The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 6, 2013, 09:16 PM   #51
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 200
Another well written petition by Gura. Could this be the 2A low hanging fruit that SCOTUS is looking for?
press1280 is offline  
Old July 6, 2013, 11:29 PM   #52
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
And the total of this thread shows why there should be no, none, zero person that are not in custody that should be "prohibited".

To deny any person the right to bear arms in his/her own personal self defense basically states that the prohibited person's life is less valuable than any other person that may bear arms in their own personal self defense. (I do think there is an "equal protection" clause...no?

There were no "prohibited persons" prior to 1968, and it wasn't a problem. That there are persons who probably should not have firearms is not argued, but as everyone here knows and understands, those with criminal intent do not care what restrictions the law may place on them and will obtain their firearms illegally...but they will still obtain them.
hermannr is offline  
Old October 25, 2013, 09:38 PM   #53
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,276
All the filings have been done. The case is set for conference on Nov. 1, 2013. You can read the response and the reply at SCOTUSblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...ader-v-holder/
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 25, 2013, 10:42 PM   #54
JERRYS.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 398
Quote:
Schrader's problems became extent in 2008 when he was denied a purchase of a shotgun by the NICS system. Even though it appears that MD has no record of this prior misdemeanor conviction, the denial was based upon his 1968 misdemeanor conviction of assault.
this doesn't make sense. MD has no record of this but somehow the feds do?
JERRYS. is offline  
Old October 25, 2013, 11:39 PM   #55
leadcounsel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2005
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,617
These laws, and their application (especially retroactively) are what really aggravate me about my profession and our system.

Ask 100 people in the abstract and 99 of them will tell you that these things are unfair, and don't make sense. But then you get 1 person who makes some obscure argument and, as applied to some political hot topic like gun control, and suddenly you get unjust results.

Change it from 'gun control' to 'right to get married, or free religion, or speech, or whatever,' and suddenly you'd get a different outcome.

Thanks for posting all of this...
__________________
2A: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." US Army Combat Veteran and Paratrooper: OIF (2008, 2009, 2010) and OND (2011). Bronze Star Medal and Meritorious Service Medal recipient. NRA Lifetime Member. I'm a lawyer, but not YOUR lawyer and I have not offered you legal advice.
leadcounsel is offline  
Old October 26, 2013, 09:15 PM   #56
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,060
Quote:
To deny any person the right to bear arms in his/her own personal self defense basically states that the prohibited person's life is less valuable than any other person that may bear arms in their own personal self defense
It may be a little cold, but I'd say people who have committed a felony serious enough to become a prohibited person have made their live less valuable than the people who have been good enough members of society not to do so. You're welcome to disagree, of course.
JimDandy is offline  
Old October 26, 2013, 10:25 PM   #57
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,273
Perhaps not "less worthy" but less trustworthy to wield the rights of citizens.

I'm not opposed to restricting those who have been proven to abuse their rights. That said, I don't think tax fraud or similar non-violent crimes are a good reason to make someone a prohibited person.
raimius is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 08:26 AM   #58
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,276
Conference was held yesterday. At about 9:30 EST, Monday, Nov. 4, we may find out if cert was granted or denied.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old November 4, 2013, 12:15 PM   #59
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,442
Cert was denied.
gc70 is offline  
Old November 4, 2013, 01:53 PM   #60
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,047
Very disappointing. It is becoming very difficult to remain optimistic in light of each new denial.

The court can only rule on the matter at hand for any particular case, and its hard to imagine identical facts to Schrader that could be addressed in any other upcoming case in the foreseeable future.

Could it be that NONE of these cases would have gone our way, and the Heller majority is merely exercising damage control via denials?
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old November 4, 2013, 03:25 PM   #61
speedrrracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
Could it be that NONE of these cases would have gone our way, and the Heller majority is merely exercising damage control via denials?
I had hopes along those lines, but they seem pretty ridiculous.
Correct me if I'm wrong:

Assuming the Heller 5 no longer exist (because otherwise they'd just take the case and win it, right?) the bedtime story is that there's a Heller 4 who are preventing "permanent" damage to the 2A.

How are they preventing SCOTUS, with (now) a majority that will vote against the 2A? The thought is that these Heller 4 are not granting cert to cases? That doesn't make sense, since only 4 votes are required to grant cert, so the 4 anti-2A Justices from Heller, McDonald can simply grant cert without any Heller 4 involvement, and then use the (now-swinging-anti) swing vote to claim a majority and destroy the 2A.
speedrrracer is offline  
Old November 6, 2013, 07:49 AM   #62
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,060
From what I've heard in (I think the article ramping up the DOMA challenge) it's something of a naughty no-no to vote to grant cert on a case you already decided to uphold.

In other words, I'm under the impression it's not "illegal" but it's not very kosher to vote to grant cert to something, if you have no intention of changing the decision, but you just want to rubber stamp the lower court's decision.

ETA: I suspect that the swing vote in this case has a very narrow path they swing on. A right to bear arms, but not out in public. And only for people more pure than driven snow. We can be thankful they're holding the line, but we shouldn't expect a whole lot more. At this point, I suspect the only cases we have a reliable shot at winning would be procedural over activistic. I think we have more of a chance (re-)challenging the lack of ability to redress grievances in the 2A/closed office scenario than trying to get the judges to say someone who is prohibited shouldn't be prohibited. And that won't be a cakewalk.

Part of me wishes the judges were given LESS information- or were better at separating their politics from the law.

Last edited by JimDandy; November 6, 2013 at 07:58 AM.
JimDandy is offline  
Old November 6, 2013, 10:07 AM   #63
speedrrracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDandy
From what I've heard in (I think the article ramping up the DOMA challenge) it's something of a naughty no-no to vote to grant cert on a case you already decided to uphold.
In your view, how does that mesh with Scalia's interview in which he says he "already know[s] the law", i.e., already knows the correct way (in his view, obviously) to vote on a case?

If he already knows how he'll vote on all of these cases, how can he, in good conscience, grant cert to any? OTOH, why would it be a naughty no-no to grant cert when you already know your vote but there's a circuit split and our rights need clarification? The nation needs a unifying decision for consistent application of law, doesn't it?


Quote:
ETA: I suspect that the swing vote in this case has a very narrow path they swing on. A right to bear arms, but not out in public. And only for people more pure than driven snow.
Let's assume you're correct. Is there a likely explanation for why wasn't this mentioned in Heller? Why then the language in Heller implying a right to bear in public, when they could have clearly stomped it out, right then?
speedrrracer is offline  
Old November 7, 2013, 01:01 AM   #64
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,060
In the case of a circuit split, they would vote for cert on the circuit case they plan/suspect to overturn, not uphold.

As for why this wasn't mentioned in Heller- the fact that you read Carry into Heller doesn't make it there. There was quite a bit of fence sitting language in Heller people attribute to "consensus building" or whatever you want to ascribe it to. I think the Justices made it pretty clear they were willing to draw a line in the sand, but that line is far behind where many people would have liked.

To be fair both sides are trying to twist that fence sitting language to their benefit. Dangerous and Unusual for assault weapons bans for example. That was nothing more than SOP to NFA, GCA and FOPA. Sensitive places-schools, jails, etc.
JimDandy 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 11:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10280 seconds with 10 queries