2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: punaperson on January 12, 2017, 12:35:22 PM
-
Here, courtesy of Mr. Charles Nichols (courtesy of attorneys for Sheriff Gore), is the cert petition for Peruta!
http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Peruta-v.-San-Diego-Cert-Petition.pdf (http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Peruta-v.-San-Diego-Cert-Petition.pdf)
It just became available a couple of minutes ago, and it's 302 pages long, so I haven't read it yet... :shaka:
Full coverage by Mr. Nichols:
http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=4712
Peruta originally filed the case on October 9, 2009.
-
At least 1 went to SCOTUS
-
Here, courtesy of Mr. Charles Nichols (courtesy of attorneys for Sheriff Gore), is the cert petition for Peruta!
http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...t-Petition.pdf
It just became available a couple of minutes ago, and it's 302 pages long, so I haven't read it yet... :shaka:
Full coverage by Mr. Nichols:
http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=4712
Peruta originally filed the case on October 9, 2009.
the PDF link is broken.
-
the PDF link is broken.
I think it's fixed now:
http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Peruta-v.-San-Diego-Cert-Petition.pdf
-
At least 1 went to SCOTUS
Only filed, could be denied.
-
Only filed, could be denied.
The timing sucks balls. a few more months and it would be more in our favor.
-
The timing sucks balls. a few more months and it would be more in our favor.
Today was the last day to file.
Jan 12, 2017
-
Today was the last day to file.
Jan 12, 2017
I know, But it sucks.
-
I know, But it sucks.
It takes a long time to go through the Supreme Court, so hopefully there will be a better makeup of the court by then
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It takes a long time to go through the Supreme Court, so hopefully there will be a better makeup of the court by then
But cert will be granted or denied (usually) within weeks. With Scalia still on the court SCOTUS denied cert to the similar 2nd (Kachalsky), 3rd (Drake), and 4th circuit (Woollard) cases, and you only need four justices to vote to take the case for cert to be granted. Unless the current 8 justices somehow find the petition arguments uniquely compelling, no way, no how. I'm afraid our only hope is Nichols' open carry case. Though Baker and Young may get a look.
-
Here is Mr. Nichols' take on the Peruta cert petition:
http://newsblaze.com/business/legal/nra-tells-supreme-court-open-carry-is-perverse_72955/
NRA Tells Supreme Court Open Carry is Perverse
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15940783_1183380755078079_3060066490325770528_n.jpg?oh=d3fe2eba1b1c159ab3c3b760fbc92205&oe=59184BBD)
Excerpt:
Today we live in a world where insanity has become the mainstream and it is the rational men and women who now find themselves on the fringes of society. Not even Ayn Rand was able to predict what the world would become in her prophetic novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.
In 2008 the United States Supreme Court conducted its first in-depth analysis of the Second Amendment. The majority opinion, written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, parsed the Second Amendment word by word. Justice Scalia’s historical analysis began with the 1689 English Bill of Rights and centered around what the Framers of the Second Amendment understood the right to mean when it was enacted in 1791 and what the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment understood the right to mean as it existed in 1868, the two relevant dates when conducting a Constitutional inquiry. Justice Scalia also looked to how the 19th century state courts interpreted the Second Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms under the state analogs at the time.
With one exception, not mentioned in his decision, the courts invariably held that concealed carry was not a right. A few courts had held that the right was limited to defending The People against tyrants but even those decisions held that there was no right to carry a weapon concealed in public.
None of them held that Open Carry could be banned in favor of Concealed Carry, not one.
.....
The NRA’s cert petition will be denied and not just because the en banc (eleven judge panel) Peruta decision does not conflict with any US Supreme Court decision but because the en banc Peruta decision does not conflict with any other Federal circuit court of appeals or any other state high court decision which has had a concealed carry case come before it.
It is rare that the Supreme Court grants a cert petition when there is no circuit split and the only time it grants a cert petition in which there is neither a circuit split nor a conflict with its prior holdings is to overturn a prior holding of the US Supreme Court.
-
The cert petition was scheduled to be heard in conference today, however it was rescheduled this morning. Presumably for the conference of March 31st. So... another week... at least. I guess if you consider the case was filed in 2009, that's not even perceptible as a "delay".
-
[quote author=punaperson link=topic=26157.msg230286#msg230286 date=1484407770
Excerpt:
.....
The NRA’s cert petition will be denied and not just because the en banc (eleven judge panel) Peruta decision does not conflict with any US Supreme Court decision but because the en banc Peruta decision does not conflict with any other Federal circuit court of appeals or any other state high court decision which has had a concealed carry case come before it.
It is rare that the Supreme Court grants a cert petition when there is no circuit split and the only time it grants a cert petition in which there is neither a circuit split nor a conflict with its prior holdings is to overturn a prior holding of the US Supreme Court.
[/quote]
well the circuit is split because Peruta says no in the 9th BUT Moore_v._Madigan in the 7th says yes.
-
well the circuit is split because Peruta says no in the 9th BUT Moore_v._Madigan in the 7th says yes.[/size]
Moore v Madigan ruled that the Illinois lack of any means to lawfully bear firearms outside the home was unconstitutional. No one in the state could even apply for a license to carry, because there was no law that would allow such a thing. In other words, there was absolutely no way to bear arms outside the home legally in Illinois. California clearly has a law that allows for the application for and granting of licenses to carry outside the home, and even grants licenses in some counties.
