Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Powell v. Tompkins Rises from the Dead (SCOTUS carry case) 15-6063

  1. #1
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463

    Thumbs up Powell v. Tompkins Rises from the Dead (SCOTUS carry case) 15-6063

    This is a Second & 14th Amendment carry case out of Massachusetts. It is not a concealed carry case.

    A cert petition was filed with the US Supreme Court on September 9, 2015.

    The cert petition is very well written. Importantly, it clearly identifies the existing circuit splits on whether or not the Second Amendment extends beyond the home. As you may recall, the dissent in Jackson v. San Francisco by Justice Thomas (Justice Scalia concurring) chided the court in that case for not granting that cert petition for lack of a circuit split. Another nice thing about the cert petition in this case is the outcome does not turn on whether or not there is a right to carry a handgun concealed in public. The question is whether or not there is a right to possess and carry in public pursuant to the Second Amendment (the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals and the Massachusetts high court said there is not). On November 5, 2015 SCOTUS requested a response. This moves the cert petition from DOA to a better than average chance that the cert petition will be granted. There are two types of cases which are normally placed on the “dead list” and denied outright. IFP cases (those filed by persons who are so poor they cannot afford to pay the filing fee) and cases where a waiver of response is filed and SCOTUS does not request a response. This is an IFP case and a waiver of response had been filed. Now that SCOTUS has requested a response this case is off the “dead list.”

    I maintain a tabbed page at my website for this case and will update it with the response (brief in opposition) and the reply to the response when I get them, as well as any Amicus briefs which are filed -> http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=3479
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I am unconcerned with any government official talking, discussing, or "deciding" an aspect of any of my natural rights. You should be too.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 11-08-2015 at 08:05 PM.

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    This is a Second & 14th Amendment carry case out of Massachusetts. It is not a concealed carry case....
    Thanks very much for your continued updates.

    VERY worthwhile reading.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.a...es/15-6063.htm

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1697575.html

    ... two Boston police officers were on routine patrol in Roxbury when they noticed a brooding crowd at an intersection.
    Illiterate effin' Yankees.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/brooding
    Last edited by Nightmare; 11-08-2015 at 08:39 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Living in the South is not the same as being from the South...WI is a yankee state.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Are you suggesting that crowds in Boston cannot think deeply, or for a long time, about something?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  7. #7
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Are you suggesting that crowds in Boston cannot think deeply, or for a long time, about something?

    stay safe.
    Oh...I dunno...the folks up in the Boston area let a bunch of cop terrorize them for a wee bit and just sucked it up like good little serfs.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155
    The cert raises two excellent questions:

    Does the right to own and carry (a/k/a keep and bear) arms apply outside of one's home?

    Can states require that lawful carry be a defense rather than unlawful carry being the offense?

    Answers to both questions can be applied across the board to numerous state laws.

  9. #9
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463

    Post Brief in Opposition Filed

    Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – February 9, 2016 The Brief in Opposition was filed and is available here.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 02-09-2016 at 11:13 PM. Reason: rule #19
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I am unconcerned with any government official talking, discussing, or "deciding" an aspect of any of my natural rights. You should be too.
    That's a shame you are not concerned with things that absolutely do affect you.

    Regardless of the efficacy of your natural rights, if you allow those who have the means to trample on them to enact and enforce laws that increase their ability to trample on them, then you get trampled on.

    It's far smarter, safer, and cheaper, to fight these issues beforehand rather waiting until they rear their ugly heads on the street.

    Do you even vote? Or do you similarly assume that your natural rights override the taxman's knock on your door? Even if you live in the national forest in a cabin built by primitive means, if you've ever bought anything in a store, paid for a laptop or Internet service, or pumped gas, you're still paying taxes.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,735
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    That's a shame you are not concerned with things that absolutely do affect you.

    Regardless of the efficacy of your natural rights, if you allow those who have the means to trample on them to enact and enforce laws that increase their ability to trample on them, then you get trampled on.

    It's far smarter, safer, and cheaper, to fight these issues beforehand rather waiting until they rear their ugly heads on the street.

    Do you even vote? Or do you similarly assume that your natural rights override the taxman's knock on your door? Even if you live in the national forest in a cabin built by primitive means, if you've ever bought anything in a store, paid for a laptop or Internet service, or pumped gas, you're still paying taxes.
    In that davidmcbeth has been banned I doubt you will get an answer.

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,735
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    That's a shame you are not concerned with things that absolutely do affect you.

    Regardless of the efficacy of your natural rights, if you allow those who have the means to trample on them to enact and enforce laws that increase their ability to trample on them, then you get trampled on.

    It's far smarter, safer, and cheaper, to fight these issues beforehand rather waiting until they rear their ugly heads on the street.

    Do you even vote? Or do you similarly assume that your natural rights override the taxman's knock on your door? Even if you live in the national forest in a cabin built by primitive means, if you've ever bought anything in a store, paid for a laptop or Internet service, or pumped gas, you're still paying taxes
    .
    How taxes got involved I don't know, but it sounds like you are inferring that some taxes are unconstitutional. Would that be direct taxes, indirect taxes, excise taxes or income taxes? How about constitutional income taxes or statutory income taxes? Are fines, fees or penalties taxes. The USSC ruled penalties as being a tax thanks to Obama Care.

    Are any of these taxes the same tax, but just called by another name? Does ex post facto law apply to taxes?

    Is render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's effect your rights or only apply to taxes?

    I could keep going, but I hope you get the point.

  13. #13
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463

    Powell v. Tompkins cert petition was denied on 3-21-2016

    Not much else to say other than the denial of cert was without comment and Massachusetts had filed a Brief in Opposition to the granting of cert which extensively argued that this really wasn't a Second Amendment case.

    We'll never know why the cert petition was denied other than the obvious reasons that 1) Four justices did not vote to hear the case and 2) there wasn't a single justice willing to relist the case.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •