Wolford v Lopez Win

[John Kloehr]

Opinion is 6:3.

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1046_nmio.pdf

 

"

Held: Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

 

"

 

More commentary later after I read it.

Edited June 25 by John Kloehr

[Blackwater 53393]

Hopefully, this ruling will be broad enough to put a stop to all such infringement!

[John Kloehr]

24 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

Hopefully, this ruling will be broad enough to put a stop to all such infringement!

 

Should stop the vampire rule in:

• Hawaii
• California
• Maryland
• New Jersey
• New York

I say "should" rather than "will" because certain courts seem to be confused by Supreme Court guidance. I'll look for how broad or narrow the ruling is as far as carry in parks or other common places open to the public. The case was specifically about the vampire rule, "one can not enter without permission" rather than "one can enter unless prohibited."

 

This is permission (except Hawaii wanted the color to be red as a warning to the general public):

 

 

Versus this denial (except Hawaii wanted it green to show the place is safe):

 

[Subdeacon Joe]

Another ruling the Commissars and apparatchiki of the Sacramento Supreme Soviet will ignore. 

[Blackwater 53393]

1 hour ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

Another ruling the Commissars and apparatchiki of the Sacramento Supreme Soviet will ignore. 

This is absolutely correct unless or until there are penalties put into place to punish those who ignore and otherwise flout the judicial system!!

[John Kloehr]

I've completed a first close read of the opinion. There is the plurality opinion delivered by Alito. This is followed by a concurrence by Barrett, with Thomas and Gorsuch joining.

 

The come the dissents. First is Kagen, at barely over a page with all the required template verbiage, then Jackson with Sotomayor concurring in dissent at some length.

 

I'm finding a lot to unpack in all of it so no great summary tonight. In my analysis, I intend to be fair as to some legitimate considerations raised in dissent; these are real challenges to face in future cases. At the same time, I find the Jackson dissent makes her footnote in the Hemani dissent look more disingenuous. This one is not going to be as fast for me to publish as the Hemani opinion. I'm also going to go back to her Hemani footnote when discussing the Jackson dissent in Wolford.

 

Overall, there is a lot of new guidance in how to apply the Bruen (really Heller) test. Trying very hard not to get ahead of myself writing this post, just wanting to give a heads-up I will likely not post on the main ruling the same day as analysis of the dissent. And neither analysis will happen today. So tune back in, and comment as desired.

 

As a final thought for discussion... Could SCOTUS GVR the hardware cases based on this ruling? I hope not, but it would be better than an end-of-term denial while still waiting on the 3rd Circuit in Cheeseman.

[John Kloehr]

Starting to break down the opinion. Need to start at 50,000 feet as there is some meat in here. There are 5 chunks (with page counts).

• Syllabus (3+)
• Alito Opinion, joined by the conservative justices (24)
• Barrett Concurrence, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch as to part II-B (13+)
• Kagan Dissent (1+)
• Jackson Dissent, joined by Sotomayor (32)

These writings also reference each other, and are written and edited over time sharing each version with the other justices, very open book.

 

The syllabus is not written by a justice, best to just quote this from the header (my bold):

 

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is

being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been

prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.

 

 

It is a shortcut to the opinion, minus a lot of the back and forth between the writings and the reasoning behind each finding.

 

The main opinion, using eight times more pages is the meat. There is significant discussion about the process of deciding a 2A case. This will have reach beyond "places" and provides a fuller template for lower courts to follow. This is guidance those courts claim to need.

 

In addition to the opinion, half the majority contributes a concurrence. by way of introduction, Barrett writes:

 

I join the Court’s opinion in full. I write to add a few

points about why Hawaii’s law triggers—and fails—Second

Amendment scrutiny.

 

It is backup for the opinion and also addresses many of Jackson points. Part II-B (Thomas and Gorsuch concurring) is where she shreds the Black Codes Hawaii tried to rely on.

 

Kagen writes a short dissent. She would uphold the law and points to part III of Jackson's dissent. She dismisses the differences between the earliest laws until the comparison is general enough to match, and declares them analogs. With this, she need not address the 1st step threshold question or the Black Codes. It's already over for her. She does not, however, actually join Jackson's dissent even as to part III.

 

And finally Jackson's dissent. Not sure how I will review it. Partly think I should contrast and compare the opinion and concurrence against it, and partly do not want to do the extra work. I do intend to read it for clues as to how the 2nd will get litigated in the future. She also spends some text trying to build relevance into the Black Codes. I'll try to present her argument fairly, it will show up in future cases.

 

This ruling will take some time to impact lower courts. It will impact those courts and that process has begun. So no hurry for me to get the next section written up. Review of the main opinion will be next.

[Subdeacon Joe]

It's humorous that a far left Black Justice bases her opinion on laws that were declared unconstitutional by the 1866 Civil Rights Act, and were nullified by the 14th Amendment.