Peruta is merely challenging the arbitrary discretionary "good cause" requirement (similar to Hawaii's arbitrary and capricious discretionary "exceptional case" requirement which the police chiefs refuse to define) within the California law that allows for anyone to apply for a CCW license. The law exists to allow for carry (unlike Illinois prior to Moore), all that's being contested in Peruta is (was) whether or not the criteria for issuing such licenses are constitutional. Some (rural) counties in California are "shall issue", and some of the larger counties (where the vast majority of the population resides) are "no issue" or only issue to retired cops, etc. The Ninth Circuit has ruled that there is no constitutional right to concealed carry outside the home, but the state still has a law that allows for that (now "privilege" rather than right). Just because it's not a constitutional right doesn't mean they have banned it or don't allow it, they do, at least theoretically, just like Hawaii.
Thus there is no split. Both circuits agree that there must be a law allowing for the application for and possible granting of government permission slips to bear arms outside the home.
-
Further update, courtesy of Charles Nichols, on the statistical probability of a rescheduled conference re a cert petition resulting in it being accepted (Note: Past performance is no guarantee of future results):
"Regarding the Peruta v. California cert petition being rescheduled, 63 cert petitions have been rescheduled in the past year and only one of those cert petitions was granted."
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/c3/c317dffde3588b8ee0fbd7c0ff5b58badd2d033b012430a255e6231b3eea9f91.jpg)
-
Peruta has been rescheduled for the conference this Friday, March 31. If it is not rescheduled (again), we will know early Monday morning, April 3, if cert has been granted or denied.
-
Peruta has been rescheduled for the conference this Friday, March 31. If it is not rescheduled (again), we will know early Monday morning, April 3, if cert has been granted or denied.
Actually, there's been some "mystery" regarding this. The SCOTUS page that deals with scheduling has deleted, added back, and deleted again that the Peruta cert question would be heard at today's (March 31) conference, while still listing it as having been "rescheduled". Someone called the SCOTUS clerk's office on Monday and was told that the case was on the schedule for the Friday meeting. So... we don't really know for sure what's happening, but will still find out next Monday morning what did (or didn't) happen. Some people that follow such details say this is a little strange, but could be due to technical issues re the webpage listings rather than what is actually going on with scheduling the case for conference. Just another thing that makes ya wonder... :wtf:
-
So... the SCOTUS website Peruta page still is not updated correctly. Here is the supposedly correct information, from SCOTUSblog, an independent website tracking and commenting on SCOTUS activity:
Mar 8 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 24, 2017.
Mar 23 2017 Rescheduled.
Mar 27 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 31, 2017.
Mar 30 2017 Rescheduled.
There is no date given for when Peruta has been scheduled for conference. The next conference is April 13. Today, April 3, is listed as a holiday on the SCOTUS calendar. Often the cases scheduled for conference are announced on the Monday prior to the conference, which in this case would be Monday April 10, but as can be seen in the above scheduling, it can be announced earlier if there is no conference scheduled for several weeks.
Some day there will be an end to this case (dragging on now since 2009), but not yet...
My crystal ball (totally worthless in terms of accuracy): It's being rescheduled because cert will be denied and Thomas/Alito are writing a dissent to that denial which would be published the same day the denial of cert is announced.
-
Fortunately we will have a new 2a friendly SCOTUS judge on board soon if this makes it's way up there.
-
Fortunately we will have a new 2a friendly SCOTUS judge on board soon if this makes it's way up there.
I hope you're right. Unfortunately Gorsuch doesn't really have a record on Second Amendment issues and the Republicans failed to grill him on the issues during the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings. The Dems asked a few 2A related questions which Gorsuch answered in only the most general way, so we really have no idea where he stands on laws (or interpretations of laws) that are de facto bans or serious infringements on the right to bear arms openly or concealed outside the home, a national reciprocity law, whether the NFA restrictions are constitutional, etc., etc., etc. Maybe Gorsuch told the NRA executives something "off the record" that warranted their enthusiastic support.
If he is confirmed by the Senate this week, as the Repubs claim will happen (one way or the other), I'm not sure if he immediately becomes an active Justice... I don't see why not (but have no idea how it really works... he must have his clerks, etc. lined up by now...), in which case he'll be there for the next conference on April 13 when it's likely Peruta will be scheduled. Of course even if Gorsuch were a Scalia clone on 2A issues, none of the earlier concealed carry cases were granted cert by SCOTUS when Scalia was there... likely because even with Scalia there weren't 5 votes to clearly affirm the right to carry outside the home (see: Kennedy/Roberts).
-
In his testimony, he said Heller was the 'law of the land' so if he is true to his word we might actually get the result the 2A community has been waiting decades for. That being said I won't hold my breath.
Cheers!
-
In his testimony, he said Heller was the 'law of the land' so if he is true to his word we might actually get the result the 2A community has been waiting decades for. That being said I won't hold my breath.
