Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Good news from Virginia | Main | "Smart gun"? »

Watching some kettles boil....

Posted by David Hardy · 9 November 2015 10:55 AM

"The watched kettle never boils," so the saying goes, but there are several involved here.

First, Peruta v. San Diego. There a Ninth Circuit panel struck down California's combination of permit requirements for all carry, whether open or concealed, and issuance of permits on a "may issue" basis. On March 26, court granted rehearing en banc (in theory before the entire court rather than a three judge panel, in practice here a hearing before ten judges plus the chief judge). Argument was held on June 16, so we're coming up on five months wait.

I don't know if we can read much into that. The Ninth Circuit keeps an an online list of cases taken en banc. I see two, taken en banc at the same time as Peruta and argued a day later, which are also undecided. There's also one which was decided -- 11 months after it was taken en banc. So long delays are pretty common. It probably takes a lot more time to work things out among eleven judges than it does among three.

The other case of note is Friedman v. City of Highland Park, where a cert petition is pending in the Supreme Court. The Court announces when a cert petition will be considered in conference and voted upon. Friedman has had that, and been "re-listed" three times now. That is, put over until the next conference. That's quite unusual in my experience. The one thing that seems likely is that the Court is taking it seriously, and either (1) there's enough undecided votes to where they could give it cert if the undecideds go for it or (2) the Court has decided to deny cert, and one or more Justices want time to write a dissent from denial.

One interesting thing pointed out in the link above is that the Court did take cert. in Voisin v. US. That petition had a two-pronged attack on a conviction for possession after a DV misdemeanor--does the Federal statute cover DVs that involve reckless rather than intentional conduct, and does the statute violate the right to arms? The Court took cert., but only on the first issue. This might indicate that the Court is not inclined to revisit its 2A cases right now.

6 Comments | Leave a comment

Jeff | November 9, 2015 11:36 AM | Reply

Does a dissent from denial carry any weight or influence?

rspock | November 9, 2015 3:29 PM | Reply

I am not impressed with Clement's arguments. He was too concerned with weasel words about how to split the baby. I got the impression the justices felt similarly. He seemed to be trying to avoid the conclusion that an unexceptional need for self defense should be just cause to carry in some form.

rspock | November 9, 2015 4:22 PM | Reply

I will concede that he (Clement) did much better in his 3 min rebuttal.

Anonymous | November 9, 2015 9:30 PM | Reply

WTH, over.
Friedman v. City of Highland Park,
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 13, 2015.

Anonymous | November 17, 2015 2:45 AM | Reply

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/15-133.htm

Listed for the 24th.

rspock | November 22, 2015 9:27 AM | Reply

It wouldn't surprise me if they kept listing highland park until after the election.

Leave a comment