Jim Watson
Member
Nobody has gotten it to stick to dope, though.
True. Because we as a nation have become tribal and driven by agendas.Nobody has gotten it to stick to dope, though.
I'm curious @LiveLife, do yiy think yhat this decision would apply to Illinois foid card.
Unlikely. Today's decision does not invalidate permits per se, just capricious denial due to ambiguous requirements.
Exactly. Unfortunately not everyone feels that way. It really messes with their cognitive dissonance to see someone doing something they themselves may not like or agree with, even if it’s not harming them.I am in the free to go to hell in your own way but with draconian penalties if you harm me tribe.
Supreme Court's ruling on gun rights will not impact Illinois - https://www.dancaulkins.com/supreme_court_s_ruling_on_gun_rights_will_not_impact_illinoisEven with today's SCOTUS ruling, states can still pass laws to limit who/where firearm carry is allowed.I'm curious @LiveLife, do yiy think yhat this decision would apply to Illinois foid card.
And it didn't take a week as Supreme Court sent the cases back to lower courts for further review - https://lawnews.tv/supreme-court-sends-back-gun-cases-for-further-review/four cases on hold may receive decision to grant or deny the review of cases perhaps coming week
And it didn't take a week as Supreme Court sent the cases back to lower courts for further review - https://lawnews.tv/supreme-court-sends-back-gun-cases-for-further-review/
The Second Amendment Foundation today hailed the U.S. Supreme Court decision to vacate lower court rulings in several gun rights cases and remand them back to lower courts for review “in light of” last week’s landmark 6-3 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen.
Chief among these cases is Bianchi, Dominic, et.al. v. Frosh, a case brought by SAF and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms challenging Maryland’s 2013 ban on so-called “assault weapons.” Other cases include challenges to restrictive gun laws in Hawaii, New Jersey and California. In addition, a SAF case called McDougall v. Ventura County, which challenges a closure of gun shops two years ago during the COVID-19 panic, has been vacated by a Ninth Circuit en banc panel and remanded to the trial court for action consistent with the Supreme Court’s New York ruling.
“This is incredibly good news,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “The importance of Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion in the New York right-to-carry case may not be fully understood until all of these other cases have gone through lower court review. What we’re seeing today could be the beginning of court actions that eventually fully restore rights protected by the Second Amendment.”
Gottlieb, who also chairs the Citizens Committee, said the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to remand the McDougall case back for further proceedings consistent with last week’s Bruen ruling sends a strong signal that federal courts can no longer use a made-up “two-step” process to determine Second Amendment cases. As Justice Thomas wrote in his opinion, “Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many.”
“Our attorneys are already reviewing earlier cases to determine which ones can be re-filed for further action based on the high court ruling in Bruen,” he noted, “and we are confident other cases now remanded back for further review will also fare better in the lower courts.”
“It is also important,” Gottlieb said, “that the high court granted all writs of certiorari in these Second Amendment cases as they were being remanded back for further review. That tells me we have a Supreme Court willing to rein in lower court activism and limit how far they will allow local and state governments to reach when it comes to placing burdens on the exercise of a fundamental, constitutionally-enumerate right to keep and bear arms.”
I think this way, lower courts now have to/must eat their words and change their rulings to say states' past "anti-gunrights" laws were unconstitutional.Wouldn't it be better for SCOTUS to take at least an assault weapons and high capacity magazines case and rule on it
SCOTUS is pretty much putting the lower courts on a warning with 2nd Amendment cases because the moment an Appeals court upholds a magazine or Assault Weapon ban, SCOTUS will take that case and make the ruling nationwide. The Circuit Courts are going to be in a position where to keep a ruling from being appealed up to SCOTUS, they will have to overturn bans themselves and keep that ruling to the states in the Circuit.I think this way, lower courts now have to/must eat their words and change their rulings to say states' past "anti-gunrights" laws were unconstitutional.
And justice Thomas clearly stated in the ruling that "modern" types of firearms such as semi-auto magazine fed pistols/carbines/rifles "in common use" are not dangerous and protected by the 2A just as modern forms of communication "in common use" like email/text are protected by the 1A, not as "second class right".
And if SCOTUS is not happy with lower courts' "new revised" rulings, SCOTUS could still hear the cases and rule on them.
At least that is how this "layperson" sees the action of the SCOTUS today.
