![Bravo Company BCM](/images/2016/banners/sticky/BCM_StickyBarAd_225x40.gif)
![Login](/images/2016/spacer.gif)
Quoted:
Criminal cases are seen with distaste, he plead guilty to both the mortgage fraud and the wrongfully acquired hunting licenses while a convicted felon. If he had filed suit before the hunting licenses incident, he would have been far better situated. Dumbasses aren't great test cases. Kharn View Quote He held a hunting license, he just improperly held a resident instead of a non-resident license in the mistaken belief that his residence in Wyoming qualified him as a "Resident" when in fact it did not. |
|
Quoted: Well, look at how many people here support banning felons from owning guns. This reinforces my belief that the court isn't going to touch MGs anytime soon. MGs, like felons, are scary. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Of note, Alan guras case, Medina v Barr (felon in possession case) was not granted certiorari today. That is a shame. That guy was convicted of a false statement on a mortgage app, felony. Paid off the loan early and everyone admits no harm was done. Too bad though, because he is a felon and gov says too dangerous to have a firearm. Supreme Court doesn’t want to wade into it. Here is his petition: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-287/114260/20190830122623701_3-cert_petition.pdf View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Well, look at how many people here support banning felons from owning guns. This reinforces my belief that the court isn't going to touch MGs anytime soon. MGs, like felons, are scary. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Of note, Alan guras case, Medina v Barr (felon in possession case) was not granted certiorari today. That is a shame. That guy was convicted of a false statement on a mortgage app, felony. Paid off the loan early and everyone admits no harm was done. Too bad though, because he is a felon and gov says too dangerous to have a firearm. Supreme Court doesn’t want to wade into it. Here is his petition: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-287/114260/20190830122623701_3-cert_petition.pdf This reinforces my belief that the court isn't going to touch MGs anytime soon. MGs, like felons, are scary. |
|
Quoted:
Shouldn’t we focus on a 2A right that exists outside the home before tackling which felons can own guns? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Of note, Alan guras case, Medina v Barr (felon in possession case) was not granted certiorari today. That is a shame. That guy was convicted of a false statement on a mortgage app, felony. Paid off the loan early and everyone admits no harm was done. Too bad though, because he is a felon and gov says too dangerous to have a firearm. Supreme Court doesn’t want to wade into it. Here is his petition: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-287/114260/20190830122623701_3-cert_petition.pdf |
|
Quoted:
I don't have a problem with a felony conviction carrying punishments beyond prison including loss of rights. I do have a significant issue with what constitutes a felony conviction in today's America. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: Well, look at how many people here support banning felons from owning guns. This reinforces my belief that the court isn't going to touch MGs anytime soon. MGs, like felons, are scary. Sure, some things which are felonies shouldn't be. That could be an easy litmus test: can you legally defend yourself with a firearm if you catch the perpetrator in the act, i.e. a de facto death penalty? Bam, felony. Maybe that easy, but there's probably holes. I gotta go back to work. |
|
Im really hoping the supreme court gets off its ass and kicks some of these anti constitutional gun control laws in the nuts finally. ( mag bans, semi auto bans, accepted gun lists, etc ) any honest court making a ruling based on the constitution / facts would have no choice but to rule against them... however with everyone making rulings based on their fucking feelings, thats always iffy.
|
|
Quoted:
It’s all part and parcel in the grand scheme. If we have a fundamental right to own a firearm in the home, but a paper crime that doesn’t harm anyone can strip you of that right forever, do we really have that right to begin with? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Of note, Alan guras case, Medina v Barr (felon in possession case) was not granted certiorari today. That is a shame. That guy was convicted of a false statement on a mortgage app, felony. Paid off the loan early and everyone admits no harm was done. Too bad though, because he is a felon and gov says too dangerous to have a firearm. Supreme Court doesn’t want to wade into it. Here is his petition: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-287/114260/20190830122623701_3-cert_petition.pdf |
|
Quoted:
I just registered. I wonder what kind of hors d'oevres, and whether they will have valet parking. ![]() View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
For any of our members near DC, please represent AR15.com at this event and provide us with a full report afterwards. https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-second-amendment-at-the-supreme-court-what-to-expect-this-term-tickets-80064279415 I wonder what kind of hors d'oevres, and whether they will have valet parking. ![]() https://sites.law.duke.edu/secondthoughts/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2019/12/NYSRPA-Mark-up-Duke-Center-for-Firearms-Law.pdf I haven't read their comments yet, as I just came across this and I have to get ready to head out to a local event, but I will be reading it in its entirety later tonight when I return. |
|
I started reading through the annotated PDF I referenced in the post before this one when on page 5 of 73 I see they referenced a brief by Historian Patrick Charles.
