Drake Relisted by Supreme Court

[theshephard]

Just an FYI - Today (5/2) SCOTUS relisted Drake v. Jerejian again, punting the case to review the right to bear arms yet again. Hey, at least they aren't denying it.
http://www.westsidelateshift.com/2014/05/drake-case-relisted-again.html

 

[ilbob]

I read an article recently that suggested cases that get re-listed in recent years have a higher probability of being taken.

I personally do not think they will take the case.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/05/relist-watch-the-streak-continues/

 

[C0untZer0]

Maybe they are waiting for Peruta to shake out.

 

[Somewhere in NM]

I think the article is referring to last Friday's conference. We won't hear what happened today until Monday 9:30 ET.

ILBob: What is your reasoning about why SCOTUS won't hear the case?

 

[ohbythebay]

If you are like me...

You love to read this stuff. To me its like a cerebral spots match...

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/drake-v-jerejian/

My daughter (just completed law school, top of her class, about to work as a clerk for a Federal Judge) turned me on to the site...all I had to do was on the main page in the search, put in Drake and all the info came up..I LOVE the response by the petitioners (Drake, et al) on April first...

Next conference was today

 

[lilguy]

And if they say we can't carry then what. They repeal it in Illinois because the court order is overturne. Why is everyone in such a big hurry to get drop on their heads.

 

[ohbythebay]

Wont happen

Too much ripple effect. I think the net result will be that they will determine that a permit process for the purposes of ensuring the person can legally carry (non fugitive, felon, mentally deranged, etc.) is valid, that the need based provision be removed as it is
1) Subjective
and
2) More important - in opposition to the right to keep and bear arms

why do I say this ? Because I do not think they want to touch a new interpretation that diminishes that right (for now) and it is simpler to get NJ to remove its subjective clause.

Any move to do t would be an overturn of a "right" is too controversial at this time. The only way a "right" can be overridden is through two tests, 1) That he state has a vested interest in superseding that right coupled with 2) A narrow limitation that is not all inclusive

example, you have a right to free speech - but you can't yell fire in a crowded venue and claim free speech - the state has a vested interest and it is not restricting all from their free speech rights...

In the Drake case, they can claim that the state has a vested interest but the narrow condition is not met as all are impacted - not just felons, mentally unstable, etc.

This is only my opinion.

 

[vamo]

I think concealed carry is safe in IL no matter what the ruling, its restricted enough to be palatable in Chicago, and removing it would upset down starers too much. And besides it seems our government has a much more difficult time repealing a law than passing a new one. Just my opinion.

As far as a ripple effect goes the path of least resistance would be ruling in favor of may issue. It would pretty much maintain a very long established status quo; not saying that's the correct ruling just saying that if not "creating waves" is a consideration it favors the decision that we would not like. A pro gun decision throws the gun laws of several states into question.

As far as it setting the precedent for dismantling of other rights; well if the justices really thought like we did on the 2nd we'd all have machine guns and bazookas by now.

 

[MagnumDweeb]

It's such a tease!!! I keep getting my hopes up. I'd love it though if they follow Peruta's line of thinking. A state has to give you one or the other, open carry or concealed carry, at a minimum. If we get a guaranteed right outside the home the RKBA will receive a massive win and only get stronger. From there it would be onto magazine capacity and asethics (spelling) of a firearm which I think we'll have a tougher time getting around. At least in NY with the SAFE ACT a federal judge said seven rounds was ridiculous, so we have a chance of going no fewer than ten.

 

[ilbob]

ILBob: What is your reasoning about why SCOTUS won't hear the case?

I think there could be several things that might encourage SCOTUS to wait.

This is not an incremental thing. The court would probably have to decide several different issues to get to this one, and they generally seem to want to take cases that can be decided very narrowly.

There is not a lot of case law that has developed in the lower courts on these issues yet. They might want to just wait and let the system work on it for a while.

This would also be very disruptive. Courts in general do not like to make rulings that could sweep away many years of prior legal work in a whole bunch of states. It makes for very messy situations for a very long time. making the change in small steps over a long period of time eases that problem substantially.

 

[C0untZer0]

There is not a lot of case law that has developed in the lower courts on these issues yet. They might want to just wait and let the system work on it for a while.

They already did this with Heller - and it is not working. If it were working we never would have needed a McDonald. The anti-gunners hanging their hat on a technicality that the legal principle behind Heller didn't apply to the rest of the United States?

The Supreme Court sends the message - some people, including judges decide to manipulate the system to achieve their political ends regardless.

We have some very bad judges in the judicial system who don't believe their primary job is to follow he rule of law. Instead they believe that they are sages and it is their job to mold society according to their august wisdom. They make ruling based on how it will affect society. They make the ruling they want, and then go back and gerrymander the logic in their opinion to justify their ruling.

These judges do not even care about the constitution, they hardly care what 5 Supreme Court Justices think. Outcome based, activist judges make disjointed incongruous law.

You look at the situation with Second Amendment Rights and one of the most egregious things that is happening is that entire circuit courts are twisting the process of evaluating rights cases - THEY ARE USING RATIONAL BASIS TO EVALUATE CASES INVOLVING RIGHTS THAT ARE ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION, and then they are saying (in essence) that they used scrutiny, or that the law would have withstood some form of scrutiny if scrutiny had been used - but it wasn't necessary to use a form of scrutiny.

If there were cases involving the Fifth Amendment or any amendment, I would want the Supreme Court to take the case, I would want the Supreme Court to take any case where the circuits dealt with an enumerated right, evaluated it on Rational Basis, and then called it good for one reason or another.

I think there are 5 Justices who are concerned about stopping this practice, and I think there are 4 Justices who see it as a good thing - because they themselves are activist outcome based judges.

I think the Justices would like to have the system work on this for a while, but that is predicated on the system working, and clearly it is not.

The Supreme Court has become the court of first resort for civil rights as they pertain to the right of self-preservation, self-defense and the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Somewhere in NM]

ILBob: Good points, and consistent with my view of how SCOTUS likes to work.I wonder why this is being kept alive then?

 

[ilbob]

I think the Justices would like to have the system work on this for a while, but that is predicated on the system working, and clearly it is not.

The Supreme Court has become the court of first resort for civil rights as they pertain to the right of self-preservation, self-defense and the right to keep and bear arms.

I think the system is working the way it should. Slowly and deliberately. There is no hurry.

 

[ilbob]

ILBob: Good points, and consistent with my view of how SCOTUS likes to work.I wonder why this is being kept alive then?

Who knows? They can keep relisting it until doomsday if they want to. I don't know what it takes to get relisted. Maybe they just never got around to talking about it so they put it on the next date.

 

[madsend81]

FYI, SCOTUS denied Drake:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/050514zor_m6io.pdf

I started a thread about it in the Legal forum.