Search

Articles

04/22/2017 - Supreme Court Math and Concealed Carry in Peruta v. California

04/14/2017 - Federal Judge Upholds Nonexistent Gun Ban

04/12/2017 - Concealed Carry, Incest, Gay Marriage and the Supreme Court

04/05/2017 - Justice Neil Gorsuch and the Second Amendment

3/29/2017 - The Next Second Amendment Handgun Carry Case to Go Down in Flames

3/28/2017 - Federal Judge Tells NRA to Put Up or Shut Up in Open Carry Lawsuit

3/22/2017 - Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor Finally Recognizes the Second Amendment

3/13/2017 - Another Second Amendment Appeal Shot-Down by the 9th Circuit

3/10/2017 - US Supreme Court to Decide Concealed Carry Petition in Two Weeks

3/5/2017 - The Florida Supreme Court Just Handed The US Supreme Court a Second Amendment Case It Can’t Refuse

2/23/2017 - California Asks Supreme Court to Wait For Nichols v. Brown Open Carry Appeal

2/15/2017 - NRA Got Spanked for Valentine’s Day!

2/3/2017 - President Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch

1/24/2017 -A Concealed Carry Case SCOTUS Can’t Refuse

1/23/2017 -President Trump’s Judicial Opportunity and Conundrum

1/13/2017 -NRA Tells Supreme Court Open Carry is Perverse

1/11/2017 - NRA Drops Supreme Court Concealed Carry Appeal

12/30/2016 - NRA Asks US Supreme Court To Hear Two Concealed Carry Lawsuits

12/10/2016 - National Concealed Carry Snake Oil Law Will Fail

11/29/2016 - What Lies Ahead for the Second Amendment?

11/10/2016 - The Second Amendment and President Trump

10/03/2016 - A Federal 9th Circuit Judge Finally Finds a Right to Bear Arms in Public

9/28/2016 - Are You Protected by the Fourth Amendment if You Carry a Firearm?

9/20/2016 - Two Concealed Carry Cases Fire Blanks in U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

9/8/2016 - Another Second Amendment Appeal Crashing and Burning in 9th Circuit

8/24/2016 - Concealed Carry Snake Oil and Kool-Aid Peddlers Leave Town for DC

8/18/2016 - The NRA Files Legal Challenge To California Open Carry Bans – But Not Really

8/17/2016 - The Battle for the Second Amendment Moves to Hawaii

8/15/2016 - There is No Right to Concealed Carry – 9th Circuit Denies Full Court Petitions

8/5/2016 - Did California Lie to 11 Federal Judges in Second Amendment Lawsuits?

7/15/2016 - God Save The US From The Second Amendment Lawyers

7/8/2016 - NRA Segregation Now, Tomorrow, and Forever Position Must Fail

7/4/2016 - Try Recalling California’s Anti-Gun Politicians Before Starting Your Revolution

6/27/2016 - NRA Head Wayne LaPierre Really, Really Hates the Second Amendment

6/24/2016 - Judges Who Uphold Bans on Concealed Carry Are Not the Same as Judges Who Look the Other Way When Police Murder People in the Street

6/15/2016 - Where is the NRA’s California Open Carry Lawsuit?

6/13/2016 - What’s Next for the Right to Carry Firearms in Public?

6/8/2016 - Florida Supreme Court Justices Voice Contempt for the Second Amendment

6/5/2016 - Florida Supreme Court to Hear Second Amendment Carry Case with National Ramifications

5/17/2016 - The Second Amendment and the Concealed Carry Problem

5/11/2016 - Federal Court of Appeals Goes Berserk During Second Amendment Gun Case Hearing

5/10/2016 - California Supreme Court Shoots Itself In Foot Over Gun Case

4/25/2016 - Second Amendment Foundation Files Another Concealed Carry Lawsuit: May Backfire