All the Circuit Court judges that ruled against concealed carry being a right that is infringed by "discretionary" "good cause", etc. requirements that result in "no issue", or de facto "almost no issue" all agree(d) that Heller is the "law of the land", but... Heller doesn't say anything clear and definitive about carry outside the home, so until SCOTUS clarifies the entire situation regarding carry (open and concealed) outside the home all the judges will continue to claim they are respecting Heller and ruling in accord with the provisions of it. We won't know Gorsuch's view until he might have the chance to rule on such a case.
-
All the Circuit Court judges that ruled against concealed carry being a right that is infringed by "discretionary" "good cause", etc. requirements that result in "no issue", or de facto "almost no issue" all agree(d) that Heller is the "law of the land", but... Heller doesn't say anything clear and definitive about carry outside the home, so until SCOTUS clarifies the entire situation regarding carry (open and concealed) outside the home all the judges will continue to claim they are respecting Heller and ruling in accord with the provisions of it. We won't know Gorsuch's view until he might have the chance to rule on such a case.
Valid points indeed.
-
Thank you for the updates Puna, I am following you for sure!
-
Peruta is rescheduled for conference on 13 April. By Friday morning we should know whether or not they will take the case. With Gorsuch now on the court, keep your fingers crossed! :shaka:
Mar 8 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 24, 2017.
Mar 23 2017 Rescheduled.
Mar 27 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 31, 2017.
Mar 30 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 10 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-894.htm (https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-894.htm)
-
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-894.htm
Apr 10 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017.
Apr 12 2017 Rescheduled.
Not gonna even speculate what this means, but... no, I said I wasn't going to do that. See ya all next week, again.
-
Maybe the reschedule is to give time for Goruch to come on board. I see it as a good thing.
-
Actually I think cases being rescheduled in general is an indicator they are much more likely to be accepted. Doesn't mean they will be. With every relisting the odds increase.
-
Mar 8 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 24, 2017.
Mar 23 2017 Rescheduled.
Mar 27 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 31, 2017.
Mar 30 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 10 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017.
Apr 12 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 17 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 21, 2017.
The fourth time is the charm?
-
Mar 8 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 24, 2017.
Mar 23 2017 Rescheduled.
Mar 27 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 31, 2017.
Mar 30 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 10 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017.
Apr 12 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 17 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 21, 2017.
Apr 20 2017 Rescheduled.
Fifth time is the charm?
-
Mar 8 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 24, 2017.
Mar 23 2017 Rescheduled.
Mar 27 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 31, 2017.
Mar 30 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 10 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017.
Apr 12 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 17 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 21, 2017.
Apr 20 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 24 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 28, 2017.
-
Should make a forum pool and lay odds on it being rescheduled again, how many more reschedules, etc, etc.
-
Should make a forum pool and lay odds on it being rescheduled again, how many more reschedules, etc, etc.
Including whether Gorsuch will sign on to the dissent of denial of cert now being written by Thomas.
-
Because the last four "reschedules" of Peruta occurred on the Thursday prior to the Friday conference for which it had been scheduled, today is that day in this fifth scheduling. I've checked the SCOTUS page for Peruta and nothing yet, but wonder if it is rescheduled again if it will appear today or not until Friday morning, just like the "Distributed for conference" notifications are dated on Monday but not posted on the website until Tuesday morning.
Is this thing getting drawn out or what? And even if they do grant cert there are no more oral arguments scheduled until the next term begins in October. Almost like some overly dramatic script is being followed...
-
Peruta was NOT rescheduled, so they are discussing it in conference right now. We will find out its fate early Monday morning. It can be granted cert, denied cert, or "relisted" for another conference. It's only been nine years so far...
-
Peruta was NOT rescheduled, so they are discussing it in conference right now. We will find out its fate early Monday morning. It can be granted cert, denied cert, or "relisted" for another conference. It's only been nine years so far...
Fingers crossed and then double crossed. :popcorn:
Thanks for the ongoing updates. :shaka:
-
Thanks for the ongoing updates. :shaka:
+1 :shaka:
-
Fingers crossed and then double crossed. :popcorn:
Thanks for the ongoing updates. :shaka:
:shaka:
-
And the decision is... (trumpets blaring)... no decision (wah wah wah). That's right, nothing. It's not on the "orders list" released today of cases denied or granted cert, nor disposed of in any other manner. What that (likely... today is a "holiday" for the court so it's website has not been updated with the order yet) means is that the case has been "relisted" for a future conference (most likely the next conference, on May 11). "Relisted" means they discussed the case in conference and postponed a decision until further discussion in a future conference, as opposed to the previous "Rescheduled" which means it was postponed from even being brought up in conference.
According to what I read this can mean 1. There is some possibility that the case will be granted cert but the "sides" are not completely settled and more discussion/persuasion is in order and/or 2. the case "sides" are settled and the case will be denied cert, but at least one justice dissents from the denial to the extent they are writing a dissent opinion and need time to finish it, as the dissent is issued simultaneously with the denial order.
In other words, no one has a friggin' clue what is going on except those nine justices (no clerks, secretaries, etc. are allowed to attend the conferences, though it's likely some of those people know what's going on, at least generally).
See ya in two weeks unless some good rumors are posted somewhere and I think other Peruta geeks might find them interesting. :geekdanc:
-
Not posted at the early hour I expected, but...
May 8 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 11, 2017.
So now... ONE WEEK!
