|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 21, 2014, 07:16 PM | #26 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
Quote:
So it's completely incorrect to say that as far as this court is concerned, the law is unconstitutional. As far as this court is concerned, it's only unconstitutional in this unique application / these unique circumstances, and so the court said go back and go through some process. Now the process part I'm not sure I get. So now the govt must, as you said, "...[give] Tyler an opportunity to demonstrate that notwithstanding the law there is no reason for the government to prohibit him from possessing a gun" So Tyler must demonstrate there is no reason for him to be prohibited. Doesn't that sound a lot like requiring someone to prove their innocence? And how he does that...that's the part nobody is clear on? Because these are uncharted waters or just because it's some local statute in Podunk, Michigan and none of us are from there? Quote:
|
|||
December 21, 2014, 07:47 PM | #27 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,466
|
Quote:
The directive to enter a finding that the law is unconstitutional applies ONLY IF the government elects not to dispute Tyler's assertion that he is not dangerous. If the government contests this assertion, although the district court could still find the law unconstitutional, they would not be required to do so once the government disputes Tyler's contention. Quote:
|
||
December 21, 2014, 11:20 PM | #28 | ||||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
A law could be found to be unconstitutional on its face. That means it's void and unenforceable under any and all circumstances. The court in Tyler didn't rule that way. A law could also be found to be unconstitutional if applied under certain circumstances or used for certain purpose, but the law might be valid and enforceable in different circumstances or for certain purpose. Perhaps the easiest way to understand "unconstitutional as applied" is to look at Fourth Amendment cases. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizure. So a search or seizure found to be unreasonable violates one's constitutional rights protected by the Fourth Amendment, i. e., the government action would b unconstitutional as applied. But if the search and seizure is reasonable, it would not violate one's rights protected by the Fourth Amendment; and the government action would not offend the Constitution. The standards and bases for deciding whether a particular search or seizure is or is not reasonable have been hashed out in a large body of Fourth Amendment case law. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||||||
December 22, 2014, 12:04 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Many thanks, Frank. Your efforts have brought a tiny glimmer of comprehension into the vast, dark chasm of legal ignorance in my brain.
|
December 22, 2014, 01:19 AM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Quote:
The court would not have to follow the (unfunded) federal process or the (nonexistent in Michigan) state process, but it seems reasonable to expect the government to at least seek to hold Tyler to those standards in demonstrating his rehabilitation. |
|
December 22, 2014, 02:41 PM | #31 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
I've been out of pocket for a few days, so forgive me for not reading this thread as in-depth as perhaps I should have. That said, part of the confusion may be due to the fact that this is a procedural matter, not (really) a substantive matter
Quote:
Quote:
The bottom line of the 6th's decision is: Tyler has alleged sufficient facts that, if true, "state a claim upon which relief can be granted." It doesn't mean he's right; it doesn't mean he automatically wins. It only means that he survives a motion to dismiss. Now we'll move on to an Answer, the discovery process, probably a motion for summary judgment, etc.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
December 22, 2014, 03:35 PM | #32 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Quote:
|
||
December 22, 2014, 03:39 PM | #33 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog presents an interesting analysis of the case, including:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
|