The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 26, 2013, 09:46 PM   #51
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,360
Quote:
I've been saying this for a while. Not so much for New York, but for Chicago. I fear the Chicago political leaders will think a few police-action shootings of gun owners will scare us into not exercising the right. What I don't get is if 400 bad-aim cops fire on 2,000 typically pretty good citizen gun owners, how is this not another Battle of New Orleans? And how does such an exchange not collapse the U.S. dollar and markets, the very next morning, when the rest of the world no longer fears U.S. hegemony?
You fear the CPD starting a civil war over a new law they don't like?

...I don't feel anyone tugging on my leg, which is odd, considering that post.
raimius is offline  
Old February 26, 2013, 11:26 PM   #52
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 384
Chicago Police routinely shoot and kill people, then they say the person had a dark object in their hand, the object turns out to be a cell phone.

It's happened many times but people in Chicago haven't stopped carrying cell phones.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old February 26, 2013, 11:34 PM   #53
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luger_carbine
Chicago Police routinely shoot and kill people, then they say the person had a dark object in their hand, the object turns out to be a cell phone....
If you're going to make claims like that, you need to provide evidence.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old February 27, 2013, 01:38 AM   #54
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
I found one instance of this, it seems it is hardly a trend. Stating that this happens routinely strains credulity.

http://articles.chicagobreakingnews....e-morning-shot

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1...y-officer.html
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old February 27, 2013, 09:32 AM   #55
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
I found one instance of this, it seems it is hardly a trend. Stating that this happens routinely strains credulity.

http://articles.chicagobreakingnews....e-morning-shot

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1...y-officer.html
And there's the Diallo case in New York. But there the officers involved were acquitted of manslaughter based on their claim of self defense.

Things like that happen. And that's indeed a long way from (emphasis added) --
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luger_carbine
Chicago Police routinely...
And sometimes a use of force (by a cop or by a private citizen) will work out to be justified when the belief of a threat was reasonable, even if mistaken.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old February 27, 2013, 12:22 PM   #56
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
While I completely understand that sometimes human perception collides with sets of facts to create tragic mistakes, I can't think of a single instance where a non-LE got that same benefit of the doubt. Just saying.

Quote:
And sometimes a use of force (by a cop or by a private citizen) will work out to be justified when the belief of a threat was reasonable, even if mistaken.
ETA: I just realized how far afield this this has gone. My apologies for contributing to the veer.

Also, I want to express my sympathy to Gray, who, for better or worse, has spent enormous energy, and time (and money, I presume) to attempt to further gun rights. Whatever disagreements some may have with the strategy, I do believe it was thoughtful and well-intended. And, for all we know, it may well be vindicated in the end. That is certainly my hope.

Last edited by maestro pistolero; February 27, 2013 at 12:38 PM.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old March 8, 2013, 04:27 PM   #57
esqappellate
Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
Peterson petition for rehearing filed

and order of the court ordering a response. Both attached.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Petersen.petitionforrehearing.pdf (227.6 KB, 16 views)
File Type: pdf peterson.order.rehearingbrief.pdf (38.9 KB, 15 views)
esqappellate is offline  
Old March 8, 2013, 05:19 PM   #58
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
Excellent brief. I wish Gray success.

I did catch a few typos/grammatical errors:

Quote:
Like the plaintiffs in Moore, Peterson “is a good deal more
likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood” than in Denver
than in his friends’ homes where he stays while in Denver. Moore, slip op.
at 8.
Quote:
Neither Colorado nor Denver made, “a greater showing of justification that the public might benefit on balance from such a curtailment” as to Peterson['s] right to bear arms.
Quote:
[Woollard v. Sheridan, No. L-10-2068 (D.Md., Decided March 2, 2012),
appeal pending in the 4th Circuit, ( holding that a requirement for “a good an[d] substantial reason” to obtain a license to carry a firearm concealed where the state bans open carry does not pass rational basis).]

Last edited by maestro pistolero; March 8, 2013 at 05:30 PM.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old March 8, 2013, 08:58 PM   #59
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,319
We know of at least 3 Judges on the circuit that will not be calling for a vote....
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 9, 2013, 08:06 AM   #60
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 223
And not to mention we'd have to have a Clinton/Obama appointee vote for rehearing. Not impossible, but not likely either. I wonder if a cert grant in Kachalsky changes their mind?
press1280 is offline  
Old March 9, 2013, 12:13 PM   #61
esqappellate
Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
We are having this discussion over on MD Shooters as well. Al, this what I said over there. I just do not get this petition:

What I did not see in the petition was a response to this statement in the court's opinion:

Peterson has repeatedly expressed, however, that he is not challenging the Denver ordinance. After Suthers advocated for the constitutionality of the Denver ordinance in his motion for summary judgment, Peterson clarified that he was not arguing that the ordinance is unconstitutional, but that it is Colorado’s “refusal to allow Plaintiff to obtain a CHL that is unconstitutional.” (Slip op. at 18)

That is the heart of the court's opinion as to Denver. The plaintiff cannot both attack and not attack the Denver statute. If the court is correct (and that may be a big "if"), that Peterson did not attack the Denver statute in district corut, then I don't see how the petition can challenge Denver's refusal to allow OC. And if he isn't challenging that refusal to allow OC, that only leaves the attack on Colorado's refusal to give him a non-resident CCW, and the court says it is bound by the Robertson dicta on that. Now you can now say that the Robertson dicta was overruled by Heller and that is a fair argument, but you can not still attack the Denver ordinance that you did not attack in D.Ct. As I understand it, Colorado allows OC without a permit and concealed carry with a permit but allows the CC permit only to residents. Denver, by ordinance that the court says that Peterson did not challenge, bans OC completely and only allows CC with the Colorado permit. So, if, as Peterson says, OC is fine as one alternative, he *must* challenge the Denver ordinance banning open carry. Or he can challenge the State restriction of the CC permit to residents, but the petition does not raise that argument. So it is OC or bust. The court says bust cuz he didn't challenge the Denver ordinance. QED. So where am I wrong in this?
esqappellate is offline  
Old March 9, 2013, 06:35 PM   #62
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 223
The P & I clause was brought up in district court but the ruling stated that claim was also abandoned. Don't know if it can be brought back or not at this stage. Very confusing indeed. Is there any benefit to giving up certain claims along the way?
press1280 is offline  
Old March 9, 2013, 07:24 PM   #63
esqappellate
Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
The P&I was not abandoned in the CA -- the court specifically addressed it rejected the argument. And sure, every appellate attorney worth his salt narrows his case on appeal and on rehearing and on cert. If your best argument can't win, you sure can't win with the 2nd best argument. The trick is to know the difference. Which is why some lawyers get paid the big bucks.
esqappellate is offline  
Old March 10, 2013, 01:19 AM   #64
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
So, if, as Peterson says, OC is fine as one alternative, he *must* challenge the Denver ordinance banning open carry. Or he can challenge the State restriction of the CC permit to residents, but the petition does not raise that argument. So it is OC or bust. The court says bust cuz he didn't challenge the Denver ordinance. QED. So where am I wrong in this?
Isn't that exactly the requested relief at the top of the original complaint?
Quote:
This action, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeks a declaratory judgment that the Colorado statute requiring an applicant for a permit to carry a concealed handgun (“CHL”) to be a resident of the State of Colorado violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution of the United States, the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, together with an appropriate injunction.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old March 10, 2013, 01:24 AM   #65
esqappellate
Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
Yup, and he lost on the merits of the P&I argument. He does not see rehearing on that point.
esqappellate is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10767 seconds with 10 queries