When will the next carry case get to SCOTUS?

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

With Woollard v. Gallagher being denied cert by the Supreme Court on Oct. 2013 and two other gun cases currently being heard when will the next carry case most likely be ruled on by SCOTUS?
.

 

[Somewhere in NM]

NRA v. McCraw is still waiting for conference. All documents were due (and received) by Jan. 21.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-rifle-association-of-america-v-mccraw/

One of the questions is whether there is a right to bear arms for self defense in public.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.
Very good.



That case doesn't cover shall or may issue I see.
.

 

[pdsmith505]

Seems as though the NRA and Texas are proposing different questions:

NRA:

1. Whether the Second Amendment right to
bear arms for self-defense in case of confrontation
includes the right to bear arms in public.

2. Whether that right to bear arms extends to
responsible, law-abiding 18-to-20-year-old adults.

3. Whetehr Texas's ban on responsible, law-abiding 18-to-20-year-old adults bearing handguns in public for self-defense violates the Second Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause

McCraw:

1. Whether the National Rifle Association
(“NRA”), the sole petitioner in this case, has
associational standing to challenge the Texas laws at
issue.
2. Whether either the Second Amendment or the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment prevents Texas from maintaining
reasonable minimum-age requirements for carrying
concealed handguns in public.

Reading the petition from the NRA, they mention permits only in that 18-20 year old adults can't carry because permits aren't available to them. They then go on to ask the court to decide whether "to bear" means to carry in public, outside the home. To me, at least (and IANAL), this reads as the NRA asking the court to rule that adults MUST be able to carry guns outside the home which would be, at a minimum, shall issue. But in light of SCOTUS's refusal to take up licence to carry cases, I would assume the NRA would use it to question the permits themselves.

 

[MagnumDweeb]

It seems like in McGraw is an attempt at a clever little maneuver by the NRA to get some first piece of case precedent for where the SCOTUS rules that there is a right of the public to be able to have guns in public for self-defense (you know because the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about just having them at your house, shooting range, or during your hunting activities).

It wouldn't directly address may issue versus shall issue but if the SCOTUS says that adults have a right to posses firearms for protection in public. It would give us a great leg up in challenging May Issue states where there is no means to redress a Sheriff's or Police Chief's ruling that the public has no right to posses a concealed weapon's permit purely for the perceived threat one may potentially encounter while in public. Not necessarily turning all states Shall Issue but allowing those with the gumption and know how to challenge a Sheriff's decision in court possibly (or before a review panel and then maybe the review panel's decision in court) when their application is denied.

The question would then be if there was a way to recover one's legal fees. I don't know on that end but I'd be curious to see if a Sheriff who refuses to perform his duties reasonably can be sued individual for his poor actions. If he could then it'd be a matter of a class action suit here and there and the poor bastards would have something to worry about.