-
Not on today's order list.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...17zor_986b.pdf
May 15 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 18, 2017.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-894.htm
Ho hum... :sleeping:
-
Second Amendment case Peruta vs. California may be heading to Supreme Court
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/15/second-amendment-case-peruta-vs-california-may-be-heading-to-supreme-court.html
"The case has now been appealed to the Supreme Court and though the Justices have rescheduled its consideration several times, some experts feel the court is finally ready to hear Peruta."
-
:shaka:
-
So if SCOTUS rules in favor of Peruta, what effect will it have on Hawaii, other than the state refusing to recognize and appealing the decision. Can they even appeal a SCOTUS decision?
-
So if SCOTUS rules in favor of Peruta, what effect will it have on Hawaii, other than the state refusing to recognize and appealing the decision. Can they even appeal a SCOTUS decision?
There are 2 ways to appeal a SCOTUS decision. Pass an amendment to change the constitution. Or later in the future (we're talking at least a few decades), SCOTUS can revisit the case again but this is highly unlikely.
-
So if SCOTUS rules in favor of Peruta, what effect will it have on Hawaii, other than the state refusing to recognize and appealing the decision. Can they even appeal a SCOTUS decision?
I can speculate about that! ;)
First, it's a giant "IF", as other nearly identical cases (some form of "good cause" requirement) have been denied cert the past few years. The "money" is on denial of cert with these relisting being used to allow for a dissent to be completed.
However IF Peruta is granted cert, AND IF Peruta were to "win", all that would do for Hawaii is (possibly) negate the "exceptional case" requirement (similar to the "good cause" specific threat requirement of Peruta). What it would NOT do is address all the other vague, ambiguous, arbitrary and capricious clauses in the law that would be available for Hawaii to continue to be a de facto "no issue" state. (See my post in another thread in this section briefly mentioning them: https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=27505.msg244037#msg244037). A SCOTUS Peruta decision could, theoretically, address all those other restrictive licensing requirements, but it's extremely rare for a SCOTUS decision to address any issues beyond the very narrow question presented by the litigant, so it's highly unlikely that the court would go beyond the "good cause" issue to address things like "no 'unreasonable' training requirement" or "no 'unreasonable' cost" or "no 'unreasonable' limitations on carry locations", etc., much less some "strict scrutiny" decision that would dictate "no government approval or permission can be required" (i.e. permitless open and concealed carry). It would likely mean that even if Peruta were successful, that more cases would have to be filed to address the various other impediments Hawaii has created to deny citizens the right to lawfully bear arms, though some of those might be addressed in Young which is already at the Ninth, apparently waiting for the Peruta SCOTUS disposition.
By the way, I watched a video of Ed Peruta today prior to the announcement of another relist. It's not really worth watching (IMHO) as it's just rambling on about his shooting at a young age, etc., but right at the beginning he said "It gets a little old after, what, 8 or 9 years?" Also, he just got out of the hospital after suffering some kind of (realtively "minor") cardiac event. Oh, and he says he now "agree(s) with Nichols" that open carry is the right protected by the Constitution. https://www.facebook.com/edperuta/videos/10154431553275952/
-
I guess I really won't see a legal right to carry in Hawaii in my lifetime, even if I live to 90.
-
I guess I really won't see a legal right to carry in Hawaii in my lifetime, even if I live to 90.
Well, if you live to 90 I think you might have a chance if you are now 10. :rofl:
Like I said, everything I wrote was pure speculation based upon what I read, and weighting the various opinions by the track records of the opinionators. But anything can happen. Maybe?
If the politicians saw that the probability of their future continued election to office would be enhanced by adopting pro-Second Amendment positions they would do that. It's just that short of an apocalyptic economic collapse I don't see what conditions would change the voters of Hawaii to consider other views of government than as cradle to grave provider.
I saw today that the Nevada legislature passed a law that will allow 18 to 21 year old service members and vets to obtain CCW licenses (if the governor signs it). The bill passed overwhelmingly in the House and unanimously in the Senate. I sent the article to senator Gabbard, as at my suggestion he had incorporated such a provision in the CCW bill he introduced this year. I asked him what we in Hawaii could do to get our pro Second Amendment bills at least heard in committees. His response: "I’m sorry, but I don’t have a good answer on getting the Second Amendment rights legislation heard. Those decisions rest squarely in the hands of our public safety committee Chairs: Senator Clarence Nishihara for the Senate and Rep. Gregg Takayama in the House." I had sent each of those chairmen at least 4 emails and called them each about 4 times.... and... nothing. Nothing at all. Not even a response, other than over the phone "No decision has been made". So, as much as I don't want to be doom and gloom, it seems pretty damned doomy and gloomy out there. :(
-
At least gabbard gave u a idk and not the normal bs "i support the 2a, but together we can keep hawaii safe"
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
Not in the "List of Orders" (again) today. That (almost certainly) means that it will be "relisted" for conference on Thursday, May 25, 2017, but the "relists" aren't published until later in the morning. I'll keep checking and update this if/when that happens.