4/13/2016 - Has the NRA Come to Bury the Second Amendment or to Defend It? -

4/6/2016 - Second Amendment Must Wait A Bit Longer In 9th Circuit

3/26/2016 - Concealed Carry of Concealable Firearm in a Vehicle Now a Crime of Moral Turpitude

3/21/2016 - Supreme Court decision wasn’t about stun guns – It was about the Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller which is bad news for concealed carry

3/7/2016 - How to Stop Anti-Gun Bills in California from Becoming Law

3/3/2016 - The California Supreme Court Case Which Could Upend the Gun-Groups Concealed Carry Lawsuits

2/24/2016 - The Second Amendment - Checkmate in Four Moves?

2/10/2016 - Why California's Waiting Period to Purchase a Firearm Will Be Upheld

2/3/2016 - Florida House of Representatives Passes Handgun Open Carry Bill

1/27/2016 - The NRA Thinks Not Getting Caught In A Lie Is The Same Thing As Telling The Truth

12/11/2015 - Why Were the San Bernardino Shooting Victims Unarmed?

11/20/2015 - Attorney Alan Gura May Have Fumbled Another Second Amendment Case

11/20/2015 - HELP WANTED: Competent Second Amendment Lawyer - Inquire Within

11/9/2015 - The Supreme Court may have Finally Found its Next Second Amendment Case

9/2/2015 - Full Derp Battle over Concealed Carry in District of Columbia

9/1/2015 - National Rifle Association Drops Lawsuit against San Francisco

8/31/2015 - The Future of the Second Amendment in California and Hawaii

8/25/2015 - Yes, America, the Second Amendment is a Universal Right!

8/14/2015 - Will this be the Supreme Court’s Next Second Amendment Case?

7/3/2015 - The Future of Open Carry in California Looks Bright

6/16/2015 - State of California Concedes Second Amendment Extends Outside the Home

6/8/2015 - The Second Amendment is Now in the Hands of these Eleven Judges

6/8/2015 - Supreme Court Won’t Hear Second Amendment Cases Until there is a Circuit Split

5/29/2015 - NRA Opposes Open Carry – NRA Now Takes Credit for New Texas Handgun Open Carry Law

5/26/2015 - Four Years Ago Today: Is Open Carry The Right Guaranteed By The Second Amendment

5/18/2015 - Why the Second Amendment Keeps Losing in Court

5/2/2015 - Black Panther Party Invades California Capitol – 48 Years Ago Today

5/1/2015 - The NRA Rearranges Deck Chairs on the Titanic

4/22/2015 - Chief Judge of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Grants Motion of Lone Voice Defending the Second Amendment Open Carry Right

4/11/2015 - An Open Letter to the Orange County Register's Editorial on Concealed Carry

4/03/2015 - Another Shoe Drops on the California Concealed Carry Lawsuits

2/27/2015 - Federal Judge Says No Second Amendment Right To Own Firearms

12/6/2014 - The First Shoe Drops On California Concealed Carry Lawsuits

11/30/2014 - Open Carry Gunfight At The California Corral: Start Of Year Four

11/30/2014 - California Open Carry Gunfight Begins Its Fourth Year

11/12/2014 - California Concealed Carry Permits - The Fat Lady Still Hasn’t Sung in Peruta v. San Diego

10/17/2014 - It may be Legal to Carry a Handgun in the Nation’s Capitol by Christmas

10/3/2014 - Another California Concealed Carry Lawsuit Loses before a Federal Judge

8/18/2014 - District of Columbia asks Court for More Time to Enact New Handgun Carry Ban

8/13/2014 - California Concealed Carry Case Peruta v. San Diego – Poised to Move or Stuck in the Mud?

