|
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 15, 2014, 05:21 PM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: July 13, 2011
Location: MD *gah*
Posts: 57
|
Heller v DC (Heller II) DC District Court decision
The DC District Court has found in favor of... (wait for it)... the defendant.
The report comes from TTAG here. The decision is here. Once again, it appears, rational basis masquerades as intermediate scrutiny, the Court shows "special deference" to legislative conclusions, and "experts" speculations count more than hard data. I could only get about 7-8 pages into it before I had to put it down. *sigh* |
May 15, 2014, 07:45 PM | #2 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
If this is intermediate scrutiny, what must rational basis be? Boasberg shows a clear bias in accepting anecdotes from the defendants as evidence, and he's almost insulting in his dismissal of plaintiffs' arguments.
He closes with this, which gives a good indication of his attitude towards the proceedings. Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
May 15, 2014, 08:58 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Sure, in a fair and balanced system Boasberg's insults would not be tolerated, but we all know SCOTUS is not going to right this wrong, so Boasberg is the tin-pot dictator of the moment, and loving it.
|
May 15, 2014, 10:06 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2011
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 735
|
Wow, that quote Tom posted is insane, not that I am surprised seeing as the government feels they know best for everyone as of late on a whole host of issues.
I sure hope something comes from this on appeal and the folks of DC are not subjected to judicial lawmaking like this for long.
__________________
I like guns. Once Fired Brass, Top quality, Fast shipping, Best prices. http://300AacBrass.com/ -10% Coupon use code " Jay24bal " |
May 15, 2014, 10:21 PM | #5 | |||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
A few more cheery quotes:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|||
May 15, 2014, 11:59 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,297
|
He's not hiding anything there is he, lets it all hang out.
|
May 16, 2014, 01:36 AM | #7 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,457
|
Quote:
I would sure like to hear Hizzoner explain how that works. |
|
May 16, 2014, 02:06 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
It is quite amazing that the Second Amendment only covers "one or two firearms" in this judge's opinion. I wonder if he would find the First Amendment similarly only covers a limited amount of freedom of speech or a limited frequency of freedom of religious practice?
|
May 16, 2014, 04:39 AM | #9 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
If that judge had applied his version of "intermediate scrutiny" to the First Amendment, there would be howls of derision from academia. Lucky for him the Second Amendment doesn't get any respect. I'm going long on tar and feather futures at this point.
|
May 16, 2014, 07:07 AM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
The judge's background should be no suprise when reading this decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Boasberg
|
May 16, 2014, 01:12 PM | #11 |
Junior member
Join Date: July 29, 2013
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Posts: 569
|
Scary. So if a person wants to own just 1 rifle, 1 shotgun, and 1 handgun that constitutes an arsenal?
|
May 16, 2014, 02:24 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 988
|
I wonder what this guy would think of my modest collection. I don't believe the constitution puts a limit on the quantity of firearms someone is able to own. I'd love to get in a judge's head like this and see what in the world they are actually thinking because I'm having trouble finding the logic behind interpreting a limit on quantity with the way the 2A is written.
__________________
Semper Fi Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms |
May 16, 2014, 03:03 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 465
|
Lots of good quotes for the appeal brief.
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money... Armorer-at-Law.com 07FFL/02SOT |
May 16, 2014, 03:10 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
I'm wondering how a person with more than 12 firearms is more dangerous than a person with one or two. You can only fire one at a time. On the other hand, I hope everybody takes advantage of the law to the fullest extent . . . everybody should buy one gun a month, LOL!
|
May 16, 2014, 05:46 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 1,085
|
"I'd love to get in a judge's head like this and see what in the world they are actually thinking"
He's thinking he'd better figure out how to craft a judgment that will keep him getting invited to the parties of his District benefactors (and/or blackmail & kickbacks as the case may be and/or probably is...) TCB
__________________
"I don't believe that the men of the distant past were any wiser than we are today. But it does seem that their science and technology were able to accomplish much grander things." -- Alex Rosewater |
May 16, 2014, 07:15 PM | #16 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I really don't understand why people are making such a ruckus over this. Consider:
At District court in Woollard (03-12-2012), we had a good decision, only to be overturned (on the flimsiest of grounds). At District court in Bateman (04-08-2012), we had a favorable opinion that was not appealed. At the 7th Circuit, we had a good decision with Moore (12-11-2012). At District court in Benson (01-06-2014), We had a favorable opinion and an injunction was issued (even though stayed until 07-14-2014). At the 9th Circuit we have (so far) a good decision in Peruta (02-13-2014). This decision, as long as it stands, carries over to Richards and Baker. That's just 5 cases that made more noise than the 6 other minor cases (in favor of the 2A). Of all the cases filed and decided, one third were in our favor. And All of those against, were similarly worded. How can you not expect this? |
May 16, 2014, 07:32 PM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
|
|
May 16, 2014, 07:42 PM | #18 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Well, I suppose I just expect it. It is the good decisions that shock me, nowadays!!
|
May 16, 2014, 08:39 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Agreed -- e.g. Peruta put my jaw on the floor. Left work immediately, and treated the rest of the day like a national holiday. Couldn't stop shaking my head
|
May 16, 2014, 08:58 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2013
Location: Clarksville, Tennessee
Posts: 365
|
Here we go, legislating from the bench again! If the framers had believed this to be the case, they would have said "the right of the people to keep and bear one or two arms....."
|
May 16, 2014, 09:24 PM | #21 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Now it goes up the ladder.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
May 16, 2014, 09:38 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
|
Quote:
|
|
May 16, 2014, 10:30 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2011
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 735
|
I am with Tom. I expected the judgment to go the way it did, but the choice of how he explained it in the opinion shocks me.
We have all heard the arguments that the 2A means "people serving in an organized militia," or "you do not need a semi-automatic firearm to hunt," but to hear a judge try and limit the actual number of firearms one may own is insane. It would be like them saying that the freedom of speech means that one can only write a book/article that us under 2,000 words or that one can only pray once a day.
__________________
I like guns. Once Fired Brass, Top quality, Fast shipping, Best prices. http://300AacBrass.com/ -10% Coupon use code " Jay24bal " |
May 18, 2014, 05:44 AM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 12, 2012
Location: Lometa, Texas
Posts: 333
|
I have to rank this one right up there with the sc ruling that obamacare is a tax and people can be forced to buy it. I miss the days when I felt that our govt. and judges were honorable.
|
May 18, 2014, 01:55 PM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 30, 2009
Location: dallas
Posts: 773
|
Off on a bit of a tangent but back in the 50s there use to be a poll tax. You had to pay $2.00 in order to vote. As I remember it was struck down because you could not charge a fee for a constitutional right. I can't find it now but I read somewhere in that decision that the District could charge a fee for the registration. Now we pay lots of fees, like for a drivers license, but that is not something that is specifically guaranteed to us in the constitution. I'm guessing someone can point out the error in my thinking but it is something to ponder. I'm also guessing that if it was a valid argument that DC would gladly absorb the cost to keep the registration alive.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|