US Supreme Court OT 2019

[terraformer]

What does this mean?

It's likely getting held behind NYSRPA and will get a remand based on NYSRPA. But it could be getting denied and a dissent from that denial is getting written.

ETA: Given it's an analog of Cheeseman, I suspect the former.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

What does this mean?

That's a good question! SCOTUS seems to be holding all 2A petitions. There were four petitions from last term that were not acted upon. I'm guessing that they'll do something with them after they issue a decision in the New York City case.

 

[milktree]

It's likely getting held behind NYSRPA and will get a remand based on NYSRPA. But it could be getting denied and a dissent from that denial is getting written.

ETA: Given it's an analog of Cheeseman, I suspect the former.

That's a good question! SCOTUS seems to be holding all 2A petitions. There were four petitions from last term that were not acted upon. I'm guessing that they'll do something with them after they issue a decision in the New York City case.

OK, both of those were interesting and useful, but reveal that I didn't ask my question clearly enough.

From a technical/legal standpoint, what does "No action taken, not relisted." mean?

It sounds kinda like "they didn't do anything" (no action at all) and "not relisted" means "we're not planning (yet) to deal with it in the future."

"held behind" could mean, "we're not going to answer at all just yet, until we answer NYSRPA", or it could mean "we're going to deny it, but haven't released the denial formally just yet." Is that right?

I'm a bit soft on my SCOTUS lingo.

 

[M1911]

That's a good question! SCOTUS seems to be holding all 2A petitions. There were four petitions from last term that were not acted upon. I'm guessing that they'll do something with them after they issue a decision in the New York City case.

So am I correct that for these cases that SCOTUS has not granted or denied certiorari? They have effectively left them in the queue?

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

ETA: Given it's an analog of Cheeseman, I suspect the former.

Back story on Cheeseman for neophytes like me.
Challenge to NJ's May Issue Handgun Rule Filed with Supreme Court

:emoji_tiger:

 

[BigGreen2000]

Any chance this thread can get moved to “general discussion”?

 

[M1911]

I think it is right where it should be.

 

[drgrant]

Any chance this thread can get moved to “general discussion”?

This is in Comm2As group because they placed it here, if someone from Comm2a wants us to move it we'd be happy to oblige, but I'm guessing they put it here for a reason. (probably to keep it from getting lost in the noise in GD/OT. )

-Mike

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

This is in Comm2As group because they placed it here, if someone from Comm2a wants us to move it we'd be happy to oblige, but I'm guessing they put it here for a reason. (probably to keep it from getting lost in the noise in GD/OT. )

-Mike

pretty much

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

So am I correct that for these cases that SCOTUS has not granted or denied certiorari? They have effectively left them in the queue?

That’s exactly what’s going on. Any significant 2A ruling in the NYC case could have implications for the other petitions. So, it makes sense to hold them for the sake of consistency.

 

[terraformer]

OK, both of those were interesting and useful, but reveal that I didn't ask my question clearly enough.

From a technical/legal standpoint, what does "No action taken, not relisted." mean?

It sounds kinda like "they didn't do anything" (no action at all) and "not relisted" means "we're not planning (yet) to deal with it in the future."

"held behind" could mean, "we're not going to answer at all just yet, until we answer NYSRPA", or it could mean "we're going to deny it, but haven't released the denial formally just yet." Is that right?

I'm a bit soft on my SCOTUS lingo.

They are holding them instead of denying them, so they can release them back to the district court for further proceedings based on the case they took.

 

[Cap'n Mike]

This filled me with dread when I saw it.
I hope its something minor.
Clarence Thomas absent 'due to illness' as Supreme Court begins new term

 

[BigGreen2000]

So assuming the NYSRPA case gets ruled in a pro-2A fashion, and Worman vs. Baker gets remanded back down the ladder---then what happens? I can't imagine the State of Mass. suddenly re-examining the case in a pro-2A way. Will it be a repeat of Caetano?

 

[terraformer]

This filled me with dread when I saw it.
I hope its something minor.
Clarence Thomas absent 'due to illness' as Supreme Court begins new term

The flu...

 

[terraformer]

So assuming the NYSRPA case gets ruled in a pro-2A fashion, and Worman vs. Baker gets remanded back down the ladder---then what happens? I can't imagine the State of Mass. suddenly re-examining the case in a pro-2A way. Will it be a repeat of Caetano?

Maybe. But it gets us down the road to the next problem.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

So assuming the NYSRPA case gets ruled in a pro-2A fashion, and Worman vs. Baker gets remanded back down the ladder---then what happens? I can't imagine the State of Mass. suddenly re-examining the case in a pro-2A way. Will it be a repeat of Caetano?

In the Caetano case the MA SJC had to go back and change it's ruling because scotus stated it was using flawed logic. The SJC could have come up with another creative way to determine how to keep stun guns illegal but like in so many of these gun cases the left will use faulty logic in rendering decisions and a lot of remands and voids would go miles and miles to correct a lot of the thought process of the gun banners.

 

[Boston4567]

So assuming the NYSRPA case gets ruled in a pro-2A fashion, and Worman vs. Baker gets remanded back down the ladder---then what happens? I can't imagine the State of Mass. suddenly re-examining the case in a pro-2A way. Will it be a repeat of Caetano?

The State of MA would not adjudicate this, the First Circuit would. One would think a federal appeals court would lend more credence to a ruling of the Supreme Court, but it all depends on how the decision is written. It's entirely possible it's written so strongly they won't see a way to avoid a pro-2A ruling. Possible, but not likely.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Today's Orders List is out. Lopez denied cert (too bad). There are still 12 active petitions (by my count) on the shadow docket.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Today's Orders List is out. Lopez denied cert (too bad). There are still 12 active petitions (by my count) on the shadow docket.

