Wolf is appealing the Hicks decision

**LBaker** · August 23rd, 2019, 12:11 PM

Apparently the Gov and AG are appealing this decision to the US Supreme Court. What a bunch of cry babies! https://blog.princelaw.com/2019/08/2...ZxEIdGzBbFvkV4

**X Hunter** · August 23rd, 2019, 12:48 PM

Why wouldn't the Gov and AG appeal, they have nothing to lose, citizens of PA are paying for their time and energy.

**LBaker** · August 23rd, 2019, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by X Hunter

Why wouldn't the Gov and AG appeal, they have nothing to lose, citizens of PA are paying for their time and energy.

Plenty if the SC hears it and finds that it is a constitutionally protected activity and no reason for RAS

**JenniferG** · August 23rd, 2019, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by LBaker

Plenty if the SC hears it and finds that it is a constitutionally protected activity and no reason for RAS

That's already been decided for PA.

**LBaker** · August 23rd, 2019, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by JenniferG

That's already been decided for PA.

Yes it has but our Governor doesn't get it. He could very well make that a nationwide precedent!

**JenniferG** · August 23rd, 2019, 04:52 PM

Maybe the putz that occupies the Governor's office doesn't realize Ginsburg is now on the ropes and down for the count. If there ever was an argument for turning out for Trump in 2020 this is it. Ginsburg isn't going to make it another term and whoever makes it to the Oval office appoints the next Supreme Court justice. Is Biden, Harris or Pocahontas someone you want choosing the next Supreme Court Justice. I know there are plenty of gun whiners that don't understand the power and money process but this is the real deal appointing a Supreme Court Justice because the Supreme Court is where the real law that is the final word is made in this day and age.

**TFred** · August 23rd, 2019, 09:13 PM

It's a risky move, at the very least, especially considering the current makeup of the court, and the fact that the court has *finally* agreed to take another Second Amendment case. It only takes four justices to grant certiorari. The long-term speculation had been that until Kennedy was gone, there was no reasonable assurance that the court would preserve the Second Amendment in any case they might take. To say Kennedy had "gone wobbly" in his later years is a pretty significant understatement. Votes on certiorari are not published, so that's all it can ever be, speculation. But it makes sense. If strong 2A justice Thomas knew Kennedy might cave, he would likely not want the court to take the case just to lose it. (Maybe not the best of scenarios, considering his powerful dissents on some of those votes denying certiorari.)

All that to get to this, a quote from the end of the linked article in the OP:

Perhaps most interestingly, although it is always possible that the U.S. Supreme Court could rule in the Commonwealth’s favor, it is extremely unlikely and based upon recent decisions, it seems very plausible that the Court could even issue a unanimous decision that the mere display of a firearm does not constitute reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Wouldn’t that be the perfect icing on the cake?

Look at what is currently happening with New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, New York. New York City adamantly defended that draconian law for decades, but now that they can see the writing on the wall that they may very well lose, they are pulling out all the stops to avoid the ruling altogether. Not that they are worried about losing their law, they already did that, but they are terrified of the entire country losing the methodology by which the lower courts upheld the law all these years.

The Commonwealth is just now applying for certiorari, it will take months for the path to proceed. In all likelihood, NYSRPA will be resolved one way or another by then. I wouldn't be at all surprised, and especially if the NYSRPA wins, the gun-hate powers-that-be will exert tremendous pressure on the Commonwealth to withdraw the case. The only thing worse than not having your case decided is losing your case... and that applies to both sides.

TFred

**gnbrotz** · August 24th, 2019, 07:30 AM

Since when does SCOTUS involve itself in rulings based on a state constitution?

Is there precedent where a decision clearly consistent with a state constitution was ruled "unconstitutional" because of the Constitution of the United States?

**JenniferG** · August 24th, 2019, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by gnbrotz

Since when does SCOTUS involve itself in rulings based on a state constitution?

Is there precedent where a decision clearly consistent with a state constitution was ruled "unconstitutional" because of the Constitution of the United States?

Brown vs Board of Education for one. There are probably hundreds of others. Now power and public opinion will rule. Money and power will be used to sway public opinion.