As LL touched on in a following post, not necessarily. Actually, possibly the opposite; A GVR case goes back to lower; they rule appropriately; this strengthens the SCOTUS decision and if the opposing side requests a writ or cert. , denied. Effectively, the SCOTUS does state their position, the previous decision has merit and stands.Wouldn't it be better for SCOTUS to take at least an assault weapons and high capacity magazines case and rule on it in case the anti-gunners wait
GVR order - Type of order issued by the SCOTUS in which the Court grants a petition for certiorari, vacates the decision of the court below, and remands the case for further proceedings ... typically appropriate when...
I think in light of the Bianchi v. case overturn the court would grant a writ or cert for that with an expected reversal.The concern I have is once one Circuit upholds a mag or AWB case after one or more overturn them, then it triggers some sort of automatic review by the Supreme Court which if that happens
That's under the current circumstances. If the Democrats gain the trifecta (House, Senate, and Presidency), they will probably expand the Supreme Court to 15 Justices, or else remove issues of constitutionality from the Supreme Court's jurisdiction (creating another Constitutional Court). Those things are well within the scope of congressional power. That's certain to happen if the Court is seen as overtly partisan.With the court's current makeup, barring any Scalia situations, we should be good for another 10-15 years. I expect Thomas and Alito to retire in 5-10 years
It is not an automatic invalidation of whatever law was at issue. As I posted at TFL: Now, with respect to vacating the appellate court rulings, .... What that means, to use language I've seen in some rulings, is that the appellate court rulings are 'held for naught.' In other words, it's like they never happened. An example not pulled from any of the cases at bar: Let's say a case went to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (a federal court), and that court struck a law as unconstitutional, and then went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Let's further say that the 9th Circuit reversed, holding it constitutional, and was appealed to SCOTUS. If SCOTS then grants cert, and vacates the judgment of the 9th, then the case goes back to the 9th, but the holding of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CA goes back into effect, to include any stays in effect when it went up on appeal the first time.....I read this strictly to mean, the previous decision being vacated and therefore RIGHTS ARE RESTORED pending said review? What say brighter minds then mine? Which in itself doesn't mount to much LoL. Effectively for an example that jurisdictions CITIZENS would receive at a minimum , temporary relief of the legal burden i.e. GO BUY MAGS!....
Very good point.consider this: (a) if we win at he 9th, the state could decide not to appeal, and the decision is only binding in the 9th Circuit, but possibly persuasive in other circuits; (b) if we lose at the 9th, our side gets the option of appeal and if we then go on to win at SCOTUS, we get a decision that is binding law on all of the circuits.
Let me also add that we may be in for what I think of as the "fermentation period," like we had after Heller and MacDonald. It is entirely possible that SCOTUS will let cases "ferment" in the circuits, watching to see what they come up with and waiting until we've got enough conflict between appellate court decisions to require a SCOTUS ruling to harmonize them.
Renna v Bonta deals with CA Handgun Roster and since 9th Circuit ruled using the two step approach, any challenge would reverse the ruling post Supreme Court Bruen ruling.Were they being returned to Judge Benitez who originally ruled the laws unconstitutional, or are they being returned to the ... 9th?Saw where the magazine ban and AW bans using [two-step] are being returned to Judge Benitez.
Renna v Bonta ... 9th Circuit used the "two step" approach ... which the recent Supreme Court ruling for Bruen eliminated
If/once stay is lifted, then CA assault weapons ban would effectively end (No more featureless rifles, no more registered "Assault Weapons") as judge Benitez ruling in Miller was quite clear that modern rifles in common use that use magazines are protected by the 2A. With Bruen ruling eliminating the two step approach, I believe stay being lifted is likely - https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...2850515/Miller_v_Bonta_Opinion.pdf?1622850515
CA residents can request to have qualifying "registered assault weapons" cancelled from registration.I don't think California's Assault Weapon registration law will be struck down.If/once stay is lifted, then CA assault weapons ban would effectively end (No more featureless rifles, no more registered "Assault Weapons")
Efforts by the state of California to have the Miller v. Bonta California assault weapon ban case remanded back to Judge Benitez and forcing the restart of the case!Miller v Bonta (CA assault weapon ban) and affecting Rupp v Bonta (CA ban on certain assault weapon) was stayed at the 9th Circuit but a motion was filed to lift the stay due to Bruen ruling