Proper Cause Unconstitutional!

[Frank Ettin]

…The case came to SCOTUS and they rejected the finding per curium, meaning that they didn't even hear evidence, they rejected it out of hand. This is the equivalent of saying "this case is so badly reasoned it's not worth our time"...

No. The Court continually tells the world that no inferences may be drawn from the Court’s declining to hear a case. The Court receives on the order of 10,000 (+/-) petitions for certiorari and hears only something like 80-100 cases each year. There are many reasons why the Court will decline a case, and we won’t actually know the reasons unless the Court decides to tell us.

Oh, and it’s extraordinarily rare for an appellate court (like SCOTUS) to hear evidence. Appellate courts decide questions of law based on legal arguments (not questions of fact based on evidence).

 

[44 AMP]

But there are some rays of hope. In Heller, SCOTUS clearly destroyed the "only 18th century technology" argument:

yes, it did. And it also pretty much shredded the "only the militia has the right to arms" argument.

HOWEVER, it also contained the very narrow scope of application I mentioned before. The primary plus was ruling that you cannot ban an entire class of firearms (such as handguns).

But at the same time, they said that other gun control restrictions were "presumed" constitutional. And they used the language of the court to state it.

The language used was, I'm sure, clear to the court but was, and still is misunderstood by the people in general, and I believe many people in government, deliberately.

what they took away had them saying "yay!! We CAN restrict assault weapons, the Supreme Court says its Constitutional!!"...when in fact, the court said no such thing. Essentially what the court said was "we are not ruling on other gun control, today, and, until we do, we presume such laws to be Constitutional.

Now, here's the "fine print" ignored or misconstrued by the anti gun people...

EVERY LAW is presumed Constitutional, and IS Constitutional, until the Supreme Court rules on it and says it isn't.

And, as has already been pointed out, the Court is under no compulsion to correct those who misunderstand their rulings.

I'm happy we got a ruling that negates the state's authority to decide what is, and isn't a valid reason to apply for a license to be permitted to carry a gun concealed.

I'm disappointed it took a Supreme Court ruling to do it, but then I have a somewhat simple outlook on gun control. IF you're legally prohibited, you shouldn't have a gun. Everyone is prohibited from shooting people for fun or profit.

IF you're not doing that, why do we have to put up with so much extra crap??
(yeah. I know, it probably makes some people money....)

 

[natman]

No. The Court continually tells the world that no inferences may be drawn from the Court’s declining to hear a case. The Court receives on the order of 10,000 (+/-) petitions for certiorari and hears only something like 80-100 cases each year. There are many reasons why the Court will decline a case, and we won’t actually know the reasons unless the Court decides to tell us.

You're absolutely right about the lack of significance of SCOTUS denying cert. However, that's not what happened in Caetano. SCOTUS didn't deny cert for the case, they vacated the lower courts ruling without hearing arguments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts

Oh, and it’s extraordinarily rare for an appellate court (like SCOTUS) to hear evidence. Appellate courts decide questions of law based on legal arguments (not questions of fact based on evidence).

I misspoke. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Frank Ettin]

…You're absolutely right about the lack of significance of SCOTUS denying cert. However, that's not what happened in Caetano. SCOTUS didn't deny cert for the case, they vacated the lower courts ruling without hearing arguments.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts…

You’re absolutely right. My apologies.

And the Court does sometimes, albeit rarely, do that.

 

[5whiskey]

What I find absolutely laughable in all of this is Breyer's dissents in this case and the following dissent in Dobbs v. Jackson. In NY vs State Rifle... Breyer pleaded that State legislatures NEEDED the authority and ability to set regulations against A SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT for the sake of public safety. He quoted (cherry picked) statistical data to support his argument. In Dobbs v Jackson Breyer argued that State legislatures should not be afforded the ability to regulate something that is NOT A SPECIFIC ENUMERATED RIGHT.

This is the very height of hypocrisy. Clarence Thomas destroyed any argument that there is a historical trend of banning the carry of firearms. In fact, almost every case in which the respondents highlighted in their oral arguments from the era immediately following the adoption of the BOR, legislatures that wrote those statutes or courts who subsequently ruled on their constitutionality almost always left open a means in which a citizen could publicly carry firearms. Legislatures and Court rulings of the era even pointed to the 2nd Amendment in the BOR as mandating the need to leave open an option to carry in several instances (NCs ruling, GAs law, and TNs law all left open a means of carry in deference to the 2A). This contrasts with the issue litigated in Brown v. Jackson, where many states did have forms of a ban on abortion in the era shortly after adopting the BORs. And shortly after passing the 14th amendment, almost all states had a ban.