7/30/2014 - Federal Judge Reluctantly Stays his Ruling in DC Handgun Ban

7/28/2014 - The DC Handgun Carry Decision – Throwing Victory into the Jaws of Defeat

7/26/2014 - Ban on Carrying Firearms in Public is Unconstitutional says DC Judge

7/21/2014 - The non-repeal of D.C., Gun-Control

7/2/2014 - US Supreme Court Still Silent On Second Amendment

6/28/2014 - Federal Judge Says Minorities Barred From Bringing Civil Rights Lawsuits

6/7/2014 - The NRA Supports Open Carry Except When The NRA Opposes Open Carry

6/2/2014 - NRA Lawyer Says California Concealed Carry Decision Likely To Be Overturned

6/1/2014 - NRA leadership Comes Out Of The Closet In Its Opposition To Open Carry

Please donate $10, $25, $50 or $100 to the legal fund to restore your right to openly carry a loaded firearm in California.

Click here to donate to the legal fund

(Credit or Debit cards – Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover or eCheck)

Please donate $10, $25, $50 or $100 to the fight to restore your right to openly carry a loaded firearm in California.

Click here to donate.

(Credit or Debit cards – Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover or eCheck)

1AdtAJfcdBkA777fwtVhmCwSwCKGTFrgGz Press@CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

Caetano v. Massachusetts - SCOTUS - No. 14-10078 - We Won

Share

Caetano v. Massachusetts – No. 14-10078

We Won!!!

Here is a link to the Per Curiam Decision

Here is a link to my Press Release on the decision

On July 6, 2016 the Massachusetts High Court Dismissed the Case as Moot.  It will not be going back to SCOTUS.  This case is over, done, fini!




 

On July 13, 2015 SCOTUS requested a response from the state of Massachusetts.  This is highly significant.  Absent a request from the high court to file a response (brief in opposition) a cert petition is invariably dead on arrival.  Here is a link to the decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court.  The Massachusetts high court never reached the question as to whether or not the Second Amendment applies outside of the home or to what extent it applies to homeless people.  Instead, it simply held that stun-guns are not protected by the Second Amendment and therefore Caetano did not have a Second Amendment defense:

We hold only that the defendant’s weapon of choice, the stun gun, is not protected by the Second Amendment. We acknowledge that stun guns may have value for purposes of self-defense, but because they are not protected by the Second Amendment and because a rational basis exists for their prohibition, the lawfulness of their possession and use is a matter for the Legislature.

This would be an excellent case for SCOTUS to combine with the “assault” rifle case out of Illinois.  Instead of piecemeal decisions as to what constitutes a “dangerous and unusual” weapon, these two cases give SCOTUS an opportunity to write an extensive decision as to which types of arms fall within the scope of the Second Amendment and how those types of arms differ from those which do not.

With the denial of the cert petition in Friedman v. City of Highland Park, Illinois, I think it is fair to say that the chances of the cert petition being granted in this case are lessened.

The link to the cert petition is below.

Here is a link to the Massachusetts Supreme Court (SJC) Docket.

Here is a link to the oral arguments before the SJC.

Here is a link to an Amicus brief filed in support of Caetano in the SJC.

Here is a link to the decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

Here is a link to the SCOTUS docket.

Here is the Petition for writ of certiorari, with motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Here is the response to the cert petition, the Brief in Opposition to the petition for writ of certiorari.

Here is the Reply Brief.  This concludes the cert stage briefing.  We now wait to see if the cert petition is granted.  If the cert petition is denied then this case is over.  If the cert petition is granted then both sides will file briefs on the merits and there will no doubt be a deluge of Amicus briefs filed on both sides.

Amicus Brief(s):

Amicus brief by Women Against Rape and Endangerment

Amicus brief by Comm2A

Per Curiam Decision.








Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 6, 2016 –  The Massachusetts high court has dismissed the case as being moot.  I suspect that the state has dropped the charges but I do not know.  Regardless, this case is over, done, fini!  It will not be going back to SCOTUS.

