By Charles Nichols
SCOTUS has scheduled another opinions issuance day for Monday, May 2nd at 7:00 AM PT, preceded by its list of orders from today’s conference at 6:30 AM.
There were two opinions published yesterday. One was unsigned, in which Justice Barrett did not take part. The other was by Chief Justice Roberts. In terms of load-leveling of cases, Justices Thomas and Barrett are the two top candidates for writing the majority opinion in NYSRPA, if they are in the majority.
In terms of the length of time between the day NYSRPA was argued compared to the average time it took the justices to write an opinion last term, Justice Kagan is the leading candidate, because of the length of time it takes her to write her opinions.
But the only ones who know who is wring the majority opinion in NYSRPA are the justices and their clerks, they aren’t talking.
There are fewer than 60 days remaining until the end of the current term. Most of the 2A cert petitions filed this term have been scheduled for a conference. The two 2A cert petitions from the 2020 term (Young v. Hawaii and the magazine ban petition) are still on hold. The longer we wait for the opinion in NYSRPA, the less likely we are to have a written opinion in either of them this term.
There are three cases in the pipeline where the petitioners were granted extensions of time to file. Two of them are bump stock challenges whose petitions are not due until July which means they will be scheduled for the “long conference” at the end of September.
Baird v. Bonta, the handgun carry case out of California, is stayed pending the opinion in NYSRPA. It might make the appeal of my case interesting if he wins. Federal judges, unlike California state court judges, are prohibited from rewriting laws. Federal judges are also prohibited from issuing what are known as advisory opinions. For example, Mark Baird does not challenge PC25850 as it applies to loaded rifles and shotguns. Therefore, the Federal judge is prevented from saying whether or not the Loaded Open Carry ban (PC25850) as it applies to rifles and shotguns is constitutional.
If a Federal judge wants a party, typically the non-government plaintiff, to lose then the judge simply rewrites the facts of the case. However, the district court judge and magistrate judge in my lawsuit went batshit crazy in their legal citations. So much so, that the state of California did not defend those citations on appeal. The Federal district court judge assigned to the Baird case is clearly anti-gun but does not seem to be crazy.
As I have often said before, including in the argument section of my opening brief on appeal, all I ever needed to prevail in my challenge to PC25850, and the unloaded Open Carry bans, was for the Court to conclude that the Second Amendment extends even one inch outside the doors to my home.
The same is true of Mark Baird’s lawsuit. Even though he limited his lawsuit to handguns. I suspect that the district court judge assigned to Mark Baird’s lawsuit will continue the stay in Baird pending the final judgment in my case. That way, she doesn’t have to actually decide the merits of the Baird case, the 9th circuit court of appeals will have already made it for her.
I say “interesting” because if Mark Baird prevails against PC25850 and the State of California does not appeal then my three-judge panel is undoubtedly going to call for additional briefing from me and the state’s attorney representing Governor Newsom and the AG.
The NRA’s handgun carry case (still in the district court) out of Hawaii is stuck in the mud until the disposition of the Young v. Hawaii cert petition. And, of course, the NRA’s third concealed carry case it tried to pawn off as an Open Carry case is supposed to have to wait for the final judgment in my appeal by my three-judge panel.
My three-judge panel is waiting for the disposition of the Young v. Hawaii cert petition.
TELL YOUR FRIENDS ABOUT CITIZENS JOURNAL Please keep us publishing – DONATE