Woollard v. Sheridan: Cert Denied - see pg 14

Here's is what I'm talking about in the context of saying, "Wishful thinking perhaps, but a sneaky way of telling the panel not to pull a 'Wilkinson?'":

“f the Supreme Court, in this [Heller] dicta, meant its holding to extend
beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.” Williams v. State, 417 Md. 479, 496 (Md. 2011). Quoted by Judge Harvey Wilkinson in United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011) (part IIIB).

Remembering that Judge Wilkinson wrote a scathing rebuke of the Heller decision (and Justice Scalia - Of Guns, Abortions, and the Unraveling Rule of Law), to which Alan Gura wrote his own response, this may indicate a further response to the circuit, in general, and (a further rebuke to) Judge Wilkinson is particular (yes, Judges do talk to one another).

Of course, this is mere speculation on my part. I have no inside information.
 
I have to retract part of my explanation of how 1254(2) works. I was wrong.

It was called to my attention on both MDShooters and CGN, So I just refreshed my memory on the Supreme Courts' Rule 19. To recap, 28 U.S.C. § 1254(2) reads as follows:

By certification at any time by a court of appeals of any question of law in any civil or criminal case as to which instructions are desired, and upon such certification the Supreme Court may give binding instructions or require the entire record to be sent up for decision of the entire matter in controversy.
Click to expand...

Why am I wrong? The Supreme Court is reading the language of 28 U.S.C. § 1254(2) to say:

upon such certification the Supreme Court may give binding instructions;
or​
[may] require the entire record to be sent up for decision of the entire matter in controversy.​

The above reading squares with Rule 19 and what the Court did in United States v. James Ford Seale, a 2009 case mentioned at MDShooters and alluded to by "Fabio" at CGN.

It obviously doesn't matter if I agree or disagree with this interpretation. It is what it is.
 
Dumb question: Anyone know when we'll have a ruling on this case?
Even dumber question: Did I miss the ruling?
 
After the Kachalsky opinion from the CA2 was given, the State drafted a 28J letter and noticed the ruling to the court (27 Nov.).

Alan Gura has sent a reply to that 28J notice (attached). Most telling is the final paragraph (emphasis, mine):

Finally, Kachalsky’s use of rational basis review was not sanctioned simply by being euphemistically styled “intermediate scrutiny.” Kachalsky eviscerated the right to bear arms merely upon the State having declared it unacceptable as a matter of public policy. The Kachalsky Court refused to question a legislative judgment relating to an enumerated, fundamental right. But in so doing, Kachalsky second-guessed the People’s ratification of the Second Amendment—an act the Supreme Court will soon have an opportunity to review.
Click to expand...

This appears to say that Gura is going to SCOTUS with Kachalsky.

The States 28J letter is here: CA4-28jappellees.pdf
 

Attachments

raimius said:
That's quite an implied statement!
Probabilities???
Click to expand...

At this point, I think we can read between the lines.

Gura is not going to motion for an en banc hearing. He is busy writing his petition for a grant of cert.
 
En banc is a strong play though.

You can delay CA2 decision and wait for a possibly friendly CA7 decision to head into SCOTUS with more backing.
 
Yeah, but you risk one of "our five" keeling over if you wait another year for a carry case.

I think Gura is trying for summer 2013.
 
SilverBulletZ06 said:
En banc is a strong play though.

You can delay CA2 decision and wait for a possibly friendly CA7 decision to head into SCOTUS with more backing.
Click to expand...


No. There is no point to en banc proceedings. The state would do en banc, we would not for obvious reasons.

Every day in the states that don't allow carry or ration the right, good people are being attacked, murdered, raped, kidnapped & tortured by criminals who know that citizens cannot effectively fight back. The population of those states is 100 million people.

This isn't merely about strategic presentation. It's about saving the mothers, fathers, children & your wife/husband from harm.

