SCOTUS today granted cert on this gun case??

[usmarine0352_2005]

.
So instead of granting cert on Drake v. Jerejian, a far-reaching case that would effect millions of people, they choose to grant cert on Johnson v. United States, a case that will affect very few people.


At least they didn't deny cert on Drake v. Jerejian and it could still be granted cert this year, although I don't know when that will be, perhaps on there next conference on the 25th.



Does anyone know about this case, Johnson v. United States?


It appears to be about this:

"Whether mere possession of a short-barreled shotgun should be treated as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act."


Isn't this odd, because I thought felons couldn't own any guns whatsoever. Unless a pistol would be considered a felony and a sawed off shotgun somehow a violent felony.
.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Anyone know anything about this case?

 

[MErl]

Nothing about the case but your interpretation in the last sentence OP looks to be correct.

That act calls for longer sentencing of repeat violent felons so the case may hinge on does mere possession count toward that longer sentence.
(note I just looked at wikipedia for an overview, I'm sure there is much more to it)

 

[bushmaster1313]

Petition for certiorari here:

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/13-7120-Johnson-Certiorari-Petition.pdf

Under the Armed Career Criminal Act there is a minimum 15 year sentence after three convictions for a violent crime.

The issue is whether mere possession of a short barreled shotgun is a predicate violent crime that triggers the act

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

I can't comprehend why SCOTUS chose that case over Drake v. Jerejian.

Any guesses?

 

[MErl]

Perhaps they have an issue with the mandatory higher sentencing scheme, it may not really be a gun case. We'll find out in a couple months.

 

[Frank Ettin]

First, based on the Petition for Certiorari the case really has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. It's about whether mere possession of an NFA weapon is violent felony for the purposes of a federal "three strikes" sentencing rule.

Second, there appears to be a significant split among Circuits on the question resulting in disparate treatment.

In any case, we can never know why the Court did or did not grant certiorari in a particular case.

 

[ilbob]

I can't comprehend why SCOTUS chose that case over Drake v. Jerejian.

Any guesses?

I don't think they chose it over any other case. They just chose it. While the limited time they have available in a session necessarily limits how many cases they can take, taking a particular case does not necessarily mean they won't take some other case.

I think they will pass on Drake in favor of forcing the appeals court to do more legwork for them.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Unless there is a case percolating up from Washington D.C. I think that Drake might be the last hurrah in shall issue.

Is the Palmer shall issue case still alive?

 

[MagnumDweeb]

Johnson is a comparatively simple case that deals with some easily accomplished stare decsis.

Drake involves a lot of grey matter to unreel the logic behind a ruling and then reach a ruling that achieves the desired stare decisis of the SCOTUS. Drake could take a lot of time in order to draft an opinion. Johnson, not so much. Depending on how you look at it.

 

[AKElroy]

It does seem as though they like an occasional case where there may be broad agreement on the court. Mandatory minimums and three-strike laws seek to limit the role of judiciary, and I have a feeling both sides of the political spectrum on the court may have some agreement on this one.

FWIW, I despise mandatory minimums. If judges fail to properly sentence violent criminals, then let's appoint better judges. Legislating their sentencing requirements seems like a pretty clear violation of SOP IMO.

 

[Akita1]

Based upon recent SCOTUS activity on other matters, wouldn't be surprised if they kicked a few aspects of this to the States.

 

[ilbob]

Unless there is a case percolating up from Washington D.C. I think that Drake might be the last hurrah in shall issue.

Is the Palmer shall issue case still alive?

palmer has yet to be decided. it is a much better case for SCOTUS to take up because the scope is more limited.

it is really bizarre that a ruling in palmer has taken so long. there appears to be no good reason for the delay.

the fact that two judges have failed to issue a ruling on the case over such a long time is baffling.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Palmer would only apply in DC

 

[Bexar]

What?

 

[ilbob]

Palmer would only apply in DC

while that is sort of true, heller started as a DC case.

these things have to start somewhere, and then they work their way up the ladder to SCOTUS.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Palmer would say that the Feds can't ban carry permits.
Then you would need case saying the states can't.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

So Palmer would not be a great choice taking 2 cases to get a ruling for the entire US.


Drake is the better case, I'm assuming.

 

[Radagast]

Palmer case is here:
http://ia600408.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.docket.html

Basically no movement for two years, other than supplemental filings.

Whether Drake would be better is debatable. The original Heller case was very narrowly defined and as such, was acceptable to the court. Even then it was 5-4, if Sandra Day O'Connor was still on the bench when the docket arrived, I'm confident the vote would have been 4-5.

Gura then tried to overturn 100 years of precedent (slaughterhouse case) with McDonald and got no where. the more narrowly tailored argument presented by the NRA for selective incorporation, which did follow precedent, was accepted.

It appears that the narrower the argument, the more likely it is to be heard and hopefully won.
I haven't read Drake and its a couple of years since I read Palmer, so I won't opine on which is best.