Link to that brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99640/20190514123434398_Charles On page 45 & 46 of 50 of that Charles brief, they make the following comment: Knowing the historiography of the Statute of
Northampton and Knight’s Case is important for two reasons. First, it illustrates the ease by which myth can consume historical fact. For decades, based on nothing more than incomplete English Reports and a highly selective reading of a handful of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century legal commentators, a contin- gent of legal scholars convinced many in the field that their historical claim was valid, despite its lack of substantiation and the evidence contradicting it. Sec- ond, as can be seen by several appellate courts to have examined this history, it illustrates how unsubstanti- ated and poorly-researched history can influence judi- cial outcomes. See Young v. Hawaii, 896 F.3d 1044, 1064 (9th Cir. 2018), vacated for rehearing en banc, 915 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2019) View Quote |
|
Quoted:
I started reading through the annotated PDF I referenced in the post before this one when on page 5 of 73 I see they referenced a brief by Historian Patrick Charles. Link to that brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99640/20190514123434398_Charles On page 45 & 46 of 50 of that Charles brief, they make the following comment: Is this a slam at Nolo and Wolfwood? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
I started reading through the annotated PDF I referenced in the post before this one when on page 5 of 73 I see they referenced a brief by Historian Patrick Charles. Link to that brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99640/20190514123434398_Charles On page 45 & 46 of 50 of that Charles brief, they make the following comment: Knowing the historiography of the Statute of
Northampton and Knight’s Case is important for two reasons. First, it illustrates the ease by which myth can consume historical fact. For decades, based on nothing more than incomplete English Reports and a highly selective reading of a handful of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century legal commentators, a contin- gent of legal scholars convinced many in the field that their historical claim was valid, despite its lack of substantiation and the evidence contradicting it. Sec- ond, as can be seen by several appellate courts to have examined this history, it illustrates how unsubstanti- ated and poorly-researched history can influence judi- cial outcomes. See Young v. Hawaii, 896 F.3d 1044, 1064 (9th Cir. 2018), vacated for rehearing en banc, 915 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2019) ![]() |
|
Quoted:
I started reading through the annotated PDF I referenced in the post before this one when on page 5 of 73 I see they referenced a brief by Historian Patrick Charles. Link to that brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99640/20190514123434398_Charles On page 45 & 46 of 50 of that Charles brief, they make the following comment: Is this a slam at Nolo and Wolfwood? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
I started reading through the annotated PDF I referenced in the post before this one when on page 5 of 73 I see they referenced a brief by Historian Patrick Charles. Link to that brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99640/20190514123434398_Charles On page 45 & 46 of 50 of that Charles brief, they make the following comment: Knowing the historiography of the Statute of
Northampton and Knight’s Case is important for two reasons. First, it illustrates the ease by which myth can consume historical fact. For decades, based on nothing more than incomplete English Reports and a highly selective reading of a handful of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century legal commentators, a contin- gent of legal scholars convinced many in the field that their historical claim was valid, despite its lack of substantiation and the evidence contradicting it. Sec- ond, as can be seen by several appellate courts to have examined this history, it illustrates how unsubstanti- ated and poorly-researched history can influence judi- cial outcomes. See Young v. Hawaii, 896 F.3d 1044, 1064 (9th Cir. 2018), vacated for rehearing en banc, 915 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2019) (reading Knight’s Case and en-suing legal commentary as interpreting the Statute of Northampton to prohibit only the carrying of danger-ous weapons in a threatening manner, and allowing the carrying of “common (not unusual) arms for de-fense (not terror)”); Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (reading Heller as fore-closing an examination of the history of the Statute of Northampton and English law governing the carrying of dangerous weapons); Moore v. Madigan, 708 F.3d 933, 936-37 (7th Cir. 2012) (reading Heller as requiring an limited, narrow interpretation of the scope of the Statute of Northampton in the wake of Knight’s Case). |
|
Quoted:
DK-Prof, if you are still going to this event tomorrow, you can do a little prep work ahead of time by reading the comments that Duke University has made on the annotated oral arguments in the following PDF document: https://sites.law.duke.edu/secondthoughts/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2019/12/NYSRPA-Mark-up-Duke-Center-for-Firearms-Law.pdf I haven't read their comments yet, as I just came across this and I have to get ready to head out to a local event, but I will be reading it in its entirety later tonight when I return. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For any of our members near DC, please represent AR15.com at this event and provide us with a full report afterwards. https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-second-amendment-at-the-supreme-court-what-to-expect-this-term-tickets-80064279415 I wonder what kind of hors d'oevres, and whether they will have valet parking. ![]() https://sites.law.duke.edu/secondthoughts/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2019/12/NYSRPA-Mark-up-Duke-Center-for-Firearms-Law.pdf I haven't read their comments yet, as I just came across this and I have to get ready to head out to a local event, but I will be reading it in its entirety later tonight when I return. Unfortunately, it turns out that I probably won’t make it, since I have some later afternoon/evening meetings in VA. |
|
Orders came out. Still no decision on mootness or anything else.
