Scotus passes on gun cases again.

[1942bull]

This is a sad day. It only takes four justices in favor to have a case heard. That means at least one of the four conservatives voted against each case. I think this assures that some states will begin to enact more gun restrictions since SCOTUS has chosen to allow states to act as they see fit.

 

[Zippy_the_slug]

The Court has definitely been reluctant to take up gun cases. They also sidestepped cases involving police protections (qualified immunity). If four justices don't agree to hear a case, cert is denied. Sometimes it is hard to know why the Court grants or denies but often times the Supreme Court steps in when there is an issue to settle between lower courts. They may just be waiting for a split to come along or the right case to use as a vehicle. Again, Roberts is a question here.....

 

[AlexanderA]

This is a sad day. It only takes four justices in favor to have a case heard. That means at least one of the four conservatives voted against each case.

Yes, it only takes four Justices to grant cert, but it takes five to issue a favorable decision. We know that there are four pro-2A Justices. Those four must have concluded that the fifth vote (Chief Justice John Roberts) wasn't available to them. So they squelched the cases rather than having them go 5-4 against gun rights. It looks like it took them a long time to figure out Roberts' true intentions -- that's why the cases kept being kicked down the road.

 

[1942bull]

@AlexanderA, that makes good sense and sounds likely.

 

[danez71]

The Court has definitely been reluctant to take up gun cases. They also sidestepped cases involving police protections (qualified immunity). If four justices don't agree to hear a case, cert is denied. Sometimes it is hard to know why the Court grants or denies but often times the Supreme Court steps in when there is an issue to settle between lower courts. They may just be waiting for a split to come along or the right case to use as a vehicle. Again, Roberts is a question here.....

I'd agree but.....

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/th...-long-failure-to-protect-the-second-amendment

Thomas also detailed the backlog of similar cases in lower courts that have led to split decisions on what restrictions a state may place on a person seeking a permit to carry a gun in public.

"The Courts of Appeals are squarely divided on the constitutionality of these onerous 'justifiable need' or 'good cause' restrictions. The D. C. Circuit has held that a law limiting public carry to those with a 'good reason to fear injury to [their] person or property' violates the Second Amendment," he said. "By contrast, the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits have upheld the constitutionality of licensing schemes with 'justifiable need' or 'good reason' requirements, applying what purported to be an intermediate scrutiny standard."

Such a split between the circuits is generally one of the most compelling reasons for the Supreme Court to take up a case, and is actually laid out in the tribunal's official rulebook.

 

[galapoola]

This is a sad day. It only takes four justices in favor to have a case heard. That means at least one of the four conservatives voted against each case. I think this assures that some states will begin to enact more gun restrictions since SCOTUS has chosen to allow states to act as they see fit.

Not necessarily, as someone pointed out on another forum, if the conservatives can't get 5 people on the same page in conference, even if they had 4 to grant cert they won't. Reason? It's a waste of time since they already know the outcome. Said another way, many of the large sweeping cases are decided in conference. "Hey, how many of us want to allow 'shall issue to all 50 states? One, two, three, four. Not enough, maybe next time' " The reason they kept relisting is because they were hoping to change one justices mind. I have my money on Roberts. Carry is a no brainer for the left and the right. Today the Kennedy of SCOTUS appears to be Roberts. He is the swing guy. He goes left often enough. The 4 solid conservatives probably do not want to codify that carry is for indoors at your home so they wait. When either old liberal or Roberts leaves and are replaced with a conservative, then you have a solid 5 and it will move forward. In a way by denying cert to all these is good if they were destined to be voted wrong.

