Peruta case has now been appealed to US Supreme Court

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
30,571
Those of us out here in the Land of Fruits and Nuts are hoping SCOTUS will agree to hear it. The initial 9th Circuit appeal held 2 to 1 that requiring "good cause" (= more than simple "self defense") to issue a carry permit unconstitutionally deprived citizens of their right to bear arms. The state requested an en banc hearing, and the en banc decision reversed the appeal 7 to 4. For the Supreme Court appeal my understanding is that the case will be framed as since California forbids open carry, restricting concealed carry to a select few (EXTREMELY few in the counties that practice this) denies the right to bear arms. Talking heads are saying SCOTUS is likely to accept the case now that Gorsuch has been seated.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/1...lifornia-may-be-heading-to-supreme-court.html
 
I will be watching this one on the edge of my seat. Not only would this be a huge win for the citizens of California, but it would be a huge symbolic win for the 2nd Amendment on a national level, and probably a favorable precedent for those living in other oppressive states like New Jersey. Just thank the good Lord that Trump picked the next justice to replace Scalia.

Additionally, though, we need Congress to make "may issue" absolutely illegal in all regards, to where no one is allowed to question your "need" for a permit, but must issue a permit to anyone who asks who is not a felon. I've not seen one location where may issue policy didn't lead to corruption on a massive scale.
 
What is the fallout if we lose?

Nothing ventured nothing gained. And if we're going to win something it's probably going to be now or never. We might have a better chance if a liberal justice retires or kicks the bucket in the next few years, but then again Trump might not be in office by that time.
 
It sounds like you're saying they refused to hear it. Could you please provide a link?

Didn't refuse to hear it... but they did decide to not decide on whether to hear it or not.

It has been relisted for conference and they will decide on whether they are going to decide on the 18th.

This has happened several times already.
 
It sounds like you're saying they refused to hear it. Could you please provide a link?

SCOTUS has not refused to hear Peruta. So far they have failed to grant cert: Four justices must agree to hear a case, so far that has not happened.

If my link goes away Google up SCOTUS Blog and click on Petitions. Scroll down to Docket number 16-894 and click on the number. That will bring up SCOTUS handling of the case.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/16-894.htm
 
Didn't refuse to hear it... but they did decide to not decide on whether to hear it or not.

It has been relisted for conference and they will decide on whether they are going to decide on the 18th.

This has happened several times already.
Well, until now they were one justice short. Do you know whether the latest "decision not to decide" was after Gorsuch was seated?
 
SCOTUS has not refused to hear Peruta. So far they have failed to grant cert: Four justices must agree to hear a case, so far that has not happened.

If my link goes away Google up SCOTUS Blog and click on Petitions. Scroll down to Docket number 16-894 and click on the number. That will bring up SCOTUS handling of the case.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/16-894.htm
Thank you, that is a great link! :)

So the relevant information appears to be:
Mar 8 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 24, 2017.
Mar 23 2017 Rescheduled.
Mar 27 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 31, 2017.
Mar 30 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 10 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017.
Apr 12 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 17 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 21, 2017.
Apr 20 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 24 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 28, 2017.
May 8 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 11, 2017.
May 15 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 18, 2017.
Which looks like they just didn't get to it in the last two Conferences.

Holding good thoughts here...
 
Why, I thought Gorsuch was supposed to bring a new enlightenment to SCOTUS. What happened? Or is that that they don't really care about the issue and are happy to let the lower court antigun decisions stand. Recall with Scalia present they did nothing on the state weapons bans even though Scalia and Thomas dissented.
I'm afraid unless you get more justices who are straight out proRKBA, forget SCOTUS as a panacea. Trump didn't chose the guy who was more forthright about the RKBA, IIRC.
 
That was my sarcastic thought to those who felt it was a trip to the promised land with the new appointment. I've repeated that the party in power now has no real interest in pushing the RKBA. They may not put in new bans but won't roll back anything or take down oppressive state laws. The NRA sent me all those Hallejuah e-mails about Gorsuch.
 
The important thing to remember about Justice Gorsuch is that he DOESN'T represent a tide change in the SCOTUS.

Yes, if another J. Kagan, J. Sotamayor, J. Ginsberg, or J. Breyer were appointed to the bench it would have been devastating to 2nd Amendment jurisprudence (among other things), but that's only because a staunch originalist would have been replaced by a Justice who subscribed to the "Living Document" argument.

As it stands, an originalist was replaced by an originalist. The makeup of the court is more or less exactly the same as it was before the passing of J. Scalia. The same makeup that has refused to hear any substantial case regarding the 2nd Amendment since McDonald. Consider Kachalsky, Woollard, etc.

There are a lot of theories as to why SCOTUS has refused to rule further on the matter... the one I subscribe to revolves around the 3 consistently originalist/textualist justices (Scalia, Thomas, Alito) and the 4 constantly "living document" (Breyer, Sotamayor, Kagan, Ginsburg) being unsure of how the two swing votes (Roberts, Kennedy) will swing on the matter.

If the living document types were sure that either of the swings would go their way, you'd see 4 votes to grant cert and the Heller decision further reduced into irrelevancy. The originalist/textualist types don't have the numbers to force cert like that however, so they would have to first be sure that both swings would go their way, and then convince one swing to agree to cert.