|
|
|
Quoted:
Looks like they might decide on the merits after all...……... View Quote |
|
Quoted:
there is plenty of time for them to moot it between now and then. or, they could have voted to moot it and have a lot of dissenting opinions which take time to write. so, i don't think i would take this as any indication of how they are going to rule, only that they haven't released the ruling yet. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like they might decide on the merits after all...……... |
|
Quoted: there is plenty of time for them to moot it between now and then. or, they could have voted to moot it and have a lot of dissenting opinions which take time to write. so, i don't think i would take this as any indication of how they are going to rule, only that they haven't released the ruling yet. View Quote ![]() |
|
Quoted:
After last weeks decision to hear three Trump tax cases, I would think they will try to spread out their rulings in controversial cases, rather than do a decision dump in June 2020. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like they might decide on the merits after all...……... ![]() They always do a decision dump in June. We may get the NY gun case, good or bad, before June as Nolo suggested. |
|
Quoted:
![]() They always do a decision dump in June. We may get the NY gun case, good or bad, before June as Nolo suggested. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like they might decide on the merits after all...……... ![]() They always do a decision dump in June. We may get the NY gun case, good or bad, before June as Nolo suggested. |
|
Quoted:
Lots of controversial cases this term. June is in an election year. They are going to spread rulings out. They are not going to drop major decisions on abortion, trump taxes and guns on the same day or even same week. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like they might decide on the merits after all...……... ![]() They always do a decision dump in June. We may get the NY gun case, good or bad, before June as Nolo suggested. Kharn |
|
Quoted:
That's how the SC rolls and has done so for 50 years. They end their term in June, and drop all their rulings for the term before they leave town for vacation. The most important cases are released on the last days. Kharn View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like they might decide on the merits after all...……... ![]() They always do a decision dump in June. We may get the NY gun case, good or bad, before June as Nolo suggested. Kharn |
|
Quoted:
That’s not even close to factually accurate. Decisions have been released in December, May and June and sometimes July. They are not dumping every case from the term on the way out he door. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like they might decide on the merits after all...……... ![]() They always do a decision dump in June. We may get the NY gun case, good or bad, before June as Nolo suggested. Kharn Kharn |
|
Quoted:
Decisions are released as they are ready (two easy ones were released last week), but the most controversial rulings require the most work, thus being held until the last week in June. Extending the term beyond 30 June is an extremely rare occasion, or an emergency ruling related to a capital case. Kharn View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like they might decide on the merits after all...……... ![]() They always do a decision dump in June. We may get the NY gun case, good or bad, before June as Nolo suggested. Kharn Kharn https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/back-loaded-supreme-court-enters-flood-season |
|
Only posting to keep this thread from going into the archives. Keeping hope alive a little bit longer.
|
|
Realistically, how much time is left for the Supreme Court to decide to hear a different Second Amendment case should they choose to plan on deciding this one moot?
This PBS article states the norm would be mid-January, which is only one week away. ...The justices have not announced which cases will be argued in April the final month of oral arguments...
...The high court usually stops adding cases for argument in the term by mid-January... View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Realistically, how much time is left for the Supreme Court to decide to hear a different Second Amendment case should they choose to plan on deciding this one moot? This PBS article states the norm would be mid-January, which is only one week away. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/in-2020-watch-for-these-blockbuster-supreme-court-cases View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Realistically, how much time is left for the Supreme Court to decide to hear a different Second Amendment case should they choose to plan on deciding this one moot? This PBS article states the norm would be mid-January, which is only one week away. ...The justices have not announced which cases will be argued in April the final month of oral arguments...