 

[WestKentucky]

In other news, SCOTUS has allowed LGBTQ status to be considered a protected status therefore employers and others can not discriminate against them. This has historically been seen as a very conservative/liberal issue, and in this case the progressive liberals turned 1 conservative (gorsuch) so the decisions may not be as guaranteed as we would like to think. Gorsuch claims to be a man who looks predominantly at the text of the law, so in doing so he could be a risk if he were to cite some long standing law that could easily be amended or stricken if painted with the Jim Crow law paintbrush. I will not comment on the LGBTQ ruling other than to say that what seems to be plainly written can easily become questionably written when examined in a certain way. That one seems to be a case of wording as discrimination based upon “sex” has historically been interpreted as being based upon “gender” and the words do not have the same meaning. There could easily be some poor wording somewhere that the justices want to avoid tangling with before hearing a case.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Not necessarily, as someone pointed out on another forum, if the conservatives can't get 5 people on the same page in conference, even if they had 4 to grant cert they won't. Reason? It's a waste of time since they already know the outcome. Said another way, many of the large sweeping cases are decided in conference. "Hey, how many of us want to allow 'shall issue to all 50 states? One, two, three, four. Not enough, maybe next time' " The reason they kept relisting is because they were hoping to change one justices mind. I have my money on Roberts. Carry is a no brainer for the left and the right. Today the Kennedy of SCOTUS appears to be Roberts. He is the swing guy. He goes left often enough. The 4 solid conservatives probably do not want to codify that carry is for indoors at your home so they wait. When either old liberal or Roberts leaves and are replaced with a conservative, then you have a solid 5 and it will move forward. In a way by denying cert to all these is good if they were destined to be voted wrong.

Very well written, and I think your final sentence is correct, however, I think your confidence in adding a conservative justice at the next appointment is misplaced. The next justice will be in the vein of Roberts, at best, but I think it will be more likely to be someone similar to RBG. The Supreme Court is never going to support and defend the 2nd Amendment. Never. The best we can hope for is a lifelong, generational, continuous, ceaseless, and expensive cultural and legal battle that no one ever truly wins or loses.

 

[Zippy_the_slug]

I'd agree but.....

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/th...-long-failure-to-protect-the-second-amendment

If you read my post earlier in this thread (from two weeks ago) I mentioned that the split concerning a justifiable need or reason to issue a permit to carry a gun outside the home would have the best chance at triggering a grant. However, it did not and I suspect it is going to take another deeper split to convince them to step in. I have been skeptical that they would grant cert on any of the cases they denied this morning. It's probably for the best right now.

 

[Zippy_the_slug]

There is one case hanging around, Rodriguez v. City of San Jose, involving a firearm seizure that wasn't in the list circulating on this thread. This one hasn't been around for very long and is rather low profile. Anyone want to venture a guess?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-1057.html

 

[AlexanderA]

If the four pro-2A Justices were so sure that Roberts would rule against them (and that therefore they preferred to deny cert rather than risk 5-4 anti-2A decisions), apparently the four gun-unfriendly Justices did not share their certainty. If it was certain in their minds that Roberts would rule against the pro-gun side, then the four liberal Justices would have voted to grant cert in order to get antigun precedents. So the conclusion is that Roberts remains at least somewhat a question mark.

It's also worth noting that Thomas and Kavanaugh dissented from the denial of cert. Either they didn't get the memo, or this was done by prearrangement to allow them to express their views on the underlying issues.

 

[GEM]

In any case, we have nothing now and the usual refrain that the golden case with the right justices is somewhere in the future is put forward yet again.

Send a check!

 

[galapoola]

If the four pro-2A Justices were so sure that Roberts would rule against them (and that therefore they preferred to deny cert rather than risk 5-4 anti-2A decisions), apparently the four gun-unfriendly Justices did not share their certainty. If it was certain in their minds that Roberts would rule against the pro-gun side, then the four liberal Justices would have voted to grant cert in order to get antigun precedents. So the conclusion is that Roberts remains at least somewhat a question mark.

It's also worth noting that Thomas and Kavanaugh dissented from the denial of cert. Either they didn't get the memo, or this was done by prearrangement to allow them to express their views on the underlying issues.

That may be true as well. We may never know how these things are conferenced. One thing that may help us in NJ are all the new Trump appointees on the Federal circuit and court of appeals. If you remember the carry case in Illinois, we won at the court of appeals and the dark forces compelled the state to stand down. That's what I believe happened, that the deep state power brokers made a few phone calls and said it's better to sacrifice Illinois than to run it by SCOTUS. If SCOTUS agreed with the appeals court then the whole country would go shall issue. If they drop it, as they did, then the damage is only to Illinois. So for all the may issue states, your hope is that you run a similar case through the system again. It would have to be similar but different enough so that it isn't tossed out of hand because it was already decided. Then you go with the odds. In our district we finally have more conservative/republican appointed judges so chances are good we'd get one on a new carry case. If we win, NJ may stand down and we win. If they appeal again we are odds on favor of two good judges and if we win then the case would probably not be appealed to SCOTUS for the reason described. I think this may be the best chance for relief from the tyrants we have. Those of you in free America may not realize how oppressive it is in my state. Even a technical violation, one without criminal intent is prosecuted to the fullest. You can be jammed up for the smallest thing and then it's all you money for lawyers and years in jail.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Send a check!

