Supreme Court weighs taking up concealed-gun case

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

The case is Kachalsky v. Cacace. If SCOTUS decides to hear this case, I hope it's a strong case for us.

.
Supreme Court weighs taking up concealed-gun case

Published April 12, 2013


WASHINGTON – A day after the Senate voted to begin debate on new gun control measures, the Supreme Court is expected to consider a new appeal aimed at loosening state restrictions on firearms.

The justices are meeting in private Friday to discuss adding new cases for the term that begins in the fall. Among them is an appeal of a federal court ruling that upheld New York's strict licensing scheme for carrying concealed weapons in public.

...<Copyrighted Material Removed>...


The case is Kachalsky v. Cacace, 12-845.
.

.

Source:

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

When is the latest we would know if they they decided to hear it or not?
.

 

[tyeo098]

Sometime between Monday and when the Sun consumes the Earth.

They are known to take their time.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

I wonder how long it took from when they first could issue their decision to hear Heller and McDonald til when they declared they would hear them.
.

 

[rodinal220]

I hope the anointed one doesn't get a crack at a SCOTUS appointee in the meantime.

 

[denton]

Gura is always thinking four or five moves ahead. If he is on the case, he believes that he has a very good chance of prevailing, and win here sets the stage for future actions.

When the press writes about Heller and McDonald, they often incorrectly say that the cases deal only with handguns, and with possession in the home. Neither is correct. The key rulings were that 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the types of arms protected are those that people commonly hold for lawful purposes. And, BTW, handguns used to protect the home clearly fall within that protection.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

Yeah, Gura is good. I just hope SCOTUS decides to hear this one.
.

 

[dmazur]

I am not an attorney, so I am only vaguely familiar with the details of the process.

The key rulings were that 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the types of arms protected are those that people commonly hold for lawful purposes.

I think that, the court is limited by the case before them, which was that Heller couldn't own a handgun in Washington D.C. I think the majority opinion might have said something similar to what you stated above, but it might be called "dicta" (?).

And McDonald was necessary to establish virtually the same thing as applied to the states, even though Heller made it pretty obvious. Heller only applied to D.C.

So what we're all waiting for is the "perfect case" which might show the 2nd Amendment extends to bearing arms outside the home. Details of concealed vs. open might be future cases, depending on which one was presented as the wrong against the injured party.

That's about all my poor amateur brain cells can provide ...

 

[denton]

the court is limited by the case before them, which was that Heller couldn't own a handgun in Washington D.C.

Sorting the dicta from the binding rulings is not easy. I'll admit that I don't think I've perfected the art.

When Scalia speaks on behalf of the court, and says "we find..." then I think we're reading binding law. So when he says that the court "finds" that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, I think that's binding law.

I also think that when he says that a previous ruling means a particular thing, I think that's binding law. In Heller, he said that "we" read Miller to mean exactly what it says, that the class of arms protected is those that are commonly held for lawful purposes. I think that is binding law.

He then says that based on those two rulings, we can reason that banning the possession of commonly held firearms in the home is not permissible.

That's what I get from reading con law experts. It's more expansive than how a lot of lefties paint it, and it's the path that Judge Posner of the 7th Circuit took in overturning the Illinois concealed carry law.

 

[dmazur]

That's good news. So Heller isn't as narrow as I thought.

The problem is that there are a lot of lower courts that "can't read the writing on the wall" ?

Am I correct in assuming we need another win to get carry recognized, as that wasn't addressed in any of the various cases yet?

 

[buckeye8]

While the talk about "binding" law is important, let's not forget that what really matters is the human beings who comprise the court.

After all, Plessy v. Ferguson was once "binding" law. It can always change.

 

[denton]

Am I correct in assuming we need another win to get carry recognized, as that wasn't addressed in any of the various cases yet?

That's right. We need a Supreme Court win. We already have a foot in the door with Madigan (Posner, 7th Circuit). If the Supreme Court accepts Kachalsky v. Cacace, that will be the cornerstone that Gura will build on to expand that right. At the moment, in NY, you can't open carry, and you can't get a permit to carry concealed. So, in effect, you can't "bear arms" in NY. That's what the suit is about.

After all, Plessy v. Ferguson was once "binding" law. It can always change.

That's true. But the Supreme Court is extremely slow to overturn even obviously wrong decisions. A Supreme Court decision tends to be more permanent than laws passed by Congress. Heller and McDonald were both very well reasoned and written, and extremely unlikely to be overturned, ever.

For those interested, here's the important quote from the 7th Circuit's Judge Posner, who is no great ally of the NRA:

“The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense,” he continued.

“Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden,” Posner wrote.

There are two very important findings here: 1) The right protected in Heller and McDonald extends beyond the home. 2) In order to limit this right, states have the burden of clearly showing that any proposed limits clearly provide a public safety benefit. If the empirical evidence is unclear, then the right-holder prevails.

This second part puts the recent CO and NY anti-gun laws in grave jeopardy. There is no clear evidence that banning AR style rifles provides any clear public safety benefit, and nothing gawdawful happens when you add the capacity for a 16th magazine round (8th in NY). Those laws will almost surely go away, never to return.

 

[CSG]

All you have to keep in mind about this court is that Roberts upheld obamacare. One of the worst decisions in our lifetime. Trusting them on the 2nd amendment?? Don't hold your breath for a positive ruling here if they take the case.

 

[denton]

CSG, you're right that you can seriously wreck your reputation as a forecaster by predicting what the Supreme Court will do. But I am optimistic on this one.

The ObamaCare decision was a major disappointment alright, but it was new territory.

We now have Heller and McDonald in place, so we don't have that problem with the upcoming crop of gun rights laws. Since the Supreme Court is extremely precedent bound, and since Gura is brilliant, I'm thinking we are well positioned. We shall see.

 

[9thchild]

I hate to break it to ya'll, but SCOTUS has been stomping on the constitution for a long time. The biggest transgression is the Commerce Clause, which has been warped and abused to allow the federal government to do regulate almost anything it wants.

Still, I agree with most because the precedent is very clear and in our favor. I think about gun control the same way I think about federal drug laws. Both are blatantly unconstitutional but guns have a specific amendment guaranteeing they won't be regulated inappropriately (though really it means at all).

There was much debate about whether a Bill of Rights was necessary and also whether it may actually lead to more infringements. I'd say both predictions are probably true.