NRA CHALLENGES CONSTITUTIONALITY OF FED. HANDGUN BAN FOR LAW ABIDING 18-20 YEAR OLDS

[Inigoes]

Still no updates-Dec 3 the NRA filed its response. No conference date. I don't know the normal procedures but usually it gets a conference date and then could possibly be held for another case. I did check the orders since that time and didn't see anything either. Something in the works here?

We gotta get past MLK day tomorrow.

They should catchup soon.

 

[press1280]

We gotta get past MLK day tomorrow.

They should catchup soon.

The Castleman case was updated. Drake is still showing just the petition due date. They seem to be behind at least with the docket updates.

 

[press1280]

For McGraw (TX CCW 18-21 Y/O):

NRA's petition for certiorari : http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/13-390-NRA-v-McCraw-Cert-Pet-09-24-13.pdf

TX reply: http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/FINAL-13-390-Brief-In-Opposition.pdf

SCOTUS still hasn't shown any more action in BATFE: http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-137.htm

However, the NRA has asked in the McGraw petition to hold BATFE until McGraw is ready. SCOTUS might be doing just that.

 

[press1280]

I was right-SCOTUS was indeed holding BATFE for McGraw.

Both will be at the February 21st conference.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-137.htm

 

[ryan_j]

ooooh this is good. So what does this mean for carry, in the context of the rest of cases?

 

[press1280]

ooooh this is good. So what does this mean for carry, in the context of the rest of cases?

Alot depends on IF one or both cases are taken (obviously), or if THEY in turn get held for Drake, for example. At this point I think that any good case they hear will help carry since the lower courts have pretty much (CA7 aside) decided to try to bury Heller.

 

[Inigoes]

Today's Yahoo News article:

http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-does-mean-bear-guns-110205014.html

An interesting concept, on how the SCOTUS only ruled on "Keep", while totally being silent on "Bear". Which is why all the courts have not wanted to go beyond the door step.

 

[aireyc]

If you want to know if we're in the twilight zone or not, just read the Yahoo article. It says, "There is an 'and' between the two in the text, so that might well be taken as a significant indication that these are separate rights."

These idiots act like the Constitution is some cryptic text, from aliens, that was written thousands of years ago, and that we just discovered randomly. How ever do we know their intent? How do we uncover their secrets? What's really mind-boggling is how this basic understanding was ever obscured from common knowledge in the first place.

But I'm just really tired of these leftists over-complicating the simple wording of the text. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It's not that difficult to understand.

 

[CrazySanMan]

If you want to know if we're in the twilight zone or not, just read the Yahoo article. It says, "There is an 'and' between the two in the text, so that might well be taken as a significant indication that these are separate rights."

These idiots act like the Constitution is some cryptic text, from aliens, that was written thousands of years ago, and that we just discovered randomly. How ever do we know their intent? How do we uncover their secrets? What's really mind-boggling is how this basic understanding was ever obscured from common knowledge in the first place.

But I'm just really tired of these leftists over-complicating the simple wording of the text. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It's not that difficult to understand.

To me, "keep and bear" is one item. If it was written "to keep and to bear" it would be two items.

 

[FlatsFlite]

To me, "keep and bear" is one item. If it was written "to keep and to bear" it would be two items.

The "and" means both of them are meant to be together.

 

[Brooklyn]

Watch out that Amazing hair could kill a less amazing man!!!!!!!

Today's Yahoo News article:

http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-does-mean-bear-guns-110205014.html

An interesting concept, on how the SCOTUS only ruled on "Keep", while totally being silent on "Bear". Which is why all the courts have not wanted to go beyond the door step.

Sophistry --nothing more. Not even clever..

 

[jrosenberger]

I was right-SCOTUS was indeed holding BATFE for McGraw.

Both will be at the February 21st conference.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-137.htm

As will Lane v Holder (http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-1401.htm)

 

[Kharn]

NRA v BATFe and NRA v McCraw's 14 Feb supplemental briefs are attached.
Both focus on Peruta and point out how it conflicts with the 5th Circuit's cases.

Fingers crossed for Friday/Monday.

 

[Al Norris]

Thanks, Kharn. Friday will be an interesting conference... wish I was a mouse, there!

 

[Patrick]

The "and" means both of them are meant to be together.

Actually, not according to the Supreme Court.

The Court ruled in Heller - and emphasized in McDonald - that the two words each represent distinct acts. "Keep" is to possess, own or to aquire; "Bear" is 'to keep about oneself for purposes of self defense should the need suddenly arise' (paraphrase).

The anti-gun people would like them to be treated as a single, unitary term because "keep and bear arms" would have no greater meaning than what Heller directly addressed: your rights are to own a gun, but not carry one in public. That leaves public carry up to the unfettered discretion of the government.

The Yahoo article was written by Lyle Denisston. He founded and runs "SCOTUSblog" and runs a law firm that knows a thing or two about arguing in front of the big court. His points were pretty down the middle: the court opined on "Keep" and threw bread crumbs for "Bear" but has a good way to go to rein in recalcitrant and/or reluctant courts.

Some judges really don't want this right to exist. Others just don't want to "create" rights that might not exist but for their decision. The big court is going to need to weigh in (soon) and throw a few more tangible decisions out there before we see settlement of some issues.

 

[Kharn]

Nothing in today's miscellaneous orders, so we'll just have to wait until Monday morning...

 

[Kharn]

NRA v BATFE: Denied
NRA v McCraw: Denied
Lane v Holder: Denied

 

[The sphinx]

Unbelievable

 

[ryan_j]

Well, there's technically no split (yet), and I'd rather them take Drake or even Peruta (if it's appealed) which are may issue cases.

 

[Elliotte]

NRA v BATFE: Denied
NRA v McCraw: Denied
Lane v Holder: Denied