View Single Post
Old July 6, 2013, 08:34 PM   #50
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
Alan Gura is asking the Court to answer 2 questions. The first question is:
1. Whether a common law misdemeanor offense lacking any statutory sentencing range is “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” per 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(20)(B) and 922(g)(1).
Should the Court answer, No, then the next question is:
2. Whether an individual may be barred from exercising Second Amendment rights upon conviction of a non-aggravated common law misdemeanor.
What should follow is another "No" answer.

These two questions are the entire basis that this litigation was premised upon, starting with the suit at District Court.

The problem is that both the District and the Appeals Courts refused to answer even the first question. Instead, it presumed that the government had sufficient reason to impose the lifetime ban, based solely upon an extremely broad interpretation of statute in question. At no time, did the lower courts actually require the government to justify the law, they merely presumed that the justification was already present and required the plaintiffs to prove otherwise.

That is rational basis, at its core. Alan Gura shows this, in no uncertain terms. Calling the Courts attention to the myriad forms of "intermediate" scrutiny used, which was merely rational basis in disquise.

Alan Gura goes on to show that the lower courts have varied widely in how they have struck the right to keep and bear arms, until it has been stripped of all meaning, contrary to the Courts pronouncement in McDonald that the right is not a second class right and should be accorded the dignity of other enumerated and fundamental rights:
Quote:
And on balance, it is not unfair to claim that “the lower courts’ decisions strongly reflect the pragmatic spirit of the dissenting opinions that Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in Heller and McDonald.” Id. at 707. If the Second Amendment is to retain its substantive meaning, this case presents an ideal vehicle for this Court to examine whether the lower court’s methodology here comports with the majority opinions in those cases.


Here is the timeline at DCCA:
  • 12-28-2011 - Appeal officially filed.
  • 02-29-2012 - CLERK'S ORDER filed setting briefing schedule: APPELLANT Brief due 04/20/2012. Appendix due 04/20/2012. APPELLEE Brief due on 05/21/2012. APPELLANT Reply Brief due 06/04/2012.
  • 04-20-2012 - Opening Brief filed.
  • 06-05-2012 - The governments response filed.
  • 06-19-2012 - The reply brief is filed. Awaiting a date for orals.
  • 08-06-2012 - Oral arguments are scheduled for October 10th.
  • 01-11-2013 - Decision against Schrader. Lower Court Affirmed.
  • 02-25-2013 - Petition for en banc filed.
  • 03-13-2013 - Petition denied.
    • 06-11-2013 - Petition for Certiorari Filed. SCOTUS Docket #12-1443. Response due July 15, 2013.
Al Norris is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03126 seconds with 8 queries