Peruta case has now been appealed to US Supreme Court

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Actually, yes. Favorable citations of Nunn v. State (GA) and State v. Chandler (LA) are a significant part of the Heller decision. It is unfortunate in this respect that the question asked in Heller was exclusive to exercise of the right in the home, but that didn't prohibit Scalia from leaving guide posts to follow.

In Nunn v. State, 1Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right:

“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”

Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”


Further, Friedman v. Highland Park (denial of cert of which is noted by a scathing dissent from J. Thomas, joined by J. Scalia) was concerned with the ban of "assault weapons", not carry.

So, yes, the lower courts have "thumbed their nose" at SCOTUS.
 
Actually not.

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

I call BS on this. Scalia's majority in Heller absolutely addressed "bearing" arms outside the home. It also swatted down the dissent's incoherent definition of same. Just because anti's don't like it, it doesn't mean it does not exist.

Start reading at page 10 if you don't believe me:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO
 
I call BS on this. Scalia's majority in Heller absolutely addressed "bearing" arms outside the home. It also swatted down the dissent's incoherent definition of same. Just because anti's don't like it, it doesn't mean it does not exist.

Start reading at page 10 if you don't believe me:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO
=========================================================================
Page 10 is irrelevant, it's dicta.
The only thing that matters is the last page, the order
The vote by the justices only concerns the order, everything else is non binding

In United States legal terminology, a dictum (plural dicta) is a statement of opinion considered authoritative (although not binding), given the recognized authoritativeness of the person who pronounced it.
Dictum - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictum
 
Distributed for conference on June 1 according to this link:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/16-894.htm

Here's the Supreme Court's brief explanation of its Case Distribution Schedule:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/casedistribution/casedistributionschedule.aspx

Here's a good explanation on what "distributed for conference" means:

http://www.counselpress.com/page_blog_single.cfm?bid=11

If I'm understanding the last link correctly, it seems to suggest that only about a quarter of the cases are ever discussed amongst the justices during these conference schedules. And of those discussed, not all are granted certiorari review.
 
Page 10 is irrelevant, it's dicta.
The only thing that matters is the last page, the order
The vote by the justices only concerns the order, everything else is non binding

Um, No. Generally the last page is the dissent. This is the part you don't want to cite, but unfortunately the Anti's seem to be doing just that with Heller.

Dicta is the Court's musings that are not necessary to resolve the case. D.C. brought up a "bearing arms" argument so the Court had to address, it. I'll let you dig through their briefing to find it.

Moreover, good luck telling any judge anywhere that they shouldn't follow SCOTUS, because it is "dicta," especially when using wikipedia as an authority. How is that working for you?
 
.... it seems to suggest that only about a quarter of the cases are ever discussed amongst the justices during these conference schedules. And of those discussed, not all are granted certiorari review.

SCOTUS receives about 7,000 to 8,000 petitions for certiorari each year, and it will hear about 80 cases (+/-) in a year.
 
I checked the Supreme Court's website, but it still says "Distributed for conference of June 15." The website has usually been good with updates the same day, so not sure what's going on since June 15 was two days ago. Of course, it's the weekend now, so I guess we'll have to wait until Monday, June 19, to see if the website updates the status of this case.
 
Sure is. My limited understanding is that Peruta could be rescheduled for next term... but that is unlikely to happen.
 
It is not real common to carry a case between terms, but is not against the rules.

There are only a handful of cases that the court considers out of the many requests they get. The chances of getting consideration is low to begin with.

I am not at all surprised that they have yet to either accept this case or not. It has a lot of potential to change a lot of what is now more or less settled law.
 
Thanks for the info on the internal Supreme Court workings. Keeping my fingers crossed this case will be granted cert.
 
Thanks for the info on the internal Supreme Court workings. Keeping my fingers crossed this case will be granted cert.
I am by no means any kind of expert on such things. Just an occasional outside observer.
 
Given the rumor that Kennedy will resign shortly, maybe the conservatives are trying to hold off until we have a solid majority.
 
Given the rumor that Kennedy will resign shortly, maybe the conservatives are trying to hold off until we have a solid majority.
Could be. It also could be that nobody really wants to touch it. It has a lot of potential to be very disruptive and the court seem to be reluctant to make rulings that are disruptive. That's kind of understandable. It's not good when people view the laws as changing all the time. That's one of the reasons the courts view precedence with such reverence.
 
Could be. It also could be that nobody really wants to touch it. It has a lot of potential to be very disruptive and the court seem to be reluctant to make rulings that are disruptive. That's kind of understandable. It's not good when people view the laws as changing all the time. That's one of the reasons the courts view precedence with such reverence.

If that is true, why don't they simply reject hearing the case?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top