No. 20-1640
Tags: civil-rights constitutional-review core-rights due-process firearm-regulation home-defense home-possession judicial-standard lower-court-uncertainty second-amendment standard-of-review
Key Terms:
SecondAmendment FirstAmendment DueProcess
SecondAmendment FirstAmendment DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2021-09-27
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the proper standard of constitutional review for a law that impacts the core value of the Second Amendment and the use of a firearm within the home is the two-step analysis or the text, history, and tradition analysis
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW What is the proper standard of constitutional review of a law that impacts the core value of the Second and use of a firearm within the home?
Docket Entries
2021-10-04
Petition DENIED.
2021-08-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-07-21
Brief of respondent State of Ohio in opposition filed.
2021-06-15
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 26, 2021.
2021-06-14
Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 24, 2021 to July 26, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-05-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 24, 2021)
Attorneys
Frederick M. Weber
Stephen Ernest Palmer — Yavitch & Palmer Co., L.P.A., Petitioner
Stephen Ernest Palmer — Yavitch & Palmer Co., L.P.A., Petitioner
State of Ohio
G. Ernie Ramos Jr. — G. Ernie Ramos, Jr., Attorney at Law, Respondent
G. Ernie Ramos Jr. — G. Ernie Ramos, Jr., Attorney at Law, Respondent