Writ of Certiorari

Uncategorized

SCOTUS Punts Most 2A Cases Again (Updated)

May 18, 2020 by 3 Comments

The Supreme Court has their conference on Fridays to examine which cases they wish to take and the ones they don’t. They announce the results on Monday in the Orders of the Court. Not all pending cases are sent to conference but those that are can be denied certiorari (or mandamus), accepted, or passed on to another week’s conference.

The Orders of the Court released this morning indicate that they punted all the major Second Amendment cases to the next week. The exception was Bradley Beers v. Barr which dealt with the denial of Second Amendment rights to those who had been involuntarily committed no matter how long ago.

In that case, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and sent it back to the 3rd Circuit to dismiss as moot.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950).

Unfortunately, I don’t know enough about the Beers case to say why the Supreme Court said it was moot.

The Polite Society Podcast will have attorney Cody Wisniewski of the Mountain States Legal Foundation as our guest tonight. He will be discussing these potential cases and why he considered the finding of moot in NYSRPA v City of New York was not the end of the world for 2A cases. I will have a link up later where you can watch this on Facebook Live.

Cody was one of the attorneys who brought the case that forced New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM) to reopen some gun stores in that state.

UPDATE: Thanks to Rob at 2A Updates I have an answer as to why the Beers case was considered moot. Mr. Beers has been cleared by the State of Pennsylvania, was granted a firearms license, and now has a legally owned firearm.

UPDATE II: The link to the Facebook Live broadcast of the Polite Society Podcast can be found here. It starts at approximately 7:05pm EDT tonight.

Uncategorized

Gorsuch – “But waiting should not be mistaken for lack of concern. “

March 2, 2020 by 5 Comments

The Supreme Court in today’s order list has denied certiorari in Guedes et al v. BATFE. Guedes and the Firearms Policy Foundation had appealed the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. That decision denied an injunction in the case.

Justice Neil Gorsuch agreed with the decision to deny certiorari in the case given it had not been fully briefed and argued on the merits. He did think the Court of Appeals made an error in relying on Chevron deference in this case because it involves a criminal penalty. He also noted that both the plaintiffs and the government had expressly argued that any decision should not rely on Chevron deference.

Gorsuch referred to the BATFE’s actions on reclassifying bump stocks as “bureaucratic pirouetting”.

Chevron’s application in this case may be doubtful for other reasons too. The agency used to tell everyone that bump stocks don’t qualify as “machineguns.” Now it says the opposite. The law hasn’t changed, only an agency’s interpretation of it. And these days it sometimes seems agencies change their statutory interpretations almost as often as elections change administrations. How, in all this, can ordinary citizens be expected to keep up—required not only to conform their conduct to the fairest reading of the law they might expect from a neutral judge, but forced to guess whether the statute will be declared ambiguous; to guess again whether the agency’s initial interpretation of the law will be declared “reasonable”; and to guess again whether a later and opposing agency interpretation will also be held “reasonable”? And why should courts, charged with the independent and neutral interpretation of the laws Congress has enacted, defer to such bureaucratic pirouetting?

If I had to hazard a guess, when this or one of the sister cases involving the reinterpretation of the NFA to ban bump stocks does come before the Supreme Court fully briefed on the merits, Gorsuch will most definitely be in favor of hearing the case. Moreover, I would go further and say he would not find in favor of BATFE.

Uncategorized

Knife Rights Will Appeal NY “Gravity Knife” Case To SCOTUS

November 5, 2018 by

Knife Rights has announced that they will appeal their long-running case against New York over the definition of gravity knives to the Supreme Court. The case centers around common folding knives that have been the target of enforcement by the NYPD and the Manhattan District Attorney. The victims of this unjust definition have usually been trades people and minorities.

From Knife Rights on their plan to appeal:

Knife Rights’ NYC Gravity Knife Case Appeal Headed To U.S. Supreme Court

Knife
Rights is going forward with an appeal to the Supreme Court of the
United States of the Second Circuit’s decision in favor of New York City
and District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. in our long running civil rights
lawsuit over their persecution of pocket knife owners.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg last week granted us a 60-day extension
until January 13th, 2019, for submission of our petition for a writ of
certiorari asking the Court to hear our appeal.

While our
lawsuit against New York City and DA Vance centers on their abusive
enforcement of New York State’s gravity knife ban against owners of
common pocket knives, the focus changes somewhat as it moves to the
Supreme Court. Keep in mind that the Supreme Court does not generally
agree to hear a case just because any particular decision in a case is
unjust, irrational or just plain terrible, all of which describe this
ruling in spades.