Thanks for the info. That Lopez case was interesting. I just finished reading the writ on it.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

From Tuesday's Order List:

18-280 NY STATE RIFLE & PISTOL, ET AL. V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL. The motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument is granted. The motion of Neal Goldfarb for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument is denied.

This is probably good.

 

[Cap'n Mike]

The motion of Neal Goldfarb for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument is denied.

from Goldfarbs brief
1. The use of bear arms in the corpus data was overwhelmingly dominated by the use of the phrase in a military-related sense. Such uses represented roughly 95% of the total. In all likelihood, therefore, bear arms was ordinarily understood to convey such a sense.
2. As a general matter, the right to bear arms was most likely understood to mean ‘the right to serve in the militia.’

I tried to read through Goldfarbs nonsense, but it basicly ignore that the Militia was The whole body of the People and that if you had a gun you used for what ever purpose you saw fit. Bearing Arms being a military term did not keep the people from using there Natural Right to own a gun to defend there Natural right to life.

 

[milktree]

The motion of Neal Goldfarb for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument is denied.

from Goldfarbs brief
1. The use of bear arms in the corpus data was overwhelmingly dominated by the use of the phrase in a military-related sense. Such uses represented roughly 95% of the total. In all likelihood, therefore, bear arms was ordinarily understood to convey such a sense.
2. As a general matter, the right to bear arms was most likely understood to mean ‘the right to serve in the militia.’

I tried to read through Goldfarbs nonsense, but it basicly ignore that the Militia was The whole body of the People and that if you had a gun you used for what ever purpose you saw fit. Bearing Arms being a military term did not keep the people from using there Natural Right to own a gun to defend there Natural right to life.

can you verify/correct my understanding of the above?

I read that as, Golfarb wanted to talk in front of SCOTUS (leave to participate) and they denied him that privilege, so he doesn't get to talk during oral arguments.

(and the stuff he's saying is nonsense)

Is that right?

 

[Boston4567]

can you verify/correct my understanding of the above?

I read that as, Golfarb wanted to talk in front of SCOTUS (leave to participate) and they denied him that privilege, so he doesn't get to talk during oral arguments.

(and the stuff he's saying is nonsense)

Is that right?

Yes, that's correct. Generally, amici can't be involved in oral argument, so it's unsurprising that it was denied.

 

[Matt_SERE]

I tried to read through Goldfarbs nonsense, but it basicly ignore that the Militia was The whole body of the People and that if you had a gun you used for what ever purpose you saw fit. Bearing Arms being a military term did not keep the people from using there Natural Right to own a gun to defend there Natural right to life.

Much/many of his quotes and cites are of his own 'work'. Huge useful idiot of a tool. IMHO.

ETA: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...5077_18-280 Amicus Brief of Neal Goldfarb.pdf

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Also included in Tuesday's Order List were GVRs for seven (7!) petitions. These petitions were remanded in light of the court's ruling last term in Rehaif .* Example:

19-5014 DONATE-CARDONA, RICARDO V. UNITED STATES The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for further consideration in light of Rehaif v. United States, 588 U. S. ___ (2019).

*There's a 'fake news' thread on NES about Rehaif, it was also discussed it more constructively in the OT 2018 thread. In short:

Rehaif was convicted of 'knowingly'' possessing a firearm or ammunition while while being a prohibited person - in the case being present unlawfully in the US. The entire crux of the case reseted on whether the 'knowingly' condition applied to Rehaif's prohibited status or just the possession element of the crime. Prosecutors never attempted to prove that Rehaif knew he was in the US unlawfully and the jury was instructed that the prosecution didn't have to prove that Rehaif knew he was present in the US unlawfully.

We actually don't know if Rehaif knew he was a prohibited person, it's not in the record because the prosecution never made an effort to prove it. It's irrelevant. The five GVR'd petitioners above may all have different reasons for being prohibited - I haven't read the petitions. The point is that in each case, the prosecution (probably) failed to prove that the petitioners knew they were prohibited.

Rehaif was a 7-2 decision with Alito and Thomas in dissent. Alito and Thomas were wrong here and their votes in Rehaif were not votes for liberty. They were votes for government authority.

 

[CAR]

Just because I have to look the acronym up every time, like I wonder why I came into this room every time I cross through the doorway...

"GVR: When the court “GVRs,” it “grants certiorari,” “vacates” the decision below and “remands” a case to the lower court without hearing oral argument or deciding the case on the merits. A GVR order is not accompanied by a written opinion addressing the merits of the case, but the court usually provides some direction to the lower court by, for example, instructing it to reconsider its decision in light of a recent decision by the Supreme Court."

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Just because I have to look the acronym up every time, like I wonder why I came into this room every time I cross through the doorway...

That's why I bolded the words 'grant', 'vacate', and 'remand' when I quoted the order.

 

[BigGreen2000]

Any update on these cases yet?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Any update on these cases yet?

No new grants - as expected. The shadow docket is moving along with petitions being scheduled for conference and responses being requested. Basically no news. And don't expect anything to significantly change until early December at the earliest.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

There's a new carry petition from Illinois - Culp v. Raoul.

Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms requires that the State of Illinois allow qualified non-residents to apply for an Illinois concealed carry license.

This is a Second Amendment Foundation sponsored petition. David Sigale is the attorney. He's successfully done a bunch of post-Fletcher alienage cases around the country.

There are now also several amici briefs in Worman v. Healey, including one from Comm2A (Thanks swatgig). Healey has until December 9th to file a response arguing that SCOTUS should NOT grant cert.