07/06/2016 #27 ORDER: The parties having reported that they have resolved the District Court case to their mutual satisfaction and having suggested that the appeal is now moot, the appeal is hereby dismissed. By the Court.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 1, 2016 –  Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 30, 2016 –  The following now appears on the MSJ docket:

06/29/2016 #26 JOINT STATUS LETTER and Suggestion of Mootness from Melissa Weisgold Johnsen, A.D.A.and Benjamin Keehn, Esquire. See status on file.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 27, 2016 –  The Massachusetts docket now has “Allowed” next to the joint motion to stay entry of May 9th.  I don’t know if that means that the SJC has “allowed” the motion to be filed or it means that the SJC has granted the stay.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 16, 2016 –  I forgot to mention that:

Apr 22 2016 MANDATE ISSUED
Apr 22 2016 JUDGMENT ISSUED

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 10, 2016 –  The clerk of the Massachusetts high court has been very slow in updating the docket in this case.  SCOTUS granted cert in this case on March 21st but the Massachusetts clerk didn’t enter that into the state court docket until a month later.  Yesterday, a joint motion to stay the appeal was filed.  I have no idea why.

04/22/2016 #24 Notice: Certiorari granted by U.S. Supreme Court.
05/09/2016 #25 JOINT MOTION FOR STAY OF APPEAL, filed by parties.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 27, 2016 –  SCOTUS issued the final judgment and mandate in this case on April 22, 2016.  We’re still waiting to see what the Massachusetts high court does with the remand.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – March 21, 2016 –  SCOTUS reversed the decision of the Massachusetts high court in a per curiam decision.  We won.  More on this later.  Here is the decision.  Edit:  The pundits have differing opinions as to whether or not stun guns are protected arms or if the decision merely held that the reasoning by the Massachusetts high court in holding that stun guns are not protected arms was faulty.  Personally, I don’t see how one can read the decision and not come away with the conclusion that SCOTUS said that stun guns are protected arms but I guess we’ll have to wait and see what the Massachusetts high court does on remand.  Here is my press release on the decision.

No. 14-10078
Title:
Jaime Caetano, Petitioner
v.
Massachusetts
Docketed: June 4, 2015
Lower Ct: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
  Case Nos.: (SJC-11718)
  Decision Date: March 2, 2015

 

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jun 1 2015 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 6, 2015)
Jun 22 2015 Waiver of right of respondent Massachusetts to respond filed.
Jul 2 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 28, 2015.
Jul 13 2015 Response Requested . (Due August 12, 2015)
Aug 10 2015 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 13, 2015.
Aug 11 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Arming Women Against Rape & Endangerment filed.
Aug 12 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Commonwealth Second Amendment filed.
Oct 13 2015 Brief of respondent Massachusetts in opposition filed.
Oct 27 2015 Reply of petitioner Jaime Caetano filed.
Oct 29 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 13, 2015.
Nov 16 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 24, 2015.
Nov 30 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 4, 2015.
Dec 7 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 11, 2015.
Dec 8 2015 Record Requested .
Dec 14 2015 Record received from the Supreme Judicial Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1 envelope).
Dec 28 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 8, 2016.
Jan 11 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 15, 2016.
Jan 19 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 22, 2016.
Feb 8 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 19, 2016.
Feb 29 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 4, 2016.
Mar 14 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 18, 2016.
Mar 21 2016 Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion). Justice Alito, concurring in the judgment. (Detached opinion).

