SCOTUS denies Woollard cert

[cdb]

https://marylandshallissue.com/2013/...woollard-case/

Sad news for all of us in Maryland. Seems they think it's fine to require a good and substantial reason to exercise the right to carry outside the home.

[Iraqgunz]

Not surprising. I think this was mentioned in either Heller v. DC or McDonald v. Chicago.

[cdb]

No, not surprising. Disappointing nevertheless.

[Koshinn]

https://marylandshallissue.com/2013/...woollard-case/

Sad news for all of us in Maryland. Seems they think it's fine to require a good and substantial reason to exercise the right to carry outside the home.

Not necessarilly true. Denying cert does not imply that SCOTUS leans one way or another. SCOTUS receives ~10,000 cases a year, of which they only have time to actually rule on maybe 150.

It could very well be that SCOTUS wants to settle the issue, but wants a better case that allows them to give a broader ruling, one that they probably see coming up through the lower courts. I know of a few such cases that are in the appeals process right now, although the actual case names escape me.

[cdb]

Not necessarilly true. Denying cert does not imply that SCOTUS leans one way or another. SCOTUS receives ~10,000 cases a year, of which they only have time to actually rule on maybe 150.

It could very well be that SCOTUS wants to settle the issue, but wants a better case that allows them to give a broader ruling, one that they probably see coming up through the lower courts. I know of a few such cases that are in the appeals process right now, although the actual case names escape me.

While that's true, they have had the opportunity in the past year with a range of carry cases, from broad to very narrow. Kachalksy was another good candidate. For whatever reason, they've refused to hear any of them.

It may be that they'll some day decide to grace us with their opinion on the matter again, but the delay is not for lack of opportunity. It's hard to imagine a better case than Woollard to give them the narrow ruling they prefer - a law abiding citizen who was once granted a permit, no other legal options to carry (contrary to open carry states), a verifiable threat who eventually went on to assault his mother and off himself, and an arbitrary and capricious permit policy that results in a de facto ban on carry by normal citizens.

[Koshinn]

While that's true, they have had the opportunity in the past year with a range of carry cases, from broad to very narrow. Kachalksy was another good candidate. For whatever reason, they've refused to hear any of them.

It may be that they'll some day decide to grace us with their opinion on the matter again, but the delay is not for lack of opportunity. It's hard to imagine a better case than Woollard to give them the narrow ruling they prefer - a law abiding citizen who was once granted a permit, no other legal options to carry (contrary to open carry states), a verifiable threat who eventually went on to assault his mother and off himself, and an arbitrary and capricious permit policy that results in a de facto ban on carry by normal citizens.

They don't necessarilly prefer extremely narrow rulings, especially when they want to conduct some "judicial activism" as others have put it.

Sometimes they want the rulings to develop across the country before they make a decision. Sometimes it's just not that important compared to other cases. No, the 2A isn't everyone's life. And again, they may have already set their eyes on a particular case coming up through the appeals courts. I don't know for certain, I'm not on SCOTUS obviously nor do I clerk for one of the Justices. However, don't draw conclusions from a denial of cert. No answer is not a "No" answer.

[cdb]

They don't necessarilly prefer extremely narrow rulings, especially when they want to conduct some "judicial activism" as others have put it.

Sometimes they want the rulings to develop across the country before they make a decision. Sometimes it's just not that important compared to other cases. No, the 2A isn't everyone's life. And again, they may have already set their eyes on a particular case coming up through the appeals courts. I don't know for certain, I'm not on SCOTUS obviously nor do I clerk for one of the Justices. However, don't draw conclusions from a denial of cert. No answer is not a "No" answer.

No, certainly not in all cases. Seems to me that both the cases they've chosen to accept and the written decisions in those cases are evidence that they strongly favor narrow decisions when it comes to the 2A, though.

While I'm aware of what the decision not to grant cert means, or rather doesn't mean, it still provides some hints as to the the thinking of the 3 justices who could be characterized as supporting the 2A. They have now seen petitions for a wide range of cases, from narrow to broad. When they declined Kachalsky, Woollard was already on the horizon and a likely reason for the Kachalsky denial was that they thought Woolard was a better, more pure case to work with. Now we know that was not the reason. That seems to suggest that they may not be waiting on a particular case in order to get involved, but may be resisting due to concerns about which way the 4th man of the Heller majority will go in a carry case.

I think that's likely, and if so does not bode well for us. I wouldn't count on SCOTUS getting another conservative voice any time soon.

Anyways, that's just my reading of it.

[Koshinn]

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/20...rt-not-taking/

[cdb]

Yeah, saw that. Good read from the man himself.