When could SCOTUS actually grant cert to this assault weapons case?

[Aim1]

If this case is submitted to SCOTUS for cert, when is the soonest that itcould actually be granted cert and ruled on?


Are we looking at 1 year, 2 years?



http://www.twcnews.com/nys/buffalo/...not-to-hear-illinois-assault-weapons-ban.html

With SCOTUS Passing On Illinois Assault Weapons Ban, What's Next For SAFE Act

By Alex Haight Monday, December 7, 2015

The U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear thousands of cases each year, so in one sense, Monday’s announcement that it wouldn’t take up Friedman v. Highland Park wasn’t much of a surprise. But among the 130 cases the Court declined to grant certiorari on Monday morning, only one elicited a dissent from two justices.

Arie Friedman challenged Highland Park’s assault-weapons ban, which prohibits residents from buying, selling, or owning some types of semiautomatic firearms. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Chicago surburb’s ban by narrowly interpreting the Court’s recent Second Amendment rulings, which focused on handguns.

"We have, I think, five more weeks to apply to Cert for the Supreme Court, and if the case doesn't come down in that time frame, we will apply on our own with Connecticut, Illinois and us,” King said.

King says he doesn't know how long it will take for the Supreme Court to make a decision on whether to hear this case, but he says he believes this plan will make it tough for the Supreme Court to turn them down.

"We're still confident that the Supreme Court is going to take our case," King said.

 

[Red Wind]

King, in the long run, is probably right. It is almost inevitable with 2 dissenting Justices.

 

[alsaqr]

The dissent of two justices means nothing. Assuming the current makeup of the court will continue for some years, SCOTUS will not hear the NY SAFE Act.

 

[Red Wind]

We'll see. I respectfully disagree.

 

[The Alaskan]

You know, it's a darn shame what this has come down to.

We have Supreme Court justices deciding whether or not to even hear a case, and then deciding cases, based less and less on law and more and more on partisan politics. Rather than acting as a check on government power, the court has become a weapon in the hands of those who have the power.

 

[yokel]

Freedom certainly is at risk in this land where elected leaders and appointed judges believe that fundamental rights are merely "political rights". If that is true, then politicians-- and the judges they appoint -- can abridge, alter or even eliminate them and the Constitution and Bill of Rights have been reduced to just rotting sheets of antique paper, the quaint relics of a dead dream.

A biased politician or judge that is ideologically driven by prejudice and ignorance is one of the vilest and most dangerous of despots and harms the fiber of American society.

 

[HexHead]

I don't see them taking the case while the lower courts continue to agree with each other on similar cases. It's probably going to take a dissenting opinion from another district court to get their attention.

 

[The Alaskan]

I don't see them taking the case while the lower courts continue to agree with each other on similar cases. It's probably going to take a dissenting opinion from another district court to get their attention.

Good point. Look at how they tried to dodge the same-sex marriage issue; it wasn't until they got dissenting judicial districts on the issue that they finally agreed to take up the issue.

 

[Stumper]

Given the lack of respect for the constitution demonstrated by many of the "justices" it is arguably a good thing that they refuse most 2nd ammendment cases. If they rule badly the left will proclaim an unconstitutional ruling "the Law of the Land". If they don't hear the case, bad rulings are left stand but the war proceeds without total victory over the Constitution being declared.

 

[ATLDave]

Look, the Supreme Court's pattern, for about 200 years now, is to let issues percolate for years in the circuit courts before finally weighing in. They don't generally reverse course, so they want to make sure they get it right. That means letting all the other smart judges and lawyers have lots of chances to make all the arguments. Then they have a much bigger body of thought from which to pull the best ideas. This isn't special to gun rights issues. This is just how they operate, and have for your entire lifetime.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Good point. Look at how they tried to dodge the same-sex marriage issue; it wasn't until they got dissenting judicial districts on the issue that they finally agreed to take up the issue.

That's the issue I watched to see if the SC was actually going to pay attention to the constitution or just go with the popular consensus of the state laws and lower courts. They of course went with the popular consensus and paid little attention to the constitution.

The whole thing was very much like the 2A argument for semiauto hicap weapons. If enough lower courts found that they fall within the realm of 2A and due process they would rule on it. So far I don't know any who have.