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – March 18, 2016 –  SCOTUS did not grant the case this afternoon which means we have to wait until Monday to find out what, if anything, happened with the cert petition today.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – March 14, 2016 –  SCOTUS relisted the case to the conference of March 18th which, coincidentally, the first conference day for Powell v. Tompkins.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – March 11, 2016 –  SCOTUS has not relisted this case which is odd.  This increases the chances that we will have some kind of decision in the case before next Friday.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – March 7, 2016 –  SCOTUS did not grant any cert petitions today.  Caetano was not on the ORDERS list which presumably means that it has been rescheduled for the next private conference of March 18, 2016 which is also the first time Powell v. Tompkins will be reviewed in conference.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – March 4, 2016 –  SCOTUS did not grant any cert petitions today.  Every now and then SCOTUS will announce that it has granted a cert petition following a private conference.  We now have to wait until Monday to see what SCOTUS has in store for this case.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – February 29, 2016 –  The Orders list of cases granted and denied has been posted by SCOTUS and Caetano is not on the list.  A per curium decision notwithstanding (which is not expected), this case will be relisted for the conference of March 4, 2016.  That will make the tenth time this case has been scheduled for a conference (nine if you discount the conference of February 19th which was not held because of the death of Justice Scalia).  As I said in my last update: “With the passing of Justice Scalia the court is now tied 4-4 on the Second Amendment.  There is no incentive for either side to grant a cert petition until the vacancy is filled.  The best we can hope for is one or more of the justices to file a dissent in each Second Amendment case denied cert.  This particular case, had it been anything other than a Second Amendment case, would have been kicked back to the Massachusetts high court with instructions for a do-over via a per curium.  Also, I suspect that Justice Scalia was writing the dissent for the denial of cert in this case.  If I am correct then if there is going to be a dissent to a denial of cert in this case then it will have to be written by a different justice and that will take time…” EDIT: The SCOTUS docket now shows “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 4, 2016.”

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – February 19, 2016 – The cert petition was not granted after today’s private conference of justices. With the passing of Justice Scalia the court is now tied 4-4 on the Second Amendment.  There is no incentive for either side to grant a cert petition until the vacancy is filled.  The best we can hope for is one or more of the justices to file a dissent in each Second Amendment case denied cert.  This particular case, had it been anything other than a Second Amendment case, would have been kicked back to the Massachusetts high court with instructions for a do-over via a per curium.  Also, I suspect that Justice Scalia was writing the dissent for the denial of cert in this case.  If I am correct then if there is going to be a dissent to a denial of cert in this case then it will have to be written by a different justice and that will take time so don’t be surprised if you see on Monday that this case has been relisted for the next private conference of February 26, 2016.

Update: SCOTUS was supposed to have met in private conference today but SCOTUSblog is reporting that SCOTUS did not meet today for its private conference.  It the private conference was not held then there was no reason to release an Order’s list and we will have to wait until next Friday afternoon.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – February 8, 2016 – Today, this case was DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 19, 2016. This is the 9th time the case has been distributed for conference.  If the cert petition is granted in the conference of February 19th then we should know that afternoon.  If not then we will have to wait for the following Monday.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 31, 2016 – I just finished reviewing the outcome of the cert petitions for this term and last where the record from the lower court was requested.  With the exception of capital cases, the probability of a cert petition being granted is markedly increased when the lower court record is requested.  In those non-capital cases where the record was requested and the petition denied, the denial almost always occurred after the first conference following the receipt of the record.  Discounting the fact that the record was received on December 14, 2015 when SCOTUS was on break, this case has been reviewed in conference three times since the justices returned from break without a decision on whether or not to grant or deny the petition.  One thing is certain, no other Second Amendment case since the McDonald decision has survived this many conferences.  Drake v. Jerejian was the record holder.  It was shot down after its third conference.  This case has survived at least seven conferences, perhaps eight.

The cert petition in McDonald v. City of Chicago was granted after its first conference.  District of Columbia v. Heller was granted after its second conference.  No record was requested in Heller.  The record in McDonald was granted after the cert petition was granted.  One of the reasons for reviewing the record from the lower court is to see whether or not there are any “vehicle problems” which is to say technical reasons why the case should not be heard.

