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? 

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? 

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?