Loss by criminal is by far the most haunting & the most damaging to the survivors of death by criminal. I've dealt with people who are inconsolable, & who are merely waiting to die so they can join who they love.

This is why I fight so hard to help Californians & other victims of laws that were passed before they were ever born.




Jim March said:
Yeah, but you risk one of "our five" keeling over if you wait another year for a carry case.

I think Gura is trying for summer 2013.
Click to expand...

Alan Kachalsky announced this already. Prediction: orals in April, decision last day of June 2013.
 
Let me preface this by saying I am extremely perturbed by the Kachalsky ruling, and disillusioned at the way the carry cases are shaping up. Not on behalf of the SAF, but in the way that the courts are blatantly grasping at any straw and coming up with new and inventive ways to limit 2A rights.

It is fine to take that moral high road, but as it frequently quoted: chess not checkers. What is the point of arguing a bad case in front of SCOTUS when better ones are being heard, we need to gain momentum not try to fight the current. Mothers and daughters who are victims will continue to be so unless we get an affirmative ruling.
 
Kachalsky is a perfectly clean, well-designed case for US Supreme Court review. Gura did this one very right :).

* It features multiple plaintiffs so that the loss of any one plaintiff doesn't sink it.

* At least one of the plaintiffs has beyond-normal "good cause".

* It's in NY where there's no open carry, so the court has a total blank slate on which to design a carry system that meets constitutional minimums.
 
As we await for the decisions from the 7th Circuit and the 4th Circuit, Kachalsky is the proper vehicle to get a grant of cert.

Jim is correct that this is a good, proper and clean case. As are Woollard and Moore/Shepard.

It was always a race to see which one would get to 1 First Street, um, first.
 
In response to Gray's prediction that SCOTUS takes Kachalsky, hears orals in April and rules in June 2013:

(IANAL), but just from skimming other petitions' timelines, I find it will be VERY difficult for this. Normally, the loser has a 90 day window after the CCA's opinion is released(the opinion is only 2 weeks ago). If we take the 90 day window all the way, we're looking at late February. Then add in 30 days or so for a response from the state(best case scenario-state will undoubtedly ask for more time like they always do), plus another 2 weeks or so for plaintiffs response......now you're INTO April, which is the last month for orals. I don't think it's possible to get cert in early April and get oral arguments only a week or two later, calendar will most likely be full until Fall term.

We'll have to file for cert NOW. If a split happens along the way, then more briefs can be submitted along the way, but we just can't wait another 2-3 months for the split. There's also the risk that the split gets yanked from under us because other members of the circuit want to hold things up with an en banc hearing. This also assumes cert is granted after the first conference it's distributed to.

If we go until next term, it could be decided early just depending on how the case falls in terms of "importance". If it's the landmark case, it's going to be decided in June 2014:mad:, but if there are more Obamacare suits,exc., then those will be the last decided. Again IANAL
 
I think that we are into next term already before anything will be heard; nothing (except death penalty appeals) happens fast in SCOTUS. My guess is that a slew of these cases will all come down at the same time (there a four that were argued this week in the Ninth Circuit),plus Woolard, all of which are carry outside the home, discretionary issue states that will allow the Court to expand,restrict, or toherwise further rule on the ramifications of Heller. The Court will do a "grant and hold" with most, and designating one of the cases as the lead case for all briefing and argument. Briefing not to be completed until at least the end of 2013, with argument in 2014. No telling how long before an opinion will issue--it theoretically could be several years--so a decision no earlier than two years from now.
 
Absolute latest for an opinion will be June/July 2014-I can't see any way SCOTUS doesn't take a case by then. After all, except for the 3rd Circuit case in NJ(and Palmer in DC which apparently will be a relic), all other cases have gotten oral arguments in the Circuit court.
 
Strange that the decision is taking so long after the expedited status. The appeal was heard rather quickly. Hurry up and wait!
 
Last edited:
march 13th

Jan 31 2013 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 13, 2013, for all respondents.

This from the SCOTUS Dockett. Next week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top