I truly believe that this is at the heart of it. The gun issue generates a lot of money for both sides. No one, other than the people it directly affects, wants this resolved.

 

[plodder]

This Supreme Court has been a Supreme Disappointment to me. Why is it that the Lefty Presidents pick unwavering, rock solid partisans when they get SCOTUS picks, but the "Conservative" Presidents seem to pick squeashy, no backbone sheep in wolves clothing when they get SCOTUS picks? When is the last time that Democrat appointed Justice surprised anyone with their rulings? (like almost never!). We conservatives always seem to get the short straw with people like Roberts.

 

[GEM]

General political complaints we don't need. I understand this decision might tend towards that, but let's dial it back.

About an earlier comment, that we don't know about Roberts. If the antis were sure they would have granted cert. That's a decent point. However, there was little risk in them not trying that. Maybe they weren't totally sure about him. However, by not granting cert, it lets all those laws in question stay in place which is a net win for the anti side. More bans will be forthcoming after the next rampage or purple state demographic changes. These will establish more precedents. Since the circuits usually don't strongly support gun rights, the history of such builds up and encourages Roberts to not be a strong supporter.

 

[Zippy_the_slug]

Some updates on Rodriguez v San Jose. The City of San Jose this week submitted its opposition to grant of cert and the docket has been updated. The last conference day of the current term is next Thursday, June 25. If the petition is relisted for next week's conference there is a possibility of a denial or a grant but we wouldn't know that until the following Monday, June 29. Otherwise, this petition might sit until the next term starts in October before any further action is taken. This is a less "controversial" case than the 10 that were just denied cert. Maybe there will be interest in taking it up.... maybe not....

There are Second and Fourth amendment questions in this petition.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-1057.html

 

[GEM]

This is not the 'golden' case as it doesn't touch the problems that some of the 10 cases denied were presented. Even if found for the plantiff, I don't see any expansive implications. They might just say, that according to Heller you can have a gun at home for self-defense and the procedure was a 4th Amendment violation. Does nothing for gun bans or carry restrictions.

Since they passed on those issues, they wouldn't be likely to expand rights based on this case.

 

[Zippy_the_slug]

This is not the 'golden' case as it doesn't touch the problems that some of the 10 cases denied were presented. Even if found for the plantiff, I don't see any expansive implications. They might just say, that according to Heller you can have a gun at home for self-defense and the procedure was a 4th Amendment violation. Does nothing for gun bans or carry restrictions.

Since they passed on those issues, they wouldn't be likely to expand rights based on this case.

That's why it may be a more palatable choice for some of the justices.

 

[GEM]

Might be, but really doesn't do us any real good.

Another thought, if cert is granted, couldn't the city just fold and make it moot. That's what happened in NYC and avoided any greater RKBA implications. Giving the guns back is not a big deal.

 

[danez71]

Point?

Or just dragging an otherwise informative thread down?

 

[AlexanderA]

The key is Chief Justice Roberts and his institutionalism. He wants to avoid political questions, for the sake of maintaining the Court's reputation as a neutral arbiter. I think he would have been willing to rule on gun cases, if only the issue had not become so polarized along social and partisan lines.

 

[Zippy_the_slug]

For those that like to read about this sort of thing here is another take on why those 10 petitions were denied cert. It's all speculation as usual.

 

[Zippy_the_slug]

Rodriguez v. City of San Jose has been distributed for conference on 9/29/2020. It will get a chance for a grant when the court is back in session next term. Perhaps after a summer break a certain unnamed justice will decide it is time to rule on a Second Amendment case of marginal substance. Until then.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-1057.html
https://www.cagunrights.org/rodriguez_appeal