Beyond settling major constitutional issues,
the Court will sometimes choose to resolve differences in the
application of Federal law among different Federal circuit courts when
its decisions are not applied the same throughout the U.S. The Second
Circuit panel’s ruling regarding our constitutional vagueness claim in
this case opens up that possibility with starkly split decisions between
it and other circuits, as well as splits between a number of state
courts. The writ explains why this case is important and worthy of the
Court’s limited time.

A Supreme Court decision to hear the case
could affect the implementation and enforcement of a wide spectrum of
laws to persons throughout the U.S. It is no longer just about these
common folding knives. New York City’s enforcement of the state’s
gravity knife law against common folding knives is now the vehicle to
answer the bigger constitutional question at issue. Only if the Supreme
Court accepts the case do we get to argue the merits of our particular
case as it reflects this bigger issue.

It’s always long odds for
any case to be accepted by the Supreme Court. However, not making the
attempt ensures we lose. And, that would allow very bad precedent to be
set in stone.

Taking a case to Supreme Court is an expensive
proposition, more so for a small organization like Knife Rights. We
still need to raise significant funds for this effort if we don’t want
to hand a victory to New York Governor Cuomo, DA Vance andr New York
City Mayor de Blasio

Please consider a year-end TAX-DEDUCTIBLE donation to Knife Rights to support our efforts at the Supreme Court.  Donate at:  www.kniferights.org/donate/foundation

Uncategorized

When, Oh When, Will The SCOTUS Actually Defend The Second Amendment Again?

November 27, 2017 by 5 Comments

I am disappointed in the US Supreme Court. That’s nothing new for either me or most people regardless of their political leanings.

My disappointment stems from the absolute refusal by the Court to hear any and all Second Amendment cases since 2010 when they ruled in McDonald v. Chicago. The latest case to bite the dust is the Maryland case of Kolbe et al v. Hogan et al which challenged that state’s ban on ARs, AKs, and standard capacity magazines.

From the Orders released today:

17-127 KOLBE, STEPHEN V., ET AL. V. HOGAN, GOV. OF MD, ET AL.

The motion of Edwin Vieira, Jr., et al. for leave to file a
brief as amici curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of
certiorari is denied.

This case was a loss at the District Court level with an absolutely ridiculous opinion by Judge Catherine C. Blake which was then followed by a 2-1 win in the 4th Circuit that got overturned by an en banc ruling affirming the District Court.

If it is true that President Trump will have the ability to appoint up to 40% of the Federal bench with conservative judges, it can’t come soon enough. Moreover, I hope they aren’t in the mold of Judge Harvey Wilkinson either.

Uncategorized

Support For Kachalsky Petition From States

February 14, 2013 by 1 Comment


Attorney Generals from 20 states have filed an amicus brief in support of the Second Amendment Foundation’s petition for a Writ of Certiorari before the US Supreme Court. This brief is in addition to supporting briefs from the NRA, the Cato Institute, and others.

BELLEVUE, WA – Twenty state attorneys general have filed an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the Second Amendment Foundation’s petition for a Writ of Certiorari in a case challenging New York’s gun permitting statute, along with several other interested parties that have filed their own briefs.

The case is known as Kachalsky v. Cacace and was argued before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. SAF is represented by attorney Alan Gura, who won both the Heller and McDonald Second Amendment cases before the Supreme Court.

“We are delighted at the support being shown by attorneys general in Alaska, Alabama, Florida, Oklahoma, Nebraska, New Mexico and 13 other states, and particularly for the leadership of Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli in bringing them all together,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “This case is all about an individual’s right to carry a firearm outside the home for personal protection, and it is gratifying to see so much support.”

In addition to the brief filed by the attorneys general, supporting amicus briefs have also been filed by the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence represented by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, the National Rifle Association represented by former Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, plus the American Civil Rights Union, Academics for the Second Amendment, Cato Institute, the Second Amendment Preservation Association, New Jersey Second Amendment Society and Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc.

“This is an important case,” Gottlieb said, “and that’s why so many parties are interested and supportive of our issue.”

SAF and the five individual plaintiffs are challenging whether the state can arbitrarily restrict the Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home by requiring people to prove a special need to the satisfaction of a government official.

“Our case is about equal protection and the arbitrary authority of government officials to essentially decide on a whim whether average citizens can have the means of self-defense outside the confines of their home,” Gottlieb said. “Most crimes happen away from the home, and it is in public places and on public streets where a citizen is most likely to encounter a life-threatening situation where he or she might have to defend themselves.”

UPDATE: Dave Hardy of the Of Arms and the Law blog has links to all the pro-Kachalsky amicus briefs. You can find them here.