I am not advocating for the subsequent court decision, or trying to delve into politics outside of gun regulation. If I did go too far then Mods I do apologize. I just think it very telling to contrast Breyer's two dissents. When viewed together, they make absolutely no sense unless you simply want SCOTUS Justices purposefully barring democratic debate on policy issues best left to legislatures, while at the same time allowing legislatures abridge guaranteed rights. Breyer contends that an ENUMERATED RIGHT should be left open to state bans and regulation, while a RIGHT NOT ENUMERATED (and founded on a rather questionable legal argument) should not be open to regulation from state legislatures beyond a certain time period... it actually boggles the mind.

 

[natman]

You’re absolutely right. My apologies.

No problem.

And the Court does sometimes, albeit rarely, do that.

I hope they'll be giving per curium rulings more often, given the knee jerk reaction of politicians in NY:

NEW YORK (AP) — New York’s Democratic leaders aim to preserve as many restrictions as possible on carrying a handgun in public after the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down key portions of the state’s gun-licensing law.

State and New York City officials are zeroing in on specifying “sensitive locations” where concealed weapons could be forbidden, including a concept that would essentially extend those zones to the entire metropolis.
https://apnews.com/article/us-supre...-death-rates-5c2c2d7364b8aadcef4ec09221f668c3 [emphasis added]

Which is pretty incredible, given this quote from NYSRPA v Bruen:

.... respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department. NYSRPA v Bruen, page 3 [emphasis added]

When the Supreme Court says "Don't do this" and politicians respond with "We're going to do it anyway", it calls for a swift smackdown.

 

[DaveBj]

"When the Supreme Court says "Don't do this" and politicians respond with "We're going to do it anyway", it calls for a swift smackdown."

Unfortunately, SCOTUS doesn't have an enforcement wing.

 

[Sharkbite]

Unfortunately, SCOTUS doesn't have an enforcement wing.

Guys, forgive my ignorance of court proceedings at this level. Could not SCOTUS hold the politicians (who look to be thumbing their noses at this ruling) in contempt?

I watched the interview with the NY Governor and she said they where looking into making as many places as possible “sensitive” and off limits to CCW’s. It was plain her intent was to nulify as much as possible the SCOTUS ruling.

 

[5whiskey]

Guys, forgive my ignorance of court proceedings at this level. Could not SCOTUS hold the politicians (who look to be thumbing their noses at this ruling) in contempt?

No. Respecting rulings from the Judicial Branch of Government has honestly always been more based on the honor system since the Judicial Branch has no way to enforce it's rulings. If you look over the nearly 250 years of our nation, however, there are only a very few rare instances where SCOTUS rulings have not been respected. And there is a long history of controversial decisions that did not have strong majority of public support (sometimes even lacking a simple majority). There is enough history behind abiding by SCOTUS decisions I don't think any flagrant violations of this ruling will happen. But lawmakers will absolutely play games where they can. Like establishing so many sensitive areas that it frustrates people who CCW. If you can't have your firearm at the daycare you drop your kids off at on the way to work, then you just skip carrying your firearm to work that day. See, easy chilling effect... and one that I suspect would be allowed in the sweet by and by. Now add in theaters, venues that charge admission, parades, places that serve alcohol, streets adjacent to school zones, churches, hospitals, all government buildings.... and yes there won't be very much CCW.

 

[mehavey]

See https://ap.gilderlehrman.org/essay/...fied the Supreme,state laws to Cherokee lands.
for some historical context

 

[natman]

"When the Supreme Court says "Don't do this" and politicians respond with "We're going to do it anyway", it calls for a swift smackdown."

Unfortunately, SCOTUS doesn't have an enforcement wing.

While nothing would warm the cockles of my heart more than to see certain politicians carted off in handcuffs, I was thinking more along the lines of per curium opinions. It's one thing to have SCOTUS reverse your ruling. It's quite another to have them say that your ruling is so badly reasoned that we're going to reverse it without even hearing arguments.

 

[44 AMP]

since I'm not formally educated in the law or how the High Court actually works beyond what is publicly visible, I have to ask,

Does a refusal to hear a case result in a reversal?? How can it?

seems to me that if the Supreme Court declines to hear a case, A) there is no ruling, and B) it goes back to a lower court (if it goes anywhere) and the lower court should then take into account the reason the Supreme court refused to hear the case in any subsequent ruling the lower court makes.

The reason the SCOTUS refuses to hear a case can be simply "not enough time" to "your case is crap, go away" and kick it back to a lower level court. This may seem like passing the buck, and in a way it is, but its the way the system is built to work.

legal experts, please correct me if I'm in error about this.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

A Supreme Court case is an appeal from a circuit court of appeals decision. If the Supreme Court declines to hear the appeal, the circuit court decision stands.

