SCOTUS asked to review new Second Amendment case

[Tilted]

Originally Posted by cwo_ghwebb

Thanks for the update. I don't know how you manage to keep track of all the various issues and comments from months past but I appreciate the work to keep us informed.

You're welcome. I'm online a lot doing research and checking on other things, and some things just don't eat up much of your brain's RAM or processor. So while I'm doing them, I have to find other things of interest to sort through, to keep my brain from idling at too low a speed and shutting off. That's probably a weird way to express it, but it's the best way I can think of to explain it.

[Tilted]

Originally Posted by exnodak

Maryland's signing on may be a moot point. If the Court rules for the NRA,this may change our court's interpretation of the Maryland Constitution and completely change the application of gun laws in this State.

Article 2. Constitution, laws and treaties of United States to be supreme
law of State.

The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which
shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which
shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall
be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all
the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in
the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Yeah, Maryland not signing on to one of the briefs in support of the petitoners, definitely doesn't have any practical importance to how the Supreme Court's decision(s) affects Maryland law. The briefs are just the states stating their position on whether or not the Court should review the case, and how they think the Court should ultimately rule if it does. It's possible that the briefs could affect the Court's decision, but more than likely they are effectively just symbolic.

If the Supreme Court rules that the Second Amendment applies to state and local laws, then it does, regardless of whether or not Maryland likes it. I just think it is noteworthy that 34 states are actually arguing in favor of the Supreme Court limiting their (the states') powers.

[Tilted]

Originally Posted by Pushrod

I've been following this also. I don't want to get my hopes up, but I can't help it, they are!
This matter really does need to be put to rest and the 2nd incorporated like the rest of the BOR.

I've got my hopes up to, but for good reason I believe. I think it is very likely they'll grant certiorari. I'm absolutely certain that Justice Scalia will want to, and I'd be very surprised if Justices Alito and Thomas, and Chief Justice Roberts, didn't want to as well. If they do grant cert, I think it is more likely than not that they'll rule that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states. My gut tells me it will be another 5-4 decision though, but who knows - maybe Justices Sotomayor or Breyer will surprise us.

[Tilted]

I think the Court just agreed to grant cert for the City of Chicago case. Of course, we won't really know if they did or not until they release the list of orders arising from the conference - most likely tomorrow.

I'm just speculating, but I figure the conversation went something like this.

Justice Scalia: Well it seems that there's a fundamental question of law here that we need to settle - a fundamental question about the scope of a basic constitutional right.

Justice Ginsberg: I don't see why we have to settle it.

Justice Kennedy: If we don't, who do you suppose will?

Justice Stevens: I'm not voting to grant cert. I'm just not.

Justice Alito: And why is that, Justice Stevens?

Justice Souter: I think what Justice Stevens is trying to say, is that he just doesn't feel like it is the right time to address this issue.

Justice Thomas: The right time? We've been incorporating portions of the Bill of Rights against the states for 112 years, just when would be the right time to decide whether or not we are going to do the same with the Second Amendment.

Justice Sotomayor: (under her breath) Maybe after you you and Justice Scalia have left the Court.

Chief Justice Roberts: (shaking his head) Why did I sign up for this job? Okay, let's move along - who feels that we should grant cert in this case?

Justice Scalia: I do.

Justice Alito: I do.

Justice Thomas: I do.

Justice Kennedy: I do.

Chief Justice Roberts: Okay, that's four. The petition is granted. We'll schedule oral arguments.



I jest of course. I actually think most of the Justices would see fit to grant cert in this case (or at least, on this matter).

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

This sounds good?

[Tilted]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

This sounds good?

Should know tomorrow.

[Pushrod]

That was a funny skit you posted, but the sad thing is, is that you are probably right in how the conversation went.

[Tilted]

[Tilted]

Let me be a little more specific about what I just said.

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the case of McDonald v Chicago (Docket no. 08-1521), and will 'hear' that case in order to answer at least one legal question that it feels it needs to address. Most likely, that legal question is essentially the one posed by the Petition for Writ of Certiorari that they just granted:

Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated as against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities or Due Process Clauses.

Here is the list of orders that were released this morning. You'll find the reference to this case on the top of the second page.

This is really good news, but only a first step.

At the risk of being redundant, allow me to repeat myself.

EDIT: I guess it won't let you link directly to the pdf file for the list of orders, so here's a page with a list of pdf files. The top one ('9/30/09 Miscellaneous Order') should be the one that references this case.

[Tilted]

I just noticed that Alan Gura is the attorney of record for McDonald in this case. Who is he, you might ask. He's the attorney that successfully argued the Heller case (before the Supreme Court) last year.