|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 31, 2012, 11:17 PM | #176 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
Also noted that Gura talks about "immediate scrutiny." Guess that means you have to look at it right now!
__________________
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 1, 2012, 02:24 AM | #177 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Fantastic brief as always. Airtight, IMO.
Besides those already mentioned (which I missed), I found a couple minor typos. 2D at page 34 : Quote:
Page 24: Quote:
|
||
August 1, 2012, 02:33 PM | #178 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
CA4 grants stay in Woollard, expedites appeal
|
August 1, 2012, 03:15 PM | #179 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
They're still winning on the merits, and the path of this case isn't all that different from the one that Heller and McDonald took.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
August 1, 2012, 03:31 PM | #180 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
|
Any opinions from our resident "I'm a Lawyer but I'm not your Lawyer" sorts on how this fits in with your expectations and how things are "best guess" likely to proceed, with us fully understanding that it's just going to be an educated "gut check best guess"?
Willie . |
August 1, 2012, 08:49 PM | #181 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Well, I'm not an attorney in any shape or form. What appears to have happened is that the motions panel simply took the easy way out and gave the matter a pass (to the merits panel).
The only good thing is that the case is now on an expedited path. Quote:
|
|
August 1, 2012, 09:39 PM | #182 |
Member
Join Date: March 17, 2012
Posts: 32
|
On the one hand I am disappointed with the fact the stay was removed.
On the other hand I am happy that the panel decided that this is obviously a vital decision and it should not waste time waiting for a hearing. I personally believe that this is due to the stay being removed by Judge Legg. |
August 6, 2012, 01:23 PM | #183 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
There are currently
One is from the NRA and the other is from Buckeye Firearms. Both should be on point and relatively good reads (meaning I have yet to read them). ETA: I've added a third brief to this post. There are 9 briefs that have been filed as I write this. Last edited by Al Norris; August 6, 2012 at 08:21 PM. Reason: added another brief |
August 6, 2012, 08:24 PM | #184 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Here are the next three briefs.
|
August 6, 2012, 08:35 PM | #185 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
And the final three briefs.
You will note that there are 2 briefs from the NRA. The first brief is from the NRA Civil Defense Fund and the second is from the NRA Inc. itself. This is possible because legally, each of these NRA organizations are separate corporations and therefore separate entities. I had pretty much read the first two briefs I uploaded, before I went back to work. then I came home and found another 4 over at MDShooters. Grabbed them. I went and looked at PACER, because of the time interval between then and now and there were another 3 briefs there. So I grabbed them and shared them, both here and at MDShooters. This means that there are 7 more briefs to read.... If anyone gets done before I do, please post your comments (and let us all know which brief you are commenting upon, please). Whether you know it or not, to have this many amicus briefs (12 total) filed in an appellate case is unusual, to say the least. |
August 6, 2012, 08:43 PM | #186 | |||||||||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
And finally, to set this all in perspective; Order of appearance of all briefs as listed on the Docket:
The first thing I will do in the morning, will be to take one last look at MDShooters and/or the PACER docket to see if any more amici have filed. I doubt it, but you never know. |
|||||||||
August 6, 2012, 11:20 PM | #187 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
|
Virginia et al seems to me to be the one that is the tipping point. When a group of AG's and States put their signature on an amicus, that to me as a layman makes a serious impression.
All of them make good reading. Well spent time to do so. Willie . |
August 7, 2012, 12:13 AM | #188 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
The Brief Amicus Curiae Of Professors Of Law, History, Politics, And Government In Support Of Plaintiffs-Appellees And In Support Of Affirmance absolutely destroys the arguments in the BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF LEGAL HISTORIANS IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL. Moreover, it exposes intentional deception by half-truths and out-of-context citations that should, IMHO, be actionable against the authors of that brief as perjury. Experts (be they historians, ballisticians, or DNA analysts) are free to express opinions based on their acknowledged area of expertise, but those who falsify or misrepresent data to form the opinions their employers desire should be prosecuted where such malfeasance can be proven.
