The Ninth Curcuit decided review en banc their gun case (therefore, vacating the panel's previous decision) as a result, there is no longer a curcuit split between the Ninth and Seventh Curcuits. This may lessen the odds of the Supreme Court granting cert., as they may want to see how the Ninth Curcuit's en banc review rules and then go from there. It will obviously be interesting to watch, regardless.

Just thought I would post this comment for readers who may not be aware.

We may quickly get to see how Justice Sotomayor rules in a Second Amendment case soon after her confirmation. Does anyone want to bet which side she will be on?

How about Maloney v. Cuomo? When will they take that up?

Anyway, a circuit split has never been the only way of getting cert; Scalia and Thomas certainly would vote to take this up just for the chance to revisit Privileges and Immunities imo.

Admittedly not knowing how crucial circuit splits are to the SCOTUS ... this is an issue of gravity and enumerated individual rights. Moreover, my read of Heller indicated that the majority wants to hear an incorporation case ... and the cases out of Chicago are the perfect vehicle. I would not be surprised at all if we see four votes to grant cert to the Chicago cases.

Think of it ... a major first amendment (Citizens United) and second amendment (McDonald/NRA) case right off the bat for the new term!

Carl wrote: "I would not be surprised at all if we see four votes to grant cert"

I'm a noob. How many votes to grant certiorari does it take?

It takes four votes to hear a cert.

Also I believe the 9th Circuit's *Nordyke* en banc will occur prior to the SCOTUS cert decision.

IIRC in Heller SCOTUS *affirmed* the lower court (and Wikipedia agrees). That strongly implies there are 4 votes for cert. Unless for some silly reason the Heller majority all voted against cert (and I can't see that based on the opinion), this should get the same votes for cert.

There is no reason to believe that 4 votes for cert means a ruling we would like. This is all very risky. Even if we do get a ruling we like, it's probably going to be watered down to appease Kennedy.

I'm not saying this should not go forward, just that its far, far from a slam dunk and we have as much to lose as win, if not more.

Was standing something unknown at the time of Miller?

SCOTUSblog says "...recognizing for the first time a personal right to have a gun for self-defense, at least in one’s home" (about Heller)