|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 14, 2012, 10:59 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
I must have missed this, because I can't believe it would have been left out of the pleadings:
The NICS is hooked up to the federal database, is it not? What is the point of engaging two FFLs in two transactions when one can effectively conduct the sale, the NICS and the transfer? Since this technology is accessible to everyone now, (and notably didn't exist in it's present ubiquity when these interstate commerce in arms laws came into being) doesn't this requirement now fail even a rational basis test? Last edited by maestro pistolero; May 14, 2012 at 11:05 PM. |
May 14, 2012, 11:00 PM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
Since the District Judge dismissed the case for lack of standing, the "record" forwarded to the Circuit Court consisted of the briefs of the parties and the transcript of the dismissal hearing. Will that limited record help or hurt Gura in the appeal?
|
May 14, 2012, 11:12 PM | #28 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The appeal is about that dismissal for lack of standing. This, despite everything else that has been mentioned in the appellate briefs.
The CA4 only has to find standing, then send it back to the district court. Gura is hoping that they will also de novo review the injunction. That would be nice, but it isn't necessary to find that, to resolve the appeal. |
May 16, 2012, 11:13 PM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
Quote:
|
|
June 12, 2012, 12:59 AM | #30 |
Member
Join Date: September 7, 2011
Posts: 22
|
Orals tentatively scheduled for 9/18-9/20
|
June 12, 2012, 10:11 PM | #31 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
As NatoRepublic has reported, we're tentatively scheduled for orals. Again.
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
June 13, 2012, 07:15 PM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
Quote:
|
|
June 13, 2012, 09:27 PM | #33 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
This amounts to a double post (the same as I just posted in the Kachalksy thread):
A bit of a quote from the DeCastro decision: Quote:
Quote:
|
||
August 16, 2012, 09:34 AM | #34 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Busy time for Alan Gura at the 4th!
Orals in Lane have now been scheduled. Quote:
|
|
October 25, 2012, 04:37 PM | #35 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Orals for Lane are here: http://coop.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchi...7-20121023.mp3
|
October 25, 2012, 05:36 PM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Just finished listening. Government attorney did well, but i don't know how she can escape the irrefutable logic that, in an age of instant background checks, and pre-authorized pistol purchases, there can be no rational basis or narrowly tailored government interest in making a consumer use an additional FFL in his or her own state. If one wishes to purchase a firearm for self-defense while 2,000 miles from home, the inability to do so regardless of the ready availability of qualifying background information from law enforcement is CLEARLY an injury that lacks justification.
Al, I look forward, as always to your analysis. Krucam, and Esquapellate (from Maryland Shooters) also provide fascinating insights. This case and Woolard (oral MP3 up tomorrow, IIRC) will provide ample fodder for the weekend reading/listening. Last edited by maestro pistolero; October 26, 2012 at 04:09 PM. |
October 26, 2012, 07:27 AM | #37 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I'm going to hold off commenting on this, until after I listen to the arguments, one more time.
|
October 26, 2012, 07:14 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 8, 2004
Posts: 563
|
I see the issue as no different than restricting any other product protected by the Bill of Rights.
Could you imagine if a DC citizen could not purchase a newspaper in Virginia? Or, expect no due process in Virginia? They are equally repugnant in a free society.
__________________
"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." Texas State Rep. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp |
October 26, 2012, 09:30 PM | #39 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
After reviewing the audio, I think it fair to say that this panel was quite aware of the implications of doing away with the handgun restrictions of § 922(b)(3).
