maybe those same individuals (SCOTUS Justices, in this case) have the OBLIGATION to not grant certiorari in cases they support, but which would likely fail in the current political winds.
I agree that it is, most likely, an "open secret." How could they (SCOTUS justices) not know each other well enough, considering all the debate/discussion that goes on... either when deciding whether or not to hear a case, or deciding the case itself. Maybe it takes a bit of time to assess the "newbies" (e.g. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh) but, still, they'll get "pegged" by the other justices, soon enough. It's only human nature to base their decisions to hear a case (or not) on their knowledge of their colleagues.

The one that currently worries me, right now, is our CJOTUS, Mr. Justice Roberts. Way too flaky to know if he'd vote conservative or not or, specifically if he'd vote Pro-2A or not. I've always feared that somebody has some "really good pictures" out there somewhere, and that he votes accordingly. Hopefully not, but I'd be a lot more comfortable with SCOTUS if Pres. Trump got one more of his picks on the court. Of course, that's going to be the battle royale in the Senate. And it kinda makes me suspicious of Roberts to an extent because the Dems didn't throw as big a hissyfit as they could have when Kavanaugh got confirmed. This next pic (especially if replacing Roberts or one of the Libs) will be a true hissyfit.

We'd better hold both the WH and the Senate in Nov...... Failure is not an option!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,595 Posts
Bad news, Monday they issued orders and did not include any of the guns rights cases. Justice Kavanaugh had gone on record as saying they should consider Second Amendment cases in the near future but they did not add any new cases to their docket. They have conferenced on the 10 different gun cases twice and, as I understand they normally don’t add a case until it has been conferenced twice.

The 10 petitions were circulated to the justices for their May 1 conference and then apparently discussed again last Friday. I guess there’s no way of knowing whether or not they are still considering the time is right for a new Second Amendment case but this is generally bad news.
Constitutional orphan indeed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,573 Posts
Shark, do you think perhaps these 2A cases being briefed might not go anywhere because they aren't bearing on issues the SCOTUS feels a need to address? I'm thinking, for instance, of the per curium last month re: the NY State Rifle and Pistol case, and how both Justices Kavanaugh and Alito thought the SCOTUS should review the application of Heller in the lower courts. I'm wondering aloud if maybe they have some particular issue or set of issues they are screening for and none currently in conference meet their interest criteria.

I surely thought that Rodriguez v. San Jose had a chance only because it deals directly with what the right to keep and bear arms is, as in a definition. It's a case where police seized a woman's guns and refused to return them because her husband was suspected of being a danger to himself or others. The 9th Circuit said her 2A rights were intact because nothing prevented her from buying another gun if she wanted. It seems to say that seized property (firearms) doesn't have any bearing on a person's 2A rights, which seems rather amazing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
That would be the only explanation for their decision I would think. No one can read their minds but certainly some of the personal predilections discussed above with enter into the decision.

More germane to the forum as a whole, I read one of the many amicus briefs filed in the New York case. It was interesting because it discussed transportation of one’s own weapon to a range. There was an argument by the establishment that folks could just rent a gun at the range. The amicus brief went into some detail about trigger break, reset and the fact that pistols are hand assembled. It discussed that the trigger break and reset on a rental gun of the exact same type as one owned by an individual would be different and it would be safer to allow a gun owner to practice and become more proficient with their own pistol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,573 Posts
That's interesting.

I wonder how much a court would factor that in because I think the same point could be made with ammunition. The indoor range where I occasionally shoot will only allow use of the range with ammo purchased there. All weapons and range bags are checked prior to entry to ensure nothing but their ammo even goes through the door. So a person shoots ammunition of one brand, one bullet weight, etc. but then loads up with completely different stuff once in the parking lot. Seems like that would have at least as much impact as the differences in trigger break/reset between two similar weapons. I don't think it would ever lead to a court wanting to mandate free selections of ammunition at indoor ranges though, only to recognize that while some things could arguably lead toward a safer shooter, there are often other concerns that might conflict (like what the range was built to withstand, safety of persons at the range, etc.).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,595 Posts
That's interesting.

I wonder how much a court would factor that in because I think the same point could be made with ammunition. The indoor range where I occasionally shoot will only allow use of the range with ammo purchased there. All weapons and range bags are checked prior to entry to ensure nothing but their ammo even goes through the door. So a person shoots ammunition of one brand, one bullet weight, etc. but then loads up with completely different stuff once in the parking lot. Seems like that would have at least as much impact as the differences in trigger break/reset between two similar weapons. I don't think it would ever lead to a court wanting to mandate free selections of ammunition at indoor ranges though, only to recognize that while some things could arguably lead toward a safer shooter, there are often other concerns that might conflict (like what the range was built to withstand, safety of persons at the range, etc.).
It's different when the government does it to you. You have no second amendment rights against anybody but the government.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
I agree completely Brian. I’ve been to those type ranges and found if you ask nicely, explain and don’t argue they always have let me fire carry ammo.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top