US Supreme Court OT 2019

Worman (Comm2A AWB) has been distributed for the next conference which will be January 10th. Guedes (Chevron/bump stock) and Malpasso (MD Carry) are also on the list for that conference. We'll probably know the following Monday or Tuesday if any of those petitions are denied. If they're not denied, they're likely to be held on the shadow docket.

OT2019
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Worman (Comm2A AWB) has been distributed for the next conference which will be January 10th. Guedes (Chevron/bump stock) and Malpasso (MD Carry) are also on the list for that conference. We'll probably know the following Monday or Tuesday if any of those petitions are denied. If they're not denied, they're likely to be held on the shadow docket.

OT2019
Click to expand...


Is it a coincidence of timing or some concerted effort in having a number of 2A related cases brought to this conference at once?

Thanks for the update KD.

P.S.> cute puppy

🐯
 
CatSnoutSoup said:
Is it a coincidence of timing or some concerted effort in having a number of 2A related cases brought to this conference at once?

Thanks for the update KD.

P.S.> cute puppy

🐯
Click to expand...
Timing, I think. The court has been taking them as they come and holding them after conference. I don’t think we’ll see movement on most of these until NYSRPA clears.
P.S. say ‘hi’ to Chewbacca.
 
84ta406 said:
So where do those cases go from here? Still under consideration or DOA?
Click to expand...
It appears that the court is holding most 2A related petitions. The conventional wisdom is that the court will take action on the 'shadow docket' petitions after they dispose of NYSRPA. If they moot NYSRPA the hope is that they'll hear another petition, maybe one of the NJ carry ones. If they issue a merits opinion in NYSRPA they may GVR some shadow docket petitions with a "see our opinion in NYSRPA" kind of comment.

Those are possibilities. No one knows what will actually happen.
 
It looks like Geudes got relisted for 1/17/2020. Don't get too excited. This isn't really a 2A or bumpstock case. It's an administrative state case. It's widely believed that a majority of the justices are looking for opportunities to chip away at or even reverse doctrines like Chevron.
 
www.scotusblog.com

Justices issue more orders, but no action on high-profile cases - SCOTUSblog

This morning the Supreme Court issued additional orders from the justices’ private conference last Friday. After granting three new petitions for review last week, the justices did not add any new cases to their merits docket for the fall. They called for the views of the federal government in three
www.scotusblog.com www.scotusblog.com
The Supreme Court does not appear to have redistributed the petition in Worman v. Healey, the challenge to the Massachusetts ban on possession of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. The justices considered the case for the first time at their conference last week; if the petition is not redistributed for this week’s conference, it could signal that the justices are holding the case until they rule on another gun-rights case that was argued in December, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York.
Click to expand...
 
The two cases from Friday's conferenct (Geudes - Chevron/bumpstock and Malpasso - MD carry) were not mentioned. Malpasso will probably be 'parked' on the shadow docket with the other 2A petition. Geudes will either be parked or relisted again. We won't know until the Geudes page is updated later today.

Interestingly, the court GVR'd a petition in light of Rehaif v. United States from last term. This time the petitioner was not prohibited because he was in the US illegally, he's prohibited because he's a felon. The second QP reads:
Should certiorari be granted and the case remand for reconsideration in
light of Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019), because the government did not
endeavor to make the required showing of petitioner’s knowledge of his prohibited
status and the jury was not instructed on the knowledge element?
Click to expand...

This is very good. The court is doubling down on the idea that the government needs to show scienter (i.e. knowledge that the person is prohibited)
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
The two cases from Friday's conferenct (Geudes - Chevron/bumpstock and Malpasso - MD carry) were not mentioned. Malpasso will probably be 'parked' on the shadow docket with the other 2A petition. Geudes will either be parked or relisted again. We won't know until the Geudes page is updated later today.

Interestingly, the court GVR'd a petition in light of Rehaif v. United States from last term. This time the petitioner was not prohibited because he was in the US illegally, he's prohibited because he's a felon. The second QP reads:


This is very good. The court is doubling down on the idea that the government needs to show scienter (i.e. knowledge that the person is prohibited)
Click to expand...


so ignorance of the law is now an excuse?
 
I am so disappointed in both the 2A community for bringing the NY case to SCOTUS while other more important cases are in the pipe and also at the "conservative" SCOTUS we have who continues to avoid real 2A cases. And when they do hear them like in Heller they intentionally write it vague, and it goes ignored and then we have McDonald which isn't written much better which for all intents is de facto ignored by ban states.

I've been saying it since the day I learned NYC was going to hit SCOTUS: We just gave them a freebie so they can pretend they do something for 2A every decade and it was the more limp wristed friggen case possible.

The only place we have to break up the actual insanity is court and we can't get the head honcho to even hear the cases and when they do it's written like a mystery novel.

I suspect my generation (old millennial) is probably the last one that will have a relevant 2A along with the ability to provide self defense as a militia due to AI T-800's taking over the battlefield. And it looks like my right which will be outdated by modernization by the end of my life will be swirling the drain the entire time.

So frustrating. I couldn't imaging being on SCOTUS as a conservative and tiptoeing around 2A cases because they are controversial. That's the entire f***ing point! Imagine getting to the pinnacle of your career to bitch out.
 

Similar threads

Worman v. Baker (MA AWB) Oral Arguments 1-9-2019
22 23 24
Replies
706
Views
95K
M125X
M125X
2014 Supreme Court Term
Replies
15
Views
9K
terraformer
terraformer
Comm2A Sends C&D to Boston for failure to adhere to Federal Court Ruling
Replies
23
Views
11K
terraformer
terraformer
Hightower Hearing in front of the First Circuit Court Of Appeals June 6, 2012
2
Replies
53
Views
26K
terraformer
terraformer
Back
Top Bottom