For those interested, SCOTUSblog has done an updated article (http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/10/the-statistics-of-relists-redux-october-term-2015/) on the probabilities of being granted or denied cert (or other dispositions) based upon the number of times a case is relisted. Long story short: The more times it is relisted, the lower the probability that it will be granted cert. This will be Peruta's 4th relist. Only 11.1% of cases with four relists are granted cert. Of course, Peruta could be one of that 11.1% (just like one person "beats" the winning lotto ticket odds of 100 million to one and is the winner). The "general opinion" is mostly that Peruta will be denied cert, and that a dissent to that denial is being written (most likely by Thomas/Alito)... but everyone is really guessing/speculating and making bets based upon history and odds, not knowledge of what is actually going on in the conferences, as those are attended only by the justices (no clerks/secretaries, etc.), and they ain't talkin'.
ETA (a few minutes later): As suspected:
May 22 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 25, 2017.
ETA2:
I should mention that the announcement of the results of the May 25 conference will be on Tuesday May 30 due to Monday being a holiday. See ya all then. :shaka:
-
And the hopes are fading....much like trumps wall at this point it might just be a dream
-
I guess I really will have to move to Nevada.
-
I guess I really will have to move to Nevada.
My only reason to move back
-
I guess I really will have to move to Nevada.
There are still Nichols (CA, before the Ninth CCA), and Norman (FL, sought extension to request cert before SCOTUS after Florida Supreme Court upheld the state right to ban open carry), which are both "clean" open carry cases, and Young (HI, before the Ninth CCA), which includes open carry. However, until there are (likely) one or two of the "liberal" justices replaced at SCOTUS by fervent Second Amendment defenders, it's quite possible no case will be successful to the degree that it could easily overturn Hawaii's de facto "no issue" law. I guess it depends on how many years you have left... which is a truly sad thing to have to say when it comes to having to make a decision about living somewhere in the United States where you can legally exercise your Constitutionally-protected rights without facing arrest, prosecution and incarceration. :( >:( :crazy: :wtf:
-
I actuallyo like Nevada a lot. Plus Front Sight is there so it is not really a bad thing. Lots of good restaurants and Hawaiian markets in Vegas. I would miss all the uhu, moana kali and other fish my friend gives me every month.
-
Charles Nichols just posted a brief article outlining the relationship of Peruta, Nichols, and Norman that I mentioned a couple of posts above.
http://newsblaze.com/business/legal/peruta-concealed-carry-lawsuit-waited-2768-days-supreme-court-says-wait-longer_80013/
Peruta Concealed Carry Lawsuit has Waited 2,768 Days – Supreme Court says Wait Longer
-
Charles Nichols just posted a brief article outlining the relationship of Peruta, Nichols, and Norman that I mentioned a couple of posts above.
http://newsblaze.com/business/legal/peruta-concealed-carry-lawsuit-waited-2768-days-supreme-court-says-wait-longer_80013/
Peruta Concealed Carry Lawsuit has Waited 2,768 Days – Supreme Court says Wait Longer
NRA lawyers bungled his case...
-
The linked article has small sample sizes and I can interpret the same numbers differently. If you consider the cases that are accepted but decided without oral argument, the odds of being accepted improve slightly with each relist until after the 3rd one, it drops a little.
If you don't consider such cases, then the odds of being granted an oral hearing are the highest with 1 relist (cases with 0 relists are almost all denied) and drop sharply until the 3rd relist, but after that the chances flatline at 7.4% to the aforementioned 11.1%. Note that the chances actually improve with the 4th relisting, but again the small sample size.
-
Fifth "Relist" after four "Reschedules".
May 30 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 1, 2017.
Remaining Conference Dates this session:
June 1
June 8
June 15
June 22
-
Not in the "Orders List" today, but has not officially been posted as "relist" (i.e."Distributed for conference of June 8"),
If/when that happens (or anything else) I will post it.
In other words: still waiting.
ETA:
Finally used a different browser to get the update on SCOTUS website after suddenly (and suspiciously) Opera decided it didn't want to list the Peruta docket info:
Jun 5 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 8, 2017.
-
They are going to distribute it out of existance. I really think the SCOTUS is afraid to take on tbe gun issue.
-
They are going to distribute it out of existance. I really think the SCOTUS is afraid to take on tbe gun issue.
I belive this to be True, With the word bear meaning to carry or posses in the 2A and the results of heller they have no choice but to find it a Constitutional right.
-
The gay cakes case London808 brought up in another thread also seems to have been relisted a lot. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/22/supreme-court-sets-aside-case-masterpiece-cakeshop/
-
The gay cakes case London808 brought up in another thread also seems to have been relisted a lot. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/22/supreme-court-sets-aside-case-masterpiece-cakeshop/
There are currently 10 (ten) cases that have been relisted multiple times, including the Masterpiece Cakeshop case mentioned above (relisted every conference since February 24).
There is a column written weekly about relists on SCOTUSblog. It hasn't been updated yet for today's relists, but last week's column is here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/06/relist-watch-106/
-
For those interested, here is a column written by Charles Nichols on the latest re-list of Peruta, Peruta's NRA lawyer Chuck Michel stating that he believes Peruta will be denied cert, Nichols' speculation on why it is being relisted compared to Michel's speculation on why it's being relisted... also touches on Norman and Young.
http://newsblaze.com/business/legal/nra-lawyer-says-odds-are-supreme-court-will-not-take-concealed-carry-case_80887/
NRA Lawyer says Odds are Supreme Court will NOT take Concealed Carry Case
Excerpts:
For over 200 years, American state courts have held that there is no right to carry a concealed weapon in public. Since 1897, the US Supreme Court has said that there is no right to carry a weapon concealed three times and, in a fourth (unanimous) decision, implicitly reaffirmed that concealed carry is nor a right under the Second Amendment.
