Gorsuch immediate impact: Upcoming cases including 2nd amendment

[araomd]

Looks like the following petitions for certiorari are being considered right now:

Peruta v. California

Issue: Whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/peruta-v-california/


Mickelson v. County of Ramsey

Issue: Whether due process allows governments to confiscate money from innocent people on the basis of an arrest and then force those people to prove that they are entitled to have their money returned.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mickelson-v-county-of-ramsey/


Full list:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/petitions-were-watching/

 

[fattboyzz]

I sure hope he is the man we need for long term liberty !

 

[RamRoddoc]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...deciding-scotus-gun-rights-hearing-this-week/

On June 9, 2016, the Ninth Circuit reversed itself and ruled in favor of California’s “good cause” requirement by stating that Americans have no right to carry a concealed handgun outside of their home for self-defense.

Gorsuch will be part of the process by which SCOTUS will decide whether to hear the Ninth Circuit’s rejection of Americans’ right to carry a concealed handgun outside the home for self-defense. Gorsuch will participate in the decision which will be made in “private conference with his new colleagues Thursday.”

Chicago when forced to comply with the McDonald vs. Chicago decision to allow their citizens once again "lawful" public carry attempted to cut and paste NYC's communist styled may carry laws. They were nearly held in contempt until they rephrased the law to restrict the right to not be infringed.

If the court accepts this case, I suspect by a worrisome 5:4 decision citizens will once again have a right to bear arms, even in public.

If this occurs, the few socialist left leaning states will enact a plethora of "public laws" in order to criminalize nearly everywhere an honest law abiding citizen may carry in effort to refuse it under the color of law.

 

[jcountry]

I sure would love to see civil forfeiture struck down.

It's complete nonsense. The kind that cannot be allowed in any free society.

 

[MRH]

I don't think any of these cases will be settled by the lower courts, but I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS loses jurisdiction if they are settled. It is always a possibility, but who would concede ground first? Not that it matters. I doubt if they will be settled in lower courts. We would probably end up on the receiving end of the screwing if they did.

Roberts still worries me.

 

[boxer90]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...deciding-scotus-gun-rights-hearing-this-week/






Chicago when forced to comply with the McDonald vs. Chicago decision to allow their citizens once again "lawful" public carry attempted to cut and paste NYC's communist styled may carry laws. They were nearly held in contempt until they rephrased the law to restrict the right to not be infringed.

If the court accepts this case, I suspect by a worrisome 5:4 decision citizens will once again have a right to bear arms, even in public.

If this occurs, the few socialist left leaning states will enact a plethora of "public laws" in order to criminalize nearly everywhere an honest law abiding citizen may carry in effort to refuse it under the color of law.

I'd be worried about a 6:3. I trust Gorsuch about as much as I trust Roberts.

Remember, Nixon's "conservative choice to the Supreme Court" (Harry Blackmun) ended up being one of the most liberal judges of the 20th Century and the author of the majority decision in Roe v. Wade. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[RamRoddoc]

I don't think any of these cases will be settled by the lower courts, but I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS loses jurisdiction if they are settled. It is always a possibility, but who would concede ground first? Not that it matters. I doubt if they will be settled in lower courts. We would probably end up on the receiving end of the screwing if they did.

Roberts still worries me.

Roberts worries me as well. When he reversed his Obuttholecare decision after a private "meeting" with Obutthole, I took that as Obutthole had leverage. The spook works track all forms of communication of the Supremes and those associated with them.

I could see Obutthole using that leverage to support an anti-gun decision.

The problem for Obutthole is Trump's administration is growing on all levels and Obutthole's influence is being weeded out.

 

[The Old Jaybird]

I am not an attorney, but if I was going before the SCOTUS with a case where I wanted a "conservative" decision, I would argue that Ruth Bader Ginsberg should recuse herself from the case based upon her anti-Trump comments made during the campaign. That would even things up a bit with a 5-3 court. I would love to see Ted Cruz on the court, he has the right stuff.

 

[jcountry]

I'd be worried about a 6:3. I trust Gorsuch about as much as I trust Roberts.

Remember, Nixon's "conservative choice to the Supreme Court" (Harry Blackmun) ended up being one of the most liberal judges of the 20th Century and the author of the majority decision in Roe v. Wade. I hope I'm wrong.

And Reagan nominated Kennedy.

That guy has been anything but conservative.

 

[araomd]

I sure would love to see civil forfeiture struck down.

It's complete nonsense. The kind that cannot be allowed in any free society.

Today:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/329346-its-time-to-end-civil-asset-forfeiture