Long story short, it is a coin toss as to whether or not the cert petition will be granted in this case.  A coin toss is still better than the almost zero chance of a petition being granted by a petitioner, such as Caetano, who is both IFP (filing In Forma Pauperis) AND appealing a criminal conviction.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 29, 2016 – It has now been a week since this case was last heard in conference and the docket has not been updated to show that the case has been relisted for the February 19th conference.  I suspect that when the court returns later next month that it will decide this petition one way or another and we will hear about it on the 19th or the 22nd of February.  What that decision will be is anybody’s guess but I doubt that the petition will be granted and briefed/argued on the merits.  There are a couple of other possibilities.  The worst case scenario is the petition is denied without a dissent.  Or we could see a denial with a dissent arguing why the petition should have been granted as was done in the Jackson v. San Francisco and Friedman v. Highland Parks cases. Or, hopefully, we will see a per curium decision telling the Massachusetts high court that stun guns are protected under the Second Amendment.  Time will tell.  Ideally, this case would be combined with Powell v. Tompkins.  That way the court could issue a decision covering both the bearing of arms and the type of arms which are protected by the Second Amendment.  But I wouldn’t bet on that happening.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 25, 2016 – This is a bit of a surprise.  I thought we would know the fate of the cert petition one way or the other this morning.  Instead, we will have to wait a bit longer.  The next SCOTUS conference is not until February 19, 2016.  That will make the 9th conference in which this case was scheduled.  SCOTUS is in recess until the 19th of February.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 22, 2016 – We will have to wait for Monday, January 25th to find out what happened in today’s conference.  The two most likely things to happen on Monday is that either cert will be denied or the case will be relisted to the February 19th Conference, the denial of the cert petition is the most likely.  If Caetano is relisted that would make for its eighth relist.  If the petition is denied then let us hope that there is a dissent explaining why it was denied as in the Jackson v. San Francisco and Friedman v. Highland Park denials of cert.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 19, 2016 – We will have to wait a bit longer to discover the fate of the cert petition. Today, SCOTUS relisted the case to this Friday’s conference.  That makes the 8th conference within which this case will be considered.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 15, 2016 – We will have to wait a bit longer to discover the fate of the cert petition. Today, SCOTUS granted seven or eight cert petitions, this case wasn’t one of them.  This next Monday is a Federal holiday and so we will have to wait until Tuesday morning for the next ORDERS list from SCOTUS to see whether or not the cert petition has been granted.  It is possible that this case will be rescheduled for the January 22, 2016 conference for consideration.  If so, that would make the 9th conference within which this case was considered.  The greater the number of relists the more likely it is the cert petition will be denied.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 11, 2016 – We will have to wait a bit longer to discover the fate of the cert petition.  This case was relisted to this Friday’s conference (January 15, 2016). Which means maybe we will know Caetano’s fate as early as this Friday afternoon or the following Tuesday morning. This next Friday will make the 8th conference for Caetano’s cert petition.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 8, 2016 – We will have to wait for Monday, January 11th to find out what happened in today’s conference.  Only one case was granted cert this afternoon and Caetano wasn’t it.  The two most likely things to happen on Monday is that either cert will be denied or the case will be relisted to the January 15th Conference, the relist is the most likely.  If Caetano is relisted that would make for its sixth relist.  If the case is going to be denied and there is a dissent to the denial of cert then I don’t expect this will happen on Monday because the record from the Massachusetts high court which was requested by SCOTUS was received while the justices were on break and this is their first week back.  Typically it takes a couple of weeks for an item to be reviewed (such as the record from the Massachusetts high court) before the justices make a decision.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 28, 2015 – DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 8, 2016.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 14, 2015 – Record received from the Supreme Judicial Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1 envelope).  This case has not been scheduled for another conference but the next conference will likely be January 8th or 15th.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 11, 2015 – SCOTUS could have granted cert today but didn’t.  Given that the records were requested on Wednesday, it is unlikely that there will be any sort of decision prior to January, 2016.  See December 9th update.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 9, 2015 – Yesterday, SCOTUS requested the records in this case which is a good sign but not a guarantee that the cert petition will be granted.  A quick search of the online SCOTUS docket revealed that SCOTUS requested records in 168 cases but only granted cert in 32 of those cases.  Still, that is much better odds than the average case which is denied 99% of the time and better than the average IFP case which is almost invariably denied.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 7,  2015 – This case wasn’t listed on the Orders list for today which means it has been relisted or it is being held for some reason, or cert has been denied.  Unfortunately, the online dockets are not updated in real time.  We might know later today or later this week or early next what the current status is.  As of 6:57 AM today we do not know if the cert petition has been granted or denied.  If it has been relisted then that will make the fourth relist. UPDATE: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 11, 2015.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – November 30,  2015 – This case was relisted for the conference of December 5, 2016.  That makes its third relist.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – November 24,  2015 – This case wasn’t listed on the Orders list for today which means it has been relisted or it is being held for some reason, or cert has been denied.  Unfortunately, the online dockets are not updated in real time.  We might know later today or later this week or early next what the current status is.  As of 12:37 PM today we do not know if the cert petition has been granted or denied.  If it has been relisted then that will make the third relist.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – November 16,  2015 – This case wasn’t listed on the Orders list for today which means it has been relisted or it is being held for some reason.  Unfortunately, the online dockets are not updated in real time.  We might know later today or later this week what the current status is.  All we know now as of 6:54 AM today is the cert petition has not been denied.  Update: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 24, 2015.  This is the second relist.

