SCOTUS refuses to hear suppressor case. (Read 278 times)

Mdotweber

SCOTUS refuses to hear suppressor case.
« on: June 10, 2019, 09:48:20 AM »
 :grrr: 
If our rights continue to erode at this rate with a "supposedly" pro 2a president, imagine what will happen when the next anti-gunner gets in.
Apparently the only people who are supposed to be responsible are the taxpayers - and they are increasingly made responsible for other people's irresponsibility. - Thomas Sowell

changemyoil66

Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear suppressor case.
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2019, 10:05:15 AM »
I'm no atty, but there were other items in there that affected the ruling. 

Mdotweber

Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear suppressor case.
« Reply #2 on: June 10, 2019, 10:41:09 AM »
yea... still stings though. Was it for the sake of building jurispudence or perhaps just a big middle finger for advocates of repealing the NFA?
Apparently the only people who are supposed to be responsible are the taxpayers - and they are increasingly made responsible for other people's irresponsibility. - Thomas Sowell

RSN172

Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear suppressor case.
« Reply #3 on: June 10, 2019, 02:05:26 PM »
It was for the children

changemyoil66

Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear suppressor case.
« Reply #4 on: June 10, 2019, 03:03:15 PM »
yea... still stings though. Was it for the sake of building jurispudence or perhaps just a big middle finger for advocates of repealing the NFA?

Kind of like how the other open carry cases were not pushed to SCOTUS because it would likely loose and set president.  There were more bells and whistles than just the OC portion.

Charles Nichols

Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear suppressor case.
« Reply #5 on: June 11, 2019, 04:07:23 AM »
Kind of like how the other open carry cases were not pushed to SCOTUS because it would likely loose and set president.  There were more bells and whistles than just the OC portion.

What "other open carry cases" would those be?  The only Open Carry cert petition was Dale Lee Norman v. Florida in which the NRA lawyer wrote a cert petition which did not comply with SCOTUS Rule 10, i.e., neither did it cite a single circuit split (which there were many) nor did it argue that the question raised was one of "national importance."  The only thing the cert petition argued is that the Florida high court decision conflicted with the Heller decision, which is the one reason SCOTUS won't grant a cert petition.  Stephen Halbrook, who wrote the cert petition in Norman v. Florida, should have been booted from the Supreme Court bar and had his license to practice law revoked.

changemyoil66

Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear suppressor case.
« Reply #6 on: June 11, 2019, 09:02:05 AM »
I remember reading on a few other boards that CA had a few that didn't go any further because it was the wrong type of case to go to SCOTUS (almost guarantee loss).

Charles Nichols

Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear suppressor case.
« Reply #7 on: June 11, 2019, 10:21:07 AM »
I remember reading on a few other boards that CA had a few that didn't go any further because it was the wrong type of case to go to SCOTUS (almost guarantee loss).

California had a dozen or more concealed carry lawsuits which all lost.  A couple filed cert petitions with SCOTUS which were denied, including the NRA cert petition in Peruta v. San Diego.  The NRA was not the only so-called gun-rights group to file a concealed carry lawsuit in California and lose.  The SAF and CalGuns.nuts Foundation had their own case, Richards v. Prieto, which was heard alongside the Peruta v. San Diego en banc case and went down in flames as well.

Mine was the very first lawsuit to challenge California's Open Carry bans, Nichols v. Newsom et al (formerly Nichols v. Brown et al).  There is a First Amendment challenge to California's Unloaded Open Carry bans and two months ago a second California Open Carry lawsuit was filed (Baird v. Becerra) which, unfortunately, and foolishly, has limited itself to handguns.

Perhaps you are thinking of the NRA's fake Open Carry lawsuits, you know, the two lawsuits which make the same argument that was made in Peruta v. San Diego and lost.  Namely, that the Heller decision said that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry.  The California fake Open Carry lawsuit filed by the NRA/CRPA is Flanagan v. Becerra.  The notice of appeal was filed in Flanagan a year ago.  That appeal was fully briefed in December.  If it were unrelated to the Second Amendment then it would be assigned to a three-judge panel in two or three years but since it purports to be a Second Amendment case.  It is going to be a while before the appeal is argued and it is a guaranteed loss because only the Supreme Court or a new en banc panel can overrule the en banc panel decision in Pertua v. San Diego, notwithstanding that the Flanagan plaintiffs lack standing to challenge California's Open Carry bans, even if they were actually challenging the Open Carry bans, which they aren't.

I argued my appeal in February of 2018.  My appeal is not technically stayed but there will not be a decision in my appeal until there is a decision in Young v. Hawaii, because Young was argued and taken under submission for a decision three days before I argued my appeal.  Under this circuit's judge-made law, the Young decision will be binding on my three-judge panel.