|
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 |
April 16, 2013, 03:41 PM | #201 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Here it is.. it's in forma pauperis
This is when how you qualify And this is when you get the lawyer Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
April 16, 2013, 03:44 PM | #202 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
I'd also like to clarify something else about lawsuits against the government. I've never defended the federal government, but I've spent the better part of the last decade defending municipal officers. There's a whole separate discussion about sovereign immunity and qualified immunity that would need to be sorted out before any plaintiff can get money damages, and that's a whole separate question from whether a plaintiff can get a declaratory judgment that a law is unconstitutional.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
April 16, 2013, 03:44 PM | #203 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Spats, you said "in forma pauperis"
Quote:
|
|
April 16, 2013, 03:50 PM | #204 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
April 16, 2013, 03:52 PM | #205 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
April 16, 2013, 03:53 PM | #206 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
JimDandy, what you seem not to grasp is that you are supporting a substantive shift in philosophy, from a paradigm where government has to justify its infringements against citizens prior to any infringement of rights, to one where citizens have to prove, post-infringement, that their rights have been infringed.
This is a major shift. When Orwell described future society in 1984 and Animal Farm, he was offering a warning, not a blueprint. |
April 16, 2013, 03:57 PM | #207 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
I agree that in both instances the remedy of later litigation is not a perfect way to maintain the constitutional protection of the right. Quote:
However, we do not generally viewed that as an excuse for the federal government to engage in prior restraint of speech (the Pentagon papers case was a rare exception and one that occurred with the cooperation of the publisher involved). Instead, we prohibit the federal government from violating the First Amendment in the first place.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
April 16, 2013, 03:57 PM | #208 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Oh not at all. I was just saying there is a mechanism for when the government goes pear shaped and screws up. It's going to happen. That doesn't mean we shouldn't let them do something,- just because someone- eventually, somewhere, some time, is going to boot the ball.
|
April 16, 2013, 03:58 PM | #209 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Yeah, I realize that the term I used was a little different than JD's, but I knew what he meant by it. So maybe he's got the term "close," if not exactly "right." He's still got the right idea.
JD, all of those that you've named are criminal or habeas statutes, if I remember correctly. IOW, they're all, well, sort of right. They provide an attorney, but the're for criminal-related stuff. (Habeas is a whole different rabbit hole that I don't care to go down. It is its own breed of beast.) I can't name the statute for you, but there are other provisions to allow an indigent to sue officialls civilly using IFP. Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
April 16, 2013, 04:03 PM | #210 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
To clear some up:
I see very little difference between applying the NICS/4473 process exactly as it is now on private(retail) sales at a store to private(secondhand) sales between two non licensees- which use a FFL as a middleman. Whether you think it's right or wrong, I haven't seen anyone on either side come up with a convincing legal argument why retail sales aren't private sales, or why they're interstate trade (under the current definition) and a person to person sale is not. The NICS system is not perfect. But any false positives that arise there with a person to person sale will arise in a retail store. Any false positives in either location would still provide the same mechanism for redress. |
April 16, 2013, 04:07 PM | #211 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
April 16, 2013, 04:09 PM | #212 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Don't they consider the firearm to have never LEFT the Interstate commerce stream? As the money from the sale buys another stock item at wholesale, which paid for the worker to mine the minerals? Interstate Commerce isn't just the transaction, else Miller never would have been convicted- he didn't sell the shotgun, he just took it across state lines.
|
April 16, 2013, 04:11 PM | #213 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
Where is the federal authority to regulate the conduct of an individual who is not a federal licensee? If you require two non-licensees to work through and FFL, you have not only expanded federal authority to cover non-licensees, you have also converted that transaction into a three-party transaction. A three party transaction is significantly more complex to arrange than a two-party transaction. It inevitably also includes additional costs.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
April 16, 2013, 04:15 PM | #214 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
April 16, 2013, 04:17 PM | #215 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
I realize I'm circling back around but...
Quote:
|
|
April 16, 2013, 04:17 PM | #216 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
From the Commerce Clause.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
April 16, 2013, 04:19 PM | #217 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
April 16, 2013, 04:22 PM | #218 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
You'll get no argument out of me on that, JD. The last half-century has seen an absolute explosion of Commerce Clause based expansion of federal power. But if you'll look around, you'll see more and more states passing "Firearms Protection Acts" under which firearms produced wholly in-state, and kept there, are supposed to be (more) shielded from federal regulation. Whether or not any of those laws hold up, however, is an entirely separate question.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
April 16, 2013, 04:22 PM | #219 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
Current interpretation seems to be that anything that is EVER involved in interstate commerce is FOREVER in interstate commerce and anything that MIGHT have been in interstate commerce if it hadn't NOT been "effects" interstate commerce so it is ALSO covered by the Commerce Clause. That's an argument that is so preposterous that it should be laughable... but instead it's "the law of the land". It makes no sense whatsoever and it CERTAINLY makes no sense when applied to the idea of background checks. They might as well say that someone who buys a car has to pass an FBI drug test because the car came from interstate commerce. There could be 10's of thousands of examples that anyone in their right mind would find absurd, yet it somehow "makes sense" in this case.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
April 16, 2013, 04:26 PM | #220 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
April 16, 2013, 04:39 PM | #221 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
But you aren't working around, over, and through them - you are advocating adding to the mess.
Just because we have some regulation does not mean that we should accept more, but that appears to be your premise. |
April 16, 2013, 05:10 PM | #222 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
In Gonzalez v. Raich, the SCOTUS used similar logic to rule that Congress constitutionally acted within the scope of the commerce clause by essentially banning the possession of marijuana (even though Raich didn't sell so much as a leaf across state lines). The only conclusion I can draw is that SCOTUS is saying that government interest alone is enough to cross the commerce clause threshold with respect to any economic transaction - and that should frighten the bejeezus out of all of us. ============== p.s. Carter v. Carter Coal Co. is an interesting read for those of you arguing over the point of a product's entry into the interstate commerce stream. It will no doubt be cited if any of these locally made/sold firearms laws comes up. Last edited by csmsss; April 16, 2013 at 05:29 PM. |
|
April 16, 2013, 05:21 PM | #223 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
Equal protection- Why do stores suffer under more burden than second hand sellers? There's no real difference between a retail and second hand sale. as far as anything covered by such an extension- obviously warranty, etc would be different. Of all the gun control legislation that's been suggested over the years, the only one that appears to have had any measurable effect is background checks. |
|
April 16, 2013, 05:30 PM | #224 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
How many examples does it take? This is (should be) such a silly concept. All the more depressing that so many folks can't see it. The current background check system is already unconstitutional. The only thing that seems more ludicrous that defending it under the commerce clause is thinking that you can make it "fair" by further extending an already unconstitutional principle.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
April 16, 2013, 05:47 PM | #225 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|