Active day in the Supreme Court
They denied cert. in Woollard v. Gallegher, but granted it in Arbramski v. US.
The latter case involves an LEO whose uncle (living in a different State) wanted to buy a gun. The LEO said he could get it for him, at an LEO discount price. The LEO bought it from an FFL, and went thru the background check. He then shipped it to an FFL in his uncle's State, who transferred it to the uncle, who likewise went through a background check. The LEO was, however, prosecuted for having filled out the 4473 and certified himself to be the actual buyer.
I uncovered in my ancient files a BATF "Industry Circular," from 1979, which advises dealers to avoid straw man sales, and in defining them says they are unlawful if the ultimate recipient is a prohibited person, and lawful if the ultimate recipient could legally buy.
What other possible carry cases are in the pipeline, esp. if they've been heard by a circuit? Do we need to wait for a ruling in the two or three 9th-circuit cases?
Posted by: anonymouse at October 15, 2013 11:24 AM
I couldn't figure out (even assuming this is illegal) how in the world ATF figured out this is what happened. I mean, there were two totally legitimate transactions with NICS checks and everything. How did they connect the Virginia purchase to the later FFL transfer in Pennsylvania?
The answer, from the Government's opposition to the Cert Petition, is the buyer/nephew was a suspect in a bank robbery and they executed a warrant at his house and found the receipts for the gun transfers. This makes this whole thing look like sour grapes on the Govt's part: they couldn't link him to the robbery, so they'll stick him with the gun charge.
Posted by: Sertorius at October 15, 2013 12:52 PM
The Supreme Court is not going to reverse the 4th Circuit's outrageous opinion in Woollard v. Gallegher. That is a great disappointment.
A person should not have to prove a “good and substantial reason” to get a carry permit. The desire to exercise one's right to keep and bear arms for self defense and other lawful purposes is justification enough. And the government's asserted desire to reduce the prevalence of firearms is not a compelling reason to deprive us of this right. That balancing of interests was already done a long time ago - when the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, was adopted as a restraint on government.
On the other hand, at least the 4th Circuit court "assumed" that the right to bear arms applied outside of the home (even if they rendered the right essentially meaningless, in practice, as a restraint on government).
The Supreme Court gets to pick and choose the cases they review, and there are lots of factors that go into that decision. But these issues are going to get to the Supreme Court soon (there are cases pending for decision in the 9th Circuit right now, for example). We will just have to wait.
Posted by: Bill Bentnickel at October 15, 2013 02:58 PM
The two cases for California in the 9th represent the last remaining "big state" may-issue regime (now with no legal OC element to clutter it up) and the case in Hawaii involves the last and arguably worst of the "may-issue in theory but no-issue in practice" states. Even MD and NJ issue -some- permits, HI has had none or one depending on how you count.
After those three clear the "pipeline”, and they are overdue at this point as far as I can tell procedure-wise, all of the Circuits with restrictive may-issue states (the only ones that are likely to see meaningful challenges) will have had those challenges heard and ruled on.
The issue can't get any riper at that point.
Posted by: Matthew Carberry at October 15, 2013 03:17 PM
People are also talking about Drake v. Filko (started as Muller v. Maenz) out of New Jersey. The New Jersey Supreme Court is going to take it up but it's also ripe for the US Supremes...it has been denied En Banc review at the 3rd Circuit. Gura may have been waiting to file for cert with this one as a spare in case Woollard went wrong.
Posted by: A nunny moose... at October 15, 2013 05:54 PM
I am curious, are Writ Of Certiorari limited to Lawyers? Or can private individuals submit them also? Just curious.
Posted by: Joel Stoner at October 16, 2013 12:32 AM
The ACLU's Cert in Woollard v. Gallagher surprises me, they usually stay out of Second Amendment cases.
Posted by: Joel Stoner at October 16, 2013 01:04 AM
A "writ of certiorari" is the legal term for the order from the US Supreme Court accepting an appeal from the lower court. It can only be issued by Supreme Court.
You ask the court to accept an appeal filing a "Petition for Writ of Certiorari." Normally lawyers file these, but private individuals may file them on their own behalf. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear your case, it "grants" your Petition.
Posted by: Sertorius at October 16, 2013 09:00 AM