The US Supreme Court said that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution. The Florida Supreme Court, in a narrow, 4-2-0 decision [Norman], said it does not care what the US Supreme Court said. It held that Florida can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry.
-
The delays work to our advantage, hopefully Ginsburg and Kennedy retire this year which will give it a much better chance. Better to wait a while for a good chance versus rushing it through for a bad decision that will last forever.
-
Ginsberg will stay on until she dies. She doesn't know any better, her mind is gone or nearly so.
-
Relisted for the conference this Thursday. There are only two more conferences this session, then the court recesses until October.
Mar 8 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 24, 2017.
Mar 23 2017 Rescheduled.
Mar 27 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 31, 2017.
Mar 30 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 10 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017.
Apr 12 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 17 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 21, 2017.
Apr 20 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 24 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 28, 2017.
May 8 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 11, 2017.
May 15 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 18, 2017.
May 22 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 25, 2017.
May 30 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 1, 2017.
Jun 5 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 8, 2017.
Jun 12 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 15, 2017.
-
Here, I'll finish the list for you.
June 19 DISTRIBUTED for conference of June 22
June 23 Rescheduled for a later date.
-
Here, I'll finish the list for you.
June 19 DISTRIBUTED for conference of June 22
June 23 Rescheduled for a later date.
Certainly nothing is impossible with this case, but... the majority of (informed?) opinion, such as by the lawyers writing at SCOTUSblog seem to believe that the case will be resolved (one way or another) at the end of this term and NOT held over for the fall term. One speculation among the hundreds is that since Norman (Florida open carry) will not be requesting cert until this term ends, that they will hold over Peruta and combine it with Norman in the fall to look at both open and concealed carry together. Like I said, total speculation.
One person, who I believe is rather knowledgeable regarding SCOTUS litigation, wrote me (following his lengthy discussion of the history of "reschedules" and "relists"): "I think it was last term that a petition had been relisted 16 times before it was finally denied and it was denied without a dissent or concurrence to denial [which is the reason given by many people as an "explanation" for the delay... one or more justices are needing the time to write dissents and/or concurrences] which means we can't reliably guess what will happen to the petition. All we know is that the Peruta cert petition has been relisted more times than the thousands of cases which came before it."
-
Re-listed for conference of June 22. That is the last conference of this session, then recess until October. Stay tuned!
Just as a reminder, Peruta filed his lawsuit on October 23, 2009. Good thing 8 years (okay, 7 years, 8 months, so far) isn't considered a "delay", otherwise some might consider that "justice denied". I guess the rebuttal to that is "We (the "justice system") told him "NO!" at every level. It's his fault he kept asking the courts to change their mind and rule that "bear arms" means "bear arms"".
Mar 8 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 24, 2017.
Mar 23 2017 Rescheduled.
Mar 27 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 31, 2017.
Mar 30 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 10 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017.
Apr 12 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 17 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 21, 2017.
Apr 20 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 24 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 28, 2017.
May 8 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 11, 2017.
May 15 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 18, 2017.
May 22 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 25, 2017.
May 30 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 1, 2017.
Jun 5 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 8, 2017.
Jun 12 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 15, 2017.
Jun 19 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 22, 2017.
-
Ginsberg will stay on until she dies. She doesn't know any better, her mind is gone or nearly so.
I hear they move her body from the closet to the bench and back again at the end of the day.
-
Re-listed for conference of June 22. That is the last conference of this session, then recess until October. Stay tuned!
Just as a reminder, Peruta filed his lawsuit on October 23, 2009. Good thing 8 years (okay, 7 years, 8 months, so far) isn't considered a "delay", otherwise some might consider that "justice denied". I guess the rebuttal to that is "We (the "justice system") told him "NO!" at every level. It's his fault he kept asking the courts to change their mind and rule that "bear arms" means "bear arms"".
Mar 8 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 24, 2017.
Mar 23 2017 Rescheduled.
Mar 27 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 31, 2017.
Mar 30 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 10 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017.
Apr 12 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 17 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 21, 2017.
Apr 20 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 24 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 28, 2017.
May 8 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 11, 2017.
May 15 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 18, 2017.
May 22 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 25, 2017.
May 30 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 1, 2017.
Jun 5 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 8, 2017.
Jun 12 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 15, 2017.
Jun 19 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 22, 2017.[/size
Is tomorrow or Friday the day we find out it got rescheduled to a date TBA? LOL.
-
Is tomorrow or Friday the day we find out it got rescheduled to a date TBA? LOL.
No. They announce the "orders" on Monday. (The Court calendar does, unusually, list this Friday for "Opinions" (they have 17 opinions yet to be announced, so likely that was too many for the final day of the session on Monday), but granting or denying Peruta cert wouldn't really be an "opinion" as far as I understand (which isn't really all that far). I believe even if they remanded the case or issued a per curiam, that would more likely be an "order"...). So we have to remain in suspense for the entire weekend, again. If it gets held over until the fall session we'll have to deal with a whole summer of endless speculation about what it means. Don't lose sight of the fact that Heller clearly states that open carry is the right protected by the Constitution and that states can ban concealed carry... so having all these "gun rights" organizations fund legal teams to argue the opposite may not have been the best legal strategy... but it's only 8 years down the rabbit hole... so no biggie.
