Worman v Healey (#SCOTUS, MA assault weapons ban): Petition for writ of certiorari

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by tmoore912, Sep 23, 2019.

  1. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    6,031
    160
    63
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2019
  2. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    6,031
    160
    63

  3. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,825
    830
    113
    The first paragraph of the Pet. for Cert. citing Caetano gives me good thoughts on the standard of review that will become applicable.

    Nemo

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-404/116636/20190923113638963_38121 pdf Rucker I br.pdf

    page 1 of the Petition argument, page 11 of pdf

     
  4. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    6,031
    160
    63
  5. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,825
    830
    113
    Amicus are good. But you must do Petitioner and Respondent first. To get the proper flavor and atmosphere of the debate.

    Nemo
     
  6. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    6,031
    160
    63
    CATO: Massachusetts Ban on Most Self‐Defense Firearms Violates Second Amendment
    https://www.cato.org/blog/massachusetts-ban-most-self-defense-firearms-violates-second-amendment

    The plaintiffs are now asking the Supreme Court to hear their case. Cato, joined by several organizations interested in the protection of our civil liberties, has filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs’ petition. We discuss how the federal circuit courts have, absent further guidance from the Supreme Court, stumbled around in the dark in their attempts to apply Heller’s “common use” test.
     
  7. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,631
    1,712
    113
    GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. Georgia, 687 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2012) was cited in the Table of Authorities. That was before I moved here. What was that about?
     
  8. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,542
    687
    113
    Moe, that case involve GeorgiaCarry suing the State over the then-current state law that totally forbid a permit holder from carrying at church, regardless of what position the church leadership took or wanted to take on the subject of weapons. There was no opt-in available to churches who wanted to welcome armed parishioners or have some of their own staff and clergy carry weapons.​

    This Federal civil rights lawsuit ended with GCO's defeat in the 11th circuit court of appeals. The judges ruled that there is no Second Amendment coverage at security sensitive places like churches, and that Heller simply found that there was a right to possess guns at home, and also some non-described vague right to carry them elsewhere.

    The 11th Circuit court also found that the right of freedom of religion and government non-interference with religion does not apply to weapons when "weapons possession" is not a core tenant of the faith.

    So the State has the power to ban guns at churches, since doing so does not interfere with anybody's ability to attend church.

    And, in a bizarre twist of logic, the Court said that if the government didn't ban guns or churches without any exceptions it would interfere with the right of churches to govern themselves because most churches want a gun ban in place and they need the governments resources to enforce it instead of being expected to enforce it like any private property owner would.

    So the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals essentially said "we polled the churches in the southeast United States and found that most of them want to ban guns, therefore we're going to ban guns to keep the churches happy. If we didn't ban guns, we'd be interfering with religion as those churches currently practice it!
     
  9. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    The Eleventh Circuit claimed GCO was arguing a position different than it was arguing. It was completely dishonest. The Eleventh Circuit claimed GCO was attempting to force churches to permit carry over their objection. GCO plainly argued the opposite and never once made an argument that would interfere with private property rights. The argument that was made over and over was that the state law at the time interfered with private property rights. The plaintiffs were all persons affected by the law, including a preacher who lived on site and preached at the church but could not carry in the church and be in compliance with Georgia's law at the time.

    It was really facetious to conclude that somehow the preacher plaintiff was being forced to accept carry of his own gun in his own church if he won his case . . .
     
  10. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,494
    601
    113
    There is still a crime existing for church carry unless the church opts into allowing licensed carriers. With Trump's appointments to the 11th Circuit, we'd have a better chance of winning now.

    Though I suspect church carry will be decriminalized next year, as Kemp does not seem to be opposed to that, as Deal was.
     
  11. John )

    John ) Member

    34
    13
    8
    $100 fine no arrest
     
  12. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,494
    601
    113
    It still counts as a crime. That may get your license revoked.
     
  13. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    6,031
    160
    63
    [​IMG]
    Rob
    @2Aupdates
    Worman v Healey (MA assault weapons ban) was not distributed for another conference today, so it appears that it is being held by the Supreme Court pending the result of NYSRPA v NYC. #SCOTUS https://supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-404.html

    9:15 PM · Jan 13, 2020


    [​IMG]
    Rob
    @2Aupdates
    The seven 2nd Amendment cases currently being held by the Supreme Court:
    Mance v Barr (18-663)
    Pena v Horan (18-843)
    Rogers v Grewal (18-824)
    Gould v Lipson (18-1272)
    Ciolek v New Jersey (19-114)
    Cheeseman v Polillo (19-27)
    Worman v Healey (19-404)
     
  14. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    6,031
    160
    63
    ScotusBlog- https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/01/...-no-action-on-high-profile-cases/#more-291200

    "The Supreme Court does not appear to have redistributed the petition in Worman v. Healey, the challenge to the Massachusetts ban on possession of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. The justices considered the case for the first time at their conference last week; if the petition is not redistributed for this week’s conference, it could signal that the justices are holding the case until they rule on another gun-rights case that was argued in December, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York. "