There are clear indications that J. Thomas and J. Alito (as well as J. Scalia) are tired of the lower courts thumbing their collective noses at the Heller decision (See the dissent in denial of cert for Friedman and the concurring opinion in Caetano).

The only monumental change that may be coming down the pipe is the retirement of either J. Kennedy or J. Ginsburg in the next 3.5 years. To that end, it may have to happen in the next 1.5 years, depending on how the off-year election goes. Otherwise, it's a crap shoot whether the two previously mentioned justices would be replaced with an originalist or not.
 
The important thing to remember about Justice Gorsuch is that he DOESN'T represent a tide change in the SCOTUS.

Yes, if another J. Kagan, J. Sotamayor, J. Ginsberg, or J. Breyer were appointed to the bench it would have been devastating to 2nd Amendment jurisprudence (among other things), but that's only because a staunch originalist would have been replaced by a Justice who subscribed to the "Living Document" argument.

As it stands, an originalist was replaced by an originalist. The makeup of the court is more or less exactly the same as it was before the passing of J. Scalia. The same makeup that has refused to hear any substantial case regarding the 2nd Amendment since McDonald. Consider Kachalsky, Woollard, etc.

There are a lot of theories as to why SCOTUS has refused to rule further on the matter... the one I subscribe to revolves around the 3 consistently originalist/textualist justices (Scalia, Thomas, Alito) and the 4 constantly "living document" (Breyer, Sotamayor, Kagan, Ginsburg) being unsure of how the two swing votes (Roberts, Kennedy) will swing on the matter.

If the living document types were sure that either of the swings would go their way, you'd see 4 votes to grant cert and the Heller decision further reduced into irrelevancy. The originalist/textualist types don't have the numbers to force cert like that however, so they would have to first be sure that both swings would go their way, and then convince one swing to agree to cert.

There are clear indications that J. Thomas and J. Alito (as well as J. Scalia) are tired of the lower courts thumbing their collective noses at the Heller decision (See the dissent in denial of cert for Friedman and the concurring opinion in Caetano).

The only monumental change that may be coming down the pipe is the retirement of either J. Kennedy or J. Ginsburg in the next 3.5 years. To that end, it may have to happen in the next 1.5 years, depending on how the off-year election goes. Otherwise, it's a crap shoot whether the two previously mentioned justices would be replaced with an originalist or not.
So do you think if Kennedy resigns and Trump appoints another originalist, THEN cert would be granted?

Separately, I think Trump wanted to pick a sterling originalist for his first one without giving the Dems anything to hang their hats on to justify their opposition... if we still have a Republican majority for the next one he might go for someone equally originalist but with more of a track record for RKBA.
 
Yes, if another J. Kagan, J. Sotamayor, J. Ginsberg, or J. Breyer were appointed to the bench it would have been devastating to 2nd Amendment jurisprudence (among other things), but that's only because a staunch originalist would have been replaced by a Justice who subscribed to the "Living Document" argument.
We sure dodged a bullet.

As it stands, an originalist was replaced by an originalist. The makeup of the court is more or less exactly the same as it was before the passing of J. Scalia. The same makeup that has refused to hear any substantial case regarding the 2nd Amendment since McDonald. Consider Kachalsky, Woollard, etc.

There are a lot of theories as to why SCOTUS has refused to rule further on the matter... the one I subscribe to revolves around the 3 consistently originalist/textualist justices (Scalia, Thomas, Alito) and the 4 constantly "living document" (Breyer, Sotamayor, Kagan, Ginsburg) being unsure of how the two swing votes (Roberts, Kennedy) will swing on the matter.

If the living document types were sure that either of the swings would go their way, you'd see 4 votes to grant cert and the Heller decision further reduced into irrelevancy. The originalist/textualist types don't have the numbers to force cert like that however, so they would have to first be sure that both swings would go their way, and then convince one swing to agree to cert.

There are clear indications that J. Thomas and J. Alito (as well as J. Scalia) are tired of the lower courts thumbing their collective noses at the Heller decision (See the dissent in denial of cert for Friedman and the concurring opinion in Caetano).

The only monumental change that may be coming down the pipe is the retirement of either J. Kennedy or J. Ginsburg in the next 3.5 years. To that end, it may have to happen in the next 1.5 years, depending on how the off-year election goes. Otherwise, it's a crap shoot whether the two previously mentioned justices would be replaced with an originalist or not.
So we wait.

Thankfully the situation is not hopeless.
 
Last edited:
So do you think if Kennedy resigns and Trump appoints another originalist, THEN cert would be granted?

One can hope... but, until then...

May 22 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 25, 2017.

SCOTUS with grant cert on a carry case in...

twoweeks.gif


(yes, shamelessly stealing a trope from Calguns after stealing a political theory from there as well)
 
There are clear indications that J. Thomas and J. Alito (as well as J. Scalia) are tired of the lower courts thumbing their collective noses at the Heller decision (See the dissent in denial of cert for Friedman and the concurring opinion in Caetano).

Actually not.

Heller did not address the issue of laws regulating the carrying firearms outside of the home.

The lower courts’ holdings in this regard are perfectly consistent with Heller and current Second Amendment jurisprudence – until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top