In any event, consider the historical aspect of the arguments now decisively weighted in favor of the plaintiffs!
__________________
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 7, 2012, 10:13 AM | #189 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
|
^^^^^^^^^
To the above, which is a great read, it is interesting to see the involvement of Hillsdale College faculty. If you have not taken a look at the philosophical background of that school, you have missed out. Reading their monthly (free) newsletter Imprimus is something not to be missed. Readers are encouraged to do more research on this institution. Willie . |
August 7, 2012, 04:23 PM | #190 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I've been a subscriber to Imprimus for years. And yes, I was surprised to see 4 of the amici as being Hillsdale professors.
A question that came to my mind, when reading the anti-history was, when will the anti-gunners realize that they cannot hope to win by re-litigating Heller? <- rhetoric. I already know the answer. |
August 7, 2012, 10:26 PM | #191 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
__________________
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 8, 2012, 07:16 AM | #192 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
^^^^^^^^ Now that's funny right there!
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
August 15, 2012, 10:10 PM | #193 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The argument date, but not time, has been set.
Quote:
|
|
August 22, 2012, 09:29 PM | #194 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The State has filed its reply brief, thus ending the briefing stage. We now await for the oral arguments to be heard in the last week of October.
So what is my overall impression? Give them credit for mis-characterizing what Justice Scalia actually wrote in Heller. That was as skillful as anything I've read from the VPC. The level of outrage (AKA righteous indignation) that anyone would attempt to deny their stance, was apparent from the beginning to the end. Oh! and they led off with the Long Gun carry right out of the gate! Of course, our side got it all wrong and never addressed any of the "substantive" reasonings of the State. Um, nor did our sides amici. The arguments start at pp 10 of the PDF and end at pp 37. |
August 22, 2012, 10:10 PM | #195 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
I didn't get beyond the first paragraph. What a transparent bucket of hogwash.
Paraphrased: The law doesn't in any way regulate the carrying of handguns for self-defense, anyone can do so who obtains a permit. And our permit system is available to anyone who can show a demonstrable need to carry a gun, so what's the problem? Never mind that the requirement to demostrate a need IS the problem ... |
August 23, 2012, 12:45 AM | #196 |
Member
Join Date: March 17, 2012
Posts: 32
|
As I am reading:
You can carry.. in your home, therefore there is no problem. If I were to say you could vote in your home but it wouldn't effect elections would that count too? I see that Heller's in the home bit is coming back with a vengeance. Then in the next pages they go to speak about the 2A right, which is italicized for emphasis. The RIGHT was "to wear, bear, or carry in case of confrontation" and never have the limits of "in the home" ever attached to it. |
August 23, 2012, 01:27 AM | #197 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
|
|
August 23, 2012, 11:18 AM | #198 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
If the 7th Cir comes out with their opinion on Moore and they find for the plaintiff (Moore), couldn't that case impact this?
It wouldn't have to go to SCOTUS unless there were split circuit decisions right? |
August 23, 2012, 11:52 AM | #199 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
A 7th Circuit decision in the Moore/Shepard cases, whichever way it decides, will affect what the 4th Circuit might decide.
Judge Posner was the presiding Judge of the panel. If he writes the decision, it will be doubly important. He is highly regarded amongst judicial circles. As for the SCOTUS taking a case, yes it helps if there is a split in the circuits. That's because they simply can't have the (case) law say one thing in one circuit and say the opposite in another. Another factor is that the Supreme Court is a bit more deferential if the party asking for cert is the State. |
October 24, 2012, 09:10 AM | #200 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Oral arguments are being held, as I type.
Here is a draw of the panel: Judge King - Clinton Judge Davis - Obama Judge Diaz - Obama Not the best draw of judges, but at least, Judge King is the presiding Judge. While I'm waiting for some reports from some friends in MD, here are a couple of articles that are out: Appeals court to consider making it easier to carry handguns in Maryland - Washington Post Gansler to defend Maryland’s concealed-carry gun law - Washington Times More later, as it is reported. |
|
|