This is evident, not only in the way in which Mr. Gura was questioned (which if taken alone - and out of context - appeared to be badgering), but also in the way that the Gov. was "attacked" by the same panel when it was their turn at bar. Gura did a masterful job of defending his client in the face of questioning that called the alleged injury itself into question. He never backed down and rather forcefully told the panel it was wrong if it perceived any part of the injury to be caused by 3rd parties, as the court suggested. Contrast that to the Governments position that the injury, if any, was in fact caused by 3rd parties, not present in the litigation, and not by the government itself (due to the law at issue). The Government further claimed that FFL couldn't possibly be held accountable for not knowing all the ins-and-outs of the various States handgun laws. Gura rebutted this by bringing up the fact that rifle and shotgun transactions are held to the same standards as handgun transactions (the FFL must know the various laws in order to proceed with the transaction), barring the interstate ban on handgun transactions (the law being questioned). Not much time was spent on the defense of the VA laws, and I believe that they will be dismissed. The only real thing the court might hang it hat on, is the "public safety" aspect of "helping" the States with their own police power. I find that Gura's arguments are persuasive (but then I'm biased), however if the decision is against Lane, this then is where it will reside. |
October 27, 2012, 08:57 AM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 26, 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 297
|
Best part ever is on or about 28:38. One of the justices asks: "What important purpose does the Federal law serve?"
The gov't attorney kills time with throat-clearing for a bit, then at about 29:09, she begins her answer which, basically is: This law is needed to enforce penalties against those who unknowingly or inadvertently make an honest mistake. |
October 29, 2012, 11:48 PM | #41 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Last Friday, Alan Gura filed a 28J letter to further resolve the issue of Standing.
|
December 31, 2012, 09:36 PM | #42 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
As you may recall, at the District Court, the Judge dismissed the claims on grounds of standing (the lack of).
Today, the 4th Circuit, in a 12 page decision, affirmed the lower courts decision that the plaintiffs were not burdened directly by the law in question, but by third parties (the associated FFL's, who obey the law). |
January 1, 2013, 05:47 PM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Appeal, or let it lie?
|
January 1, 2013, 06:42 PM | #44 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Another perfect example of why my great-grandfather (the law professor) always maintained "There is no justice in the courts."
Talk about a weasel-word decision. So if the plaintiff's "injury" is due to third parties rather than to the law, he should be able to sue those third parties for redress, agreed? And, if he were to sue the FFL to obtain redress for his injury, I have no doubt that the FFL would be exonerated because "He's only following the law." Catch-22. |
January 1, 2013, 08:22 PM | #45 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
D.C. has essentially mooted the case. I don't think there will be an appeal.
|
January 2, 2013, 02:24 AM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Do I understand correctly that since it was mooted, it really doesn't create precedent or even prevent taking a future run at the same issues on a different set of facts. Except for the unfortunate loss of hours, no harm, no foul, right?
|
January 2, 2013, 01:08 PM | #47 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
That's pretty much correct.
Adding to this, Gura/SAF won't be able to claim hours = no pay. |
February 15, 2013, 11:47 PM | #48 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
UPDATE!
Gura has filed for a rehearing/en banc yesterday. His arguments are sound and should be persuasive, but.... This will be an uphill battle, as the CA4 seldom grants en banc hearings and you can guarantee that the panel will deny a rehearing (they were all against Gura). |
June 6, 2013, 10:06 PM | #49 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
"Had the federal government prohibited bookstores from selling books to out-of-state resi- dents, no court would hold that impacted readers lack standing to challenge such a law under the First Amendment. Barring access to the national market for books would directly inflict an injury-in-fact upon consumers. Federal courts are empowered to fully redress that injury. None of this is particularly difficult or controversial.So starts the introduction of a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court in Lane v. Holder, filed pn May 28th, 2013. SCOTUS Docket 12-1401, A response is due on July 1st. The petition is asking to reverse the issue of standing, affirmed by the CA4, on purely consumer standing to challenge federal regulation. It is a good petition, and lays out why the district and the CA4 were wrong. But at this point, I won't hold my breath in wondering if the Court will grant cert. |
July 9, 2013, 11:11 AM | #50 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Another update.
Quote:
DC filed a waiver to respond to the petition, no response from the court seeking a response, yet an order was issued that extended the time for response. Nothing is listed in the orders denoting this. |
|
Tags |
alan gura , saf , second amendment |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|