...The high court usually stops adding cases for argument in the term by mid-January... Briefing can take 105 days after cert. is granted if there aren't any extensions. https://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2019RulesoftheCourt.pdf As suggested by the article it is rather unlikely a NEW 2nd Amdt. case will be heard and decided this term. |
|
We’ve entered the second half of this years session with no decision on NYSRPA or even on mootness.
|
|
|
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt/19
Are any other Second Amendment cases mentioned in the 1/13/20 Order of the court? |
|
Quoted:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt/19 Are any other Second Amendment cases mentioned in the 1/13/20 Order of the court? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt/19 Are any other Second Amendment cases mentioned in the 1/13/20 Order of the court? The justices did not act on several high-profile petitions for review that they had considered at last week’s conference, including petitions involving: ... a challenge to a federal rule expanding the definition of machine guns; |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt/19 Are any other Second Amendment cases mentioned in the 1/13/20 Order of the court? The justices did not act on several high-profile petitions for review that they had considered at last week’s conference, including petitions involving: ... a challenge to a federal rule expanding the definition of machine guns; Kharn |
|
Quoted:
I hope the tyrants View Quote |
|
Thanks didn't get link to ScotusBlog. Did you see this towards the bottom of that article? 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. |
|
Pretty much zero chance of them hearing any other gun rights case this session. It’s NYSRPA or nothing until fall.
|
|
|
"...extend Rights beyond the home....."
Ooooh, what a dangerous precedent! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Quote below per Duke University blog post: SCOTUS Gun Watch Week of 1/20/20
Due to the MLK holiday, the Court's order list this week came out today. It was another relatively quiet week-----no new cert petitions and no big action on the pending ones. We're still suspecting that NYSRPA could come any day...or not for another five months. View Quote |
|
Did any of you happen to listen to this one-hour ScotusBlog webinar yet?
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/01/2020-supreme-court-preview-presented-by-casetext-and-scotusblog/ On January 28, Casetext and SCOTUSblog conducted the first webinar in a two-part series previewing the biggest decisions expected this term at the Supreme Court. Casetext chief operating officer and general counsel Laura Safdie moderated the panel, featuring SCOTUSblog founder and Goldstein & Russell partner Tom Goldstein and Goldstein & Russell partner Sarah Harrington. The webinar covered high-profile cases involving Title VII and LGBT discrimination, the DACA program, the Second Amendment and the future of an abortion law in Louisiana.
The second part of this series will be live on Thursday, February 20, at 12 noon EST. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
The bump stock case was relisted for the next conference, which is different than the 2A cases which all were held after the first conference. But, it's not based on 2A claims, it's based on Chevron deference. Chevron deference amounts to a certain test that determines if a government agency is allowed to make a rule on a matter with civil penalties. Except there is question of if Chevron deference should apply in criminal cases, and thus ATF should not have been allowed to interpret the statute as they did. Previously the Supreme Court has called into question the use of Chevron deference in criminal cases, and this is the first case to reach the court regarding criminal consequences and Chevron together. Kharn View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt/19 Are any other Second Amendment cases mentioned in the 1/13/20 Order of the court? The justices did not act on several high-profile petitions for review that they had considered at last week’s conference, including petitions involving: ... a challenge to a federal rule expanding the definition of machine guns; Kharn I only pretend to be a real lawyer and don't know the difference between a constitutional amendment and Chevron, or a bumpstock and a machine gun. |
|
|
|
I’m hopeful in a 5-4 vote to heel NY law, in a broader scope than anticipated, using Heller as president.
Beyond that it is up to everyone else to hold states accountable to the ruling as I’m sure they will ignore it as they have Heller. |
|
|
|
Quoted:
@sherrick13 The last week of June is the traditional release date for opinions that shape constitutional law. Kharn View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Have we got our rights back yet? The last week of June is the traditional release date for opinions that shape constitutional law. Kharn If they do any ruling that is remotely positive it will be so narrow as to really not do anything. The court just doesnt ever do sweeping gun cases. Even Heller really didnt change much outside of DC and even there guns might as well still be illegal. |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.