Update October 29, 2015 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – The petition has been scheduled for the November 13th private conference.

Update October 28, 2015 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – The Reply Brief has been filed.  This concludes the cert stage briefing.  We now wait to see if the cert petition is granted.  If the cert petition is denied then this case is over.  If the cert petition is granted then both sides will file briefs on the merits and there will no doubt be a deluge of Amicus briefs filed on both sides.

Update October 14, 2015 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – The Brief in Opposition was filed today.  Here is the Brief in Opposition.

Update August 19, 2015 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – A reminder that the online SCOTUS dockets do not update in real time.  There is often a lag between an event and when that event is reflected on the dockets.  Today, the SCOTUS docket for this case states that “Aug 10 2015 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 13, 2015.”  Yesterday, August 18th, it did not.  Today, nine days after the fact, it does.  However, today’s docket shows the cert petition is still scheduled for the first conference of justices for the 2015-2016 session, September 28, 2015.

No. 14-10078
Title:
Jaime Caetano, Petitioner
v.
Massachusetts
Docketed: June 4, 2015
Lower Ct: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
  Case Nos.: (SJC-11718)
  Decision Date: March 2, 2015

 

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jun 1 2015 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 6, 2015)
Jun 22 2015 Waiver of right of respondent Massachusetts to respond filed.
Jul 2 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 28, 2015.
Jul 13 2015 Response Requested . (Due August 12, 2015)
Aug 10 2015 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 13, 2015.
Aug 11 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Arming Women Against Rape & Endangerment filed.

Update August 18, 2015 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – Caetano’s attorney sent me a complete cert petition and motion to proceed in forma pauperis.  I have updated the link above.

UPDATE: 5:42 PM – In response to my requests for the Brief In Opposition both sides emailed me today informing me that the deadline had been extended to October 13, 2015.

Update August 11, 2015 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – An Amicus brief was filed in support of granting the cert petition.  An Order extending the time to file response to the cert petition to and including October 13, 2015 was issued.

 

No. 14-10078
Title:
Jaime Caetano, Petitioner
v.
Massachusetts
Docketed: June 4, 2015
Lower Ct: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
  Case Nos.: (SJC-11718)
  Decision Date: March 2, 2015

 

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jun 1 2015 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 6, 2015)
Jun 22 2015 Waiver of right of respondent Massachusetts to respond filed.
Jul 2 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 28, 2015.
Jul 13 2015 Response Requested . (Due August 12, 2015)

 

Share