|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 1, 2013, 10:22 PM | #101 | |||||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Now that I've had time to read (and reread) the dissent and digest what it said....
Quote:
In her opening statement, Judge Jones speaks of the errors of the panel in general terms: Quote:
Judge Jones doesn't stop there. In directly looking at the panel decision, Jones writes: Quote:
Quote:
In writing about the age of the militia after the resolution of the BOR, and speaking directly to the Militia Act of 1792, we have footnote 9 (page 12): Quote:
All in all, this is a very powerful dissent. Which explains why it took so long to publish the denial of the en banc hearing. |
|||||
May 20, 2013, 10:22 PM | #102 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
In a terse 16 page opinion, the 5th Circuit pretty much ruled the same as the other panel in the BATF case. Texas law that 18-20 year olds may not carry handguns in public via a CCW was upheld. The opinion was published today: Natl Rifle Assn of America Inc, et al v. Steven McCraw.
|
May 21, 2013, 12:13 PM | #103 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
It appears that no-one sees the danger that these two decision pose... So a little commentary might get your thoughts moving....
When these two cases were first filed, I. like many others, was filled with hope that a wrong was about to be righted. As the cases progressed, my hope died and I knew that the cases would fail. What we now have are two very precedential cases that state that a fundamental right can be denied to adults, based merely upon a legislative assumption that a certain age group is not mature enough to exercise that fundamental right. Using the same logic of these two decisions (as they relate to legislative findings), the age at which two people can marry, can now be increased to the age of 25. Statistics show that after 25 (for both male and females) will more than likely not result in divorce. Statistics also show that cohabitation before marriage (of any age group) results in more divorces than those that do not cohabit. Therefore, cohabitation can be made a criminal offense. Detailed marriage and divorce tables by state Legislatures can use the same process the court used to restrict driving. It is a curious anomaly that drivers between the ages of 16 to 20 and again from 45 to 75, not only have fewer accidents, but that they consume less alcohol, while driving. Therefore, those of you between the ages of 21 through 44 may not drive. Licensed Drivers and Number in Accidents by Age: 2009 I could go on, but suffice it to say that there is something horribly wrong with the way the courts are treating the RKBA as if it were not just a second-class right, but as if the right does not exist at all. The lower courts are in full judicial rebellion against the thought that there is a right to defend oneself against confrontation, outside the threshold of your home. We can see this. But what the courts are actually saying, is that the legislatures can impose more restrictions upon your day-to-day life, than merely restricting your right to arms. In the cases above, the courts have unleashed a potential abuse of authority, the like of which they may not have foreseen. |
May 21, 2013, 12:46 PM | #104 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
As happy as I was with the 7th Circuit's decision in Moore, it's really an outlier in the current climate.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
May 21, 2013, 01:04 PM | #105 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
It is believed that the Moore case is the case the SCOTUS wishes to review.
If this is true, then we really need Ms. Madigan to file for cert. Let's hope the IL legislature can provide the impetus. |
May 22, 2013, 02:14 PM | #106 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Is it still the case, that the cooperation needed from the Illinois legislature is that they do nothing?
|
May 22, 2013, 02:44 PM | #107 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
|
|
May 22, 2013, 10:08 PM | #108 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
I don't think Illinois AG will file, she might have if it looked like pro-2A folks were going to get a carry bill, but the main guy who was pushing a carry bill sat down with Lisa Madigan's father Speaker of the House, Mike Madigan, and created a compromise bill that severely prohibits carry in Chicago and Cook county.
I've heard Chicago politicians are sneaky but I can't imagine that a guy would sit down for 8 hours wit another legislator to hammer out a bill and then screw the guy over by having his daughter file for cert and ask for an extension on the stay. In the meantime though, an anti-gun group in Illinois is touting the McCraw decision as clear proof that CA7 is out of sync with the rest of the circuit courts and referencing the McCraw decision to ask Lisa Madigan to appeal Moore to SCOTUS. |
May 23, 2013, 12:33 AM | #109 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
As I understand it, once she filed the petition for an extension of time to the Scotus, she is ethically bound to pursue it unless the case is muted due to a change in the law. It is apparently the worst form for a lawyer to petition for more time to file, then not file, and I understand there can be severe consequences.
|
May 23, 2013, 10:46 AM | #110 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
What are the consequences?