 

[Metal god]

^^^^^^^^^That^^^^^^^^^

There is no more review and I believe the lower courts ruling can be used as precedent.

My guess is “if” the court thinks they don’t have time to take a case . They also believe the appeals court ruling was close enough to stand . There is also the idea that even if 4 justices think a ruling needs review . They must consider if they will likely have the votes to reverse it before they even take it . I believe this is the very reason we’ve not seen a 2nd amendment case in so long . I’d bet there were plenty of times there was 4 votes to take a 2nd amendment case . However the 4 understood the “ bad “ precedent taking the case may set if they can’t get that 5th vote so they just leave it alone .

Interesting to that point ( bad precedent ) NY is actually the pro 2nd amendment gift that keeps on giving . They keep writing such restrictive laws . They keep getting spanked in court resulting in good precedent for pro gun groups and law abiding citizens. At this rate I hope NY does make it virtually impossible to carry anywhere do to sensitive places or any other presumptive unconditional measures so we can have another case go are way thanks to the great state of NY haha .

These anti gun social justice groups want what the want and will do what ever to get it NOW . Never considering if what they do now will come back to bite them later like oh IDK - ending the 60 vote threshold For judicial nominees .

 

[Frank Ettin]

… I believe the lower courts ruling can be used as precedent.…

A United States Circuit Court of Appeal ruling is binding precedent only in its Circuit. It might or might not be persuasive or influential in other places.

 

[natman]

since I'm not formally educated in the law or how the High Court actually works beyond what is publicly visible, I have to ask,

Does a refusal to hear a case result in a reversal?? How can it?

seems to me that if the Supreme Court declines to hear a case, A) there is no ruling, and B) it goes back to a lower court (if it goes anywhere) and the lower court should then take into account the reason the Supreme court refused to hear the case in any subsequent ruling the lower court makes.

The reason the SCOTUS refuses to hear a case can be simply "not enough time" to "your case is crap, go away" and kick it back to a lower level court. This may seem like passing the buck, and in a way it is, but its the way the system is built to work.

legal experts, please correct me if I'm in error about this.

The process of getting SCOTUS to hear a given case is called a petition for a writ of certiorari. They turn away far more cases than they hear. Not hearing a case does NOT imply that SCOTUS agreed or disagreed with the case; it means only that they had other cases that they decided to hear this year. If they don't hear a case, it means that the case stands. Here's a quote explaining it from SCOTUS' perspective.

Since there are these conflicting and, to the uninformed, even confusing reasons for denying petitions for certiorari, it has been suggested from time to time that the Court indicate its reasons for denial. Practical considerations preclude. In order that the Court may be enabled to discharge its indispensable duties, Congress has placed the control of the Court's business, in effect, within the Court's discretion. During the last three terms the Court disposed of 260, 217, 224 cases, respectively, on their merits. For the same three terms the Court denied, respectively, 1,260, 1,105, 1,189 petitions calling for discretionary review. If the Court is to do its work it would not be feasible to give reasons, however brief, for refusing to take these cases. The time that would be required is prohibitive, apart from the fact as already indicated that different reasons not infrequently move different members of the Court in concluding that a particular case at a particular time makes review undesirable. It becomes relevant here to note that failure to record a dissent from a denial of a petition for writ of certiorari in nowise implies that only the member of the Court who notes his dissent thought the petition should be granted.

Inasmuch, therefore, as all that a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari means is that fewer than four members of the Court thought it should be granted, this Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial carries with it no implication whatever regarding the Court's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again the admonition has to be repeated.
Singleton v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue [emphasis added]

 

[zukiphile]

Just a follow up on 2d Am. issues.



The Court has granted cert and sent cases on magazine bans, carry bans and "assault weapon" bans back to appellate courts for rulings consistent with NYSRPA.



20-1507 ASSN. OF NJ RIFLE, ET AL. V. BRUCK, ATT'Y GEN. OF NJ, ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022).

***

21-1194 DUNCAN, VIRGINIA, ET AL. V. BONTA, ATT'Y GEN. OF CA The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022).

***

21-902 BIANCHI, DOMINIC, ET AL. V. FROSH, ATT'Y GEN. OF MD, ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022).



Order List (06/30/2022) (supremecourt.gov)

 

[Spats McGee]

This is about to get a little messy.

 

[zukiphile]

We knew it would though, right?

Surely no one thought CA, NY and NJ would read NYSPRA and say "Oooh! It says shall not be infringed. Sorry."

 

[Spats McGee]

We knew it would though, right?

Surely no one thought CA, NY and NJ would read NYSPRA and say "Oooh! It says shall not be infringed. Sorry."

No, you're right. We knew it would get messy. I also expect to have another "fermentation period" while SCOTUS watches to see what the Courts of Appeal brew up in response to SCOTUS.