|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 6, 2012, 05:08 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2010
Posts: 311
|
I wonder how many of our Honorable Senators and Congresspersons are not eligible to own a gun due to this law?
A photo of our President as a young man smoking pot is evidence of a misdemeanor, isn't it? Should he be disallowed from owning a gun? Would that ban him from being Commander and Chief of the largest collection of weapons in the world? I'm not ranting, just pointing out the extended logic of the law.
__________________
JustThisGuy Mediocrity dominates over excellence in all things... except excellence. |
June 20, 2012, 12:53 AM | #27 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
And... Right on schedule, Schrader files the reply brief.
I'll read it tomorrow, time for bed. |
June 21, 2012, 04:18 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Hope for Schrader: Gowder v. Chicago on the horizon!
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
August 15, 2012, 10:40 PM | #29 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Oral Args are set for Oct.10th, 2012.
Quote:
Stephan F. Williams - 1986, Reagan (Senior Status) A. Raymond Randolf - 1990, G.H.W. Bush (Senior Status) |
|
October 10, 2012, 03:06 PM | #30 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
Esqappellate is a retired appellate attorney and has been a great help in understanding both the district court proceedings and the appeals courts... When asked for his permission to quote him, he made the following statement, in order to qualify what the circuit court cannot do (the bolded part, above). Quote:
The actual opinion (written by Justice Thomas) is available from Cornell: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-704.ZS.html This 9-0 opinion overturned the district court and the 5th circuit court (both the panel and en banc) decisions. |
||
October 15, 2012, 01:45 PM | #31 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
During orals, Judge Randolf asked questions that the plaintiff's counsel have responded via a Rule 29j letter.
|
January 11, 2013, 08:46 PM | #32 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
In their decision today, the CADC affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the case.
Quote:
|
|
February 25, 2013, 04:27 PM | #33 |
Member
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
|
Rehearing en banc petition
attached. Filed today.
|
February 25, 2013, 06:09 PM | #34 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
February 25, 2013, 07:55 PM | #35 |
Member
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
|
Actually not. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was not enacted until *after* he was convicted of this common law crime.
|
February 25, 2013, 08:08 PM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Wikipedia definition of ex post facto:
Quote:
If losing his 2A rights is a legal consequence, and how can it not be...? |
|
February 25, 2013, 08:09 PM | #37 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
To which crime do you refer, JimDandy?
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
February 25, 2013, 08:17 PM | #38 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
I kept looking and found Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 4 Wall. 277 277 (1867)
That defines Ex Post Facto in a SCOTUS decision- Quote:
|
|
February 25, 2013, 08:27 PM | #39 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
To be honest, JimDany, I don't have a good answer for that question. I'll have to look into it. At first blush, your argument (where I think you're headed, anyway) has some appeal.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
February 25, 2013, 08:34 PM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Now if only I could get some billable hours out of it
|
February 25, 2013, 09:42 PM | #41 |
Member
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
|
Ex post facto bar applies only to criminal punishments. A firearms disability is not considered to be criminal.
|
February 25, 2013, 09:52 PM | #42 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
esqappellate, has the firearms disability ever been challenged as ex post facto? I simply haven't delved off into that area.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
February 25, 2013, 10:04 PM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
February 25, 2013, 10:38 PM | #44 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
And in the current iteration of Enos v. Holder, the Government insists, and the lower court upheld, that this is not a civil right, as described in 18 U.S.C. SS 921, 922, and 925.
|
February 26, 2013, 12:13 AM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
And yet, when you get a pardon, it can lead to having your civil rights restored? And I was just reading something somewhere on the subject that you could get a pardon that wasn't a full pardon and retained the lack of a 2A civil right?
Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 4 Wall. 333 333 (1866) Quote:
Last edited by JimDandy; February 26, 2013 at 12:35 AM. |
|
March 15, 2013, 09:49 PM | #46 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Wednesday, the petition for re-hearing en banc was denied.
|
March 16, 2013, 01:37 AM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
So it gets in line with a cert petition, i presume?
|
March 16, 2013, 07:43 AM | #48 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I confess to not knowing what Alan Gura might do.
I do know that the specificity of this case will not be helped by any other case currently in the pipeline. |
July 6, 2013, 02:25 PM | #49 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
If anyone noticed, I updated some cases yesterday. Among those were #32, the Schrader case. On June 11th, Alan Gura field a petition for certiorari with the SCOTUS.
Not having heard of this anywhere else, I emailed Mr. Gura last night for a request for a copy of the cert petition, not expecting anything until Monday (as this was the start of the weekend). Just got home for lunch and the PDF was in my inbox, so I haven't had a chance to read it, as I wanted to get it out ASAP. The PDF is 90+ pages, but only the first 45 are the actual petition (the rest are underlying lower court opinions). Thank you, Mr. Gura. |
July 6, 2013, 08:34 PM | #50 | |
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:
Here is the timeline at DCCA:
|
|
|
|