As an aside, on another forum a long-time somewhat "high profile" member claimed (when Peruta was first actually going to Thursday conferences after having been rescheduled numerous times) that the results would be announced on Thursday afternoon or Friday morning (rather than following Monday, which on the SCOTUS calendar was denoted for "Orders/Opinions"). When I asked him the basis for that claim he haughtily announced that he had been following cases closely since before I was even a member of the forum and it was his "experience" that led to the assertion. Of course he was 100% wrong, and all of the "orders" have been announced on Mondays so far. Oh, and all of my questioning of his (ultimately wrong) pronouncements were deleted by the mods. Go figure.
-
Relisted for the conference this Thursday. There are only two more conferences this session, then the court recesses until October.
I wonder how many days they actually work. Just like the House and Senate.
Should have rules. Don't get your work done (cases heard, resolved, etc), don't get paid. Just like the rest of us.
-
2,816 days down...
TWO DAYS to go!
:crazy:
-
The court has denied review in Peruta, over a dissent from Thomas and Gorsuch.
That's a real time notice posted by SCOTUS blog writers in the room one minute after release of orders... once I get the dissents and read them I'll post more...
-
Dissent (singular) by Thomas, joined by Gorsuch (looks like he came through as hoped for by firearms civil rights advocates... thank you president Trump!). The "bad news" re the dissent is that only two justices signed on... meaning Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy (the supposedly potential "conservative" votes) weren't interested enough to dissent from the denial and don't support Thomas's dissenting view.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062617zor_8759.pdf
A few quotes:
[How the case is identical in basic question to Hawaii]
"Petitioners are residents of San Diego County (plus an association with numerous county residents as members) who are unable to obtain a license for concealed carry due to the county’s policy and, because the State generally bans open carry, are thus unable to bear firearms in public in any manner." p. 2
[Addressing the Ninth en banc decision as "indefensible" and suggesting that there may have "discussion" that SCOTUS needs to wait for another "more appropriate" case...]
"We should have granted certiorari in this case. The approach taken by the en banc court is indefensible, and the petition raises important questions that this Court should address. I see no reason to await another case." p. 3
[Another similarity to the Hawaii circumstance]
"As the Ninth Circuit panel pointed out, “[petitioners] argue that the San Diego County policy in light of the California licensing scheme as a whole violates the Second Amendment because it precludes a responsible, law-abiding citizen from carrying a weapon in public for the purpose of lawful self-defense in any manner.”" p. 4
[On the meaning of "bear arms" in the Constitution... to those who argue like Hawaii that there is no right to bear outside the home in a public place.]
"I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen." p. 5
[On the disparity of SCOTUS ranking other rights as far more "important" that other rights (the Second).]
"The Constitution does not rank certain rights above others, and I do not think this Court should impose such a hierarchy by selectively enforcing its pre ferred rights. Id., at (slip op., at 1) (“Second Amend ment rights are no less protected by our Constitution than other rights enumerated in that document”). The Court has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven years—since March 2, 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742. Since that time, we have heard argument in, for example, roughly 35 cases where the question presented turned on the meaning of the First Amendment and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. This discrepancy is inexcusable, especially given how much less developed our jurispru dence is with respect to the Second Amendment as com pared to the First and Fourth Amendments." p. 7
[Conclusion]
"For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem anti quated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it." p. 8
-
Peruta: RIP
October 29, 2009 - June 26, 2017
2,818 Days Down the Tubes. Bupkis.
From the official SCOTUS docket info re Peruta:
Mar 8 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 24, 2017.
Mar 23 2017 Rescheduled.
Mar 27 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 31, 2017.
Mar 30 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 10 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017.
Apr 12 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 17 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 21, 2017.
Apr 20 2017 Rescheduled.
Apr 24 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 28, 2017.
May 8 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 11, 2017.
May 15 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 18, 2017.
May 22 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 25, 2017.
May 30 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 1, 2017.
Jun 5 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 8, 2017.
Jun 12 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 15, 2017.
Jun 19 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 22, 2017.
Jun 26 2017 Petition DENIED. Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Gorsuch joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari. (Detached Opinion)
-
As I have said ,any many times, they will refuse to hear it simply because they know they must find that the right to bear arms is a right and as such extends to all places one can legally be.
This is a politically motivated choose they have made.
-
They are going to distribute it out of existance. I really think the SCOTUS is afraid to take on tbe gun issue.
Hate to say told you so but my suspicions were true. SCOTUS as a whole, are AFRAID to decide on the gun issue. We really won't have the right to carry in Hawaii in the foreseeable future (at least the next 25 years or so). At this point I also think national reciprocity is not going to happen any time soon either.
-
Hate to say told you so but my suspicions were true. SCOTUS as a whole, are AFRAID to decide on the gun issue. We really won't have the right to carry in Hawaii in the foreseeable future (at least the next 25 years or so). At this point I also think national reciprocity is not going to happen any time soon either.