Not even counting that according to the press she's probably going to be running for governor, what are the consequences for filing for cert and then telling SCOTUS "Oh never mind..." |
May 23, 2013, 01:06 PM | #111 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
As a lawyer, she could be sanctioned by the court, and lose the ability to bring future SCOTUS cases. It could have adverse effects on future elections beyond planet Chicago.
|
May 24, 2013, 03:18 PM | #112 |
Member
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
|
If she files and then the case moots out with new legislation, she would be obligated to inform the court and dismiss her petition. If no legislation is enacted, and she elects to not file, that is her prerogative. Getting an extension of time does NOT bind a party to actually file a petition. And the Court would rather have a party get an extension and NOT file\, as it makes the Court's work easier. Now if Illinois had sought and obtained a Rule 41 stay pending petition, then not to file would certainly be bad form, but I doubt she would get sanctioned for it. In any event, Illinois has not asked for a stay from either the 7th Circuit (where it would go first) or from the SCT). This is sorta fun to watch it play out.
Last edited by esqappellate; May 24, 2013 at 03:24 PM. |
May 25, 2013, 10:07 AM | #113 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Thanks for that. For those who may not know, esqapellate is the resident legal expert at Maryland Shooters where he has patiently kept the unwashed masses informed for many years. Good to see you here.
|
August 1, 2013, 04:46 PM | #114 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Lyle Denniston, over at SCOTUSBlog has listed the NRA v. BATF as having filed for a grant of cert, last Monday: New plea for gun rights
The SCOTUS docket number is 13-137 and the cert petition can be viewed at the link, above. |
August 1, 2013, 06:03 PM | #115 |
Member
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
|
The petition filed in the NRA case by Paul Clement is quite something to read in its choice of language and theme. Sorta like: "Hey Heller majority, wake up, the lower federal courts are completely dissing you and your rulings. What are you going to do about it!" Clement can get away with this.
|
August 1, 2013, 06:10 PM | #116 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,466
|
Quote:
|
|
August 1, 2013, 06:13 PM | #117 |
Member
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
|
Gura is doing it too. Clement just raised the bar another notch.
|
August 1, 2013, 07:57 PM | #118 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
|
|
August 1, 2013, 08:49 PM | #119 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
I wouldn't count on the Heller majority going hell-bent for leather to expand the RKBA. Despite someone's previous babbling about how Scalia was a wily old bird, leaving a trail of crumbs for some to nibble on - on the way to the grand RKBA decision - I'll believe it when I see it.
I think they did their thing and that's that. Hope I'm wrong.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
August 2, 2013, 04:32 AM | #120 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
Here's the brief. http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-con...ion-13-137.pdf Clement writes very powerfully not only for the instant case but against the short-shrift the second amendment is receiving almost universally in the lower courts. The brief points out numerous examples of the '2A two step', and repeatedly notices the court that the reasoning in Heller and McDonald are not being taken seriously. There are abundant, stinging 'gems' contained within, too many to mention, in fact. Here's one: Quote:
Last edited by maestro pistolero; August 2, 2013 at 04:40 AM. |
||
September 5, 2013, 10:31 PM | #121 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Here's the latest update:
Quote:
The NSSF amicus brief: http://www.nssf.org/share/pdf/13-137...etitioners.pdf |
|
September 11, 2013, 11:27 PM | #122 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
More thanks to Kharn (a member of CalGuns) for procuring the SAF amicus brief.
|
December 22, 2013, 12:27 PM | #123 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
A long overdue update.
In NRA v. BATF, the cert stage is completed on Dec. 3rd. We are now awaiting a conference date. In NRA v. McCraw, a response was requested from the State and time was extended until Jan 21, 2014 to file that response. |
December 22, 2013, 12:50 PM | #124 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 14, 2012
Posts: 331
|
I bounce back and forth on the age thing. I went in the military at 17 w/ parents consent. Interesting I couldn't join on my own at 17, but once I was in I could make my decision to kill at 17. Lots of 17 year old in Nam all killing but in the states can't join or drink. But then again, the military has a way of maturing a person that civilian 17 year olds don't receive as a norm. I think the mid west, rural farm or ranch kids in general are more mature than the tweeting crowds the local community colleges are in their teens. Don't get me wrong, I have seen some who work having great maturity, but not as many in urban areas as a norm. Giving kids who can't drive responsible a gun and conceal carry gives me a pause to make that a blanket law. Like I said, I go back an forth on this so that in itself is enough for me to prefer to err on the side of caution. In my local area, I'm not impressed with the little tweeters I see for the most part.
|
December 22, 2013, 07:46 PM | #125 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Swamp dweller
Posts: 6,187
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor,, USPSA & Steel Challange NROI Range Officer, ICORE Range Officer, ,MAG 40 Graduate As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be. |
|
Tags |
2nd amendment , right to carry , rkba |
|
|