You may well be right about that time frame for Hawaii. Even if SCOTUS handed down a clear, unequivocal, unambiguous, un-open to "interpretation" of "regulation" decision, Hawaii would litigate it endlessly anyway. That's what progressive socialists do.
The cert petition deadline for Norman is in two weeks. In Norman the Florida Supreme Court declared that there is no right to open carry, contradicting several citations in Heller that states can ban concealed carry, but not open carry, as open carry is the right protected by the Constitution. Seems ripe for something from the SCOTUS to at least clarify... but they don't always do what it seems like they "need" to do.
And behind that we have NIchols in the Ninth CCA, also open carry that will surely be defeated via some circuitous legalistic language essentially stating that "up is down", which will then get appealed to SCOTUS if Norman wasn't decided already (which it should have been if cert is filed for it).
The main "hope" is that in the near future Kennedy and Ginsberg are replaced by Trump appointees who, like Gorsuch who joined the Thomas dissent, will actually think and act as if the Second Amendment clearly says what it says. Is that asking too much? :shake:
ETA: typo "to" to "too"...
-
You may well be right about that time frame for Hawaii. Even if SCOTUS handed down a clear, unequivocal, unambiguous, un-open to "interpretation" of "regulation" decision, Hawaii would litigate it endlessly anyway. That's what progressive socialists do.
The cert petition deadline for Norman is in two weeks. In Norman the Florida Supreme Court declared that there is no right to open carry, contradicting several citations in Heller that states can ban concealed carry, but not open carry, as open carry is the right protected by the Constitution. Seems ripe for something from the SCOTUS to at least clarify... but they don't always do what it seems like they "need" to do.
And behind that we have NIchols in the Ninth CCA, also open carry that will surely be defeated via some circuitous legalistic language essentially stating that "up is down", which will then get appealed to SCOTUS if Norman wasn't decided already (which it should have been if cert is filed for it).
The main "hope" is that in the near future Kennedy and Ginsberg are replaced by Trump appointees who, like Gorsuch who joined the Thomas dissent, will actually think and act as if the Second Amendment clearly says what it says. Is that asking to much? :shake:
the story on HNN immediately following the Peruta story this morning was about Justice Kennedy likely retiring soon...
-
the story on HNN immediately following the Peruta story this morning was about Justice Kennedy likely retiring soon...
Well, Kennedy did not announce his retirement today as some speculated he would... anyone holding their breath on his retirement is likely (maybe?) in trouble...
Re the speculation that the delay with Peruta has something to do with the (possible) imminent retirement of Justice Kennedy, here is a column written yesterday [Sunday, June 25, 2017], after Saturday night's one-year-moved-up Kennedy clerks re-union. The writer was a law clerk to Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain (of Peruta three-judge-panel fame) of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The author is not claiming any "knowledge", but his speculation seems more "informed" than many others... not that that necessarily makes it more accurate, especially if, as he acknowledges as a possibility, Kennedy himself may not have decided yet.
http://abovethelaw.com/2017/06/no-ju...ring-tomorrow/
-
Well, Kennedy did not announce his retirement today as some speculated he would... anyone holding their breath on his retirement is likely (maybe?) in trouble...
Re the speculation that the delay with Peruta has something to do with the (possible) imminent retirement of Justice Kennedy, here is a column written yesterday [Sunday, June 25, 2017], after Saturday night's one-year-moved-up Kennedy clerks re-union. The writer was a law clerk to Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain (of Peruta three-judge-panel fame) of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The author is not claiming any "knowledge", but his speculation seems more "informed" than many others... not that that necessarily makes it more accurate, especially if, as he acknowledges as a possibility, Kennedy himself may not have decided yet.
http://abovethelaw.com/2017/06/no-ju...ring-tomorrow/
link does not work
-
link does not work
Apparently the frequent updates invalidated that link. Here is the home page and currently the reitrement story is the top story: http://abovethelaw.com
The current (working at the moment) link to the particular story is: http://abovethelaw.com/2017/06/no-justice-anthony-m-kennedy-is-not-retiring-tomorrow/
TLDR version: The author speculates "next year".
-
Gorsuch does appear to be coming through for us. Not only in his views on 2A but from what I read his views on 1A are revealing themselves to be similar to far right conservative as well. (I do not like the conservative views on 1A, and believe the liberals have stronger support for 1A overall. But liberal support for 1A is also poor. Most of the time I side with the libertarian view).
As a side note they just took the gay cakes 1A case, so the extreme relistings don't appear to have been an indicator of anything. I'd probably side with the conservatives on the gay cakes case, it's one of the few times I think they have better support for 1A than the liberals.
-
Gorsuch does appear to be coming through for us. Not only in his views on 2A but from what I read his views on 1A are revealing themselves to be similar to far right conservative as well. (I do not like the conservative views on 1A, and believe the liberals have stronger support for 1A overall. But liberal support for 1A is also poor. Most of the time I side with the libertarian view).
As a side note they just took the gay cakes 1A case, so the extreme relistings don't appear to have been an indicator of anything. I'd probably side with the conservatives on the gay cakes case, it's one of the few times I think they have better support for 1A than the liberals.
Off Topic momentarily: They took the case of the christian baker refusing to serve the gay clients. I wonder what would have happened had it been a muslim baker refusing to serve a christian or jew or gay or woman without a headscarf? :stopjack: