|
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 |
June 1, 2012, 09:56 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
|
I thought we had anti judges here in Illinois, at least the judges here occasionally make the state get around to what the lawsuit is all about instead of stringing out the process for as long as possible.
|
June 5, 2012, 07:05 AM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
|
In response to Standing Wolf comment on the spam filter block.
When dealing with hostile legislators, i always send my comments the old fashioned way. I use paper, an envelope and a stamp. It is easy to ignore an e-mail. Just hit the delete button. Occupying the staff's time with a heavy volume of paper will get their attention a lot quicker than spurious electrons. |
June 5, 2012, 06:17 PM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Quote:
|
|
June 28, 2012, 09:18 PM | #29 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The appellee's response brief is out. Still reading.
|
June 29, 2012, 12:03 AM | #30 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,457
|
Here we go again (or still). From the Table of Contents (I haven't even gotten to ther meat yet: "Heller Only Recognized a Right to Bear Arms for Self-Defense in the Home."
Quote:
The attorneys for the state are arguing that "reasonable regulation" means preventing 95 percent of the population from being "allowed" to exercise a right that the Constitution guarantees. Many other states have determined that "regulation" means the state can impose certain restrictions on the mode of carry, but cannot deprive the individual of the exercise of the right in its entirety. But that's what NJ does. Quote:
|
||
June 29, 2012, 11:47 AM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
|
|
July 30, 2012, 10:55 PM | #32 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The reply brief is in.
I haven't read much of it yet (been reading the Woollard response), but it is a bit drier reading. I believe David Jensen is the author of this one. I'll have a better commentary on it, tomorrow. AAR, this will conclude the briefing schedule at CA3. The orals date will be announced in a few weeks, |
July 31, 2012, 09:36 AM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
|
OK, that's an interesting read. Kind of painful really, but legal speak usually is
|
October 5, 2012, 08:55 PM | #34 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
After 2 months and with nothing forthcoming from the CA3, Alan Gura states his reasons for an Oral Argument and essentially, requests a date.
Quote:
|
|
November 26, 2012, 10:08 PM | #35 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
What I think we are seeing here, is the CA3 milking this in order to see what the 7th, the 2nd, and the 4th circuits will do. |
|
November 27, 2012, 12:42 PM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 5, 2000
Location: AoW Land, USA
Posts: 1,968
|
If CCW becomes reality for the average person in NJ, then there will be one reason to reside within it's boarders... One reason only
|
November 27, 2012, 01:05 PM | #37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2000
Location: NJ
Posts: 191
|
Quote:
|
|
November 27, 2012, 02:24 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Everyone seems to think of Bayonne or Newark...
NJ has some nice areas. Warren County up north is actually pretty and rural. New Brunswick area isn't bad. Princeton area is quite nice. I have family in NJ; I prefer when they visit me, due to the stupid gun laws up there, and I don't particularly wish to live up that way, but it has some nice features. |
November 27, 2012, 02:43 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 18, 2011
Location: 609 NJ
Posts: 705
|
South jersey is very nice as well and extremely rural. I live in cape may.
Its a shame we all have to suffer the stupidity of the suburban and city area's...an even bigger shame that the federal goverment has no real interest in enforcing the constitution. I sure do hope this case makes it somwhere...but of course I'm not holding my breath. Freedom is just a little too much to ask for...in some parts of the country anyway. Most likely we will be forced to continue to walk the streets at the mercy of criminals until SCOTUS gets involved... Even then i'm sure NJ will drag its feet whenever possible.
__________________
"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 21. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.) |
November 27, 2012, 03:25 PM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 18, 2011
Location: 609 NJ
Posts: 705
|
I just saw this on a local NJ forum I'm a member of. I feel that it's relevant as it was a quite similar case.
Take a look. http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.p..._fromsearch__1
__________________
"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 21. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.) |
November 27, 2012, 08:14 PM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 779
|
RedBowTies, it would let me view the thread unless I am a member of the forums.
__________________
I told the new me, "Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'" But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back." Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor |
January 17, 2013, 02:56 PM | #42 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Yesterday, the 3rd Circuit ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs in regards both the Kachalsky (CA2) and Moore (CA7) decisions. Briefs can be no more than 10 double-spaced pages and must be filed no later than Monday, Jan. 28th.
|
January 18, 2013, 01:28 AM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
Just waded through the reply. One of my favorite parts was the discussion of the different level of review required when a law is a regulation vis a prohibition. A prohibition madates strict scrutiny, a regulation (time, place and manner) requires only intermediate scrutiny. It will be interesting to see what the 3rd does--will if follow NY and deny a challenge to "good cause" rquirements, or follow the 7th and conclude that there must be some form of carry allowed in order tocomply with constitutional mandates. The fifference between the two cases, though, is that Illinois bans concealed carry entirely, while NY, as Md and NJ, only make it nearly impossible to carry because of the discretion granted public officials. With all the Sandy Hook broohaha and the recent NY firearms ban, I think a bunch of courts that might be inclined to follow Woolard or Moore are having second thoughts. (One thng I always hated about Con Law was that it always seemed to me more political and result driven than, despite the lip service, driven by logic.) Then again, a grant of cert in Kachalsky will put all of these cases on hold for at least another year.
Good brief. I think Jensen probably did write as it lacks some of the fire Gura is known for. |
January 18, 2013, 12:42 PM | #44 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The case that may be the tipping point is, Woollard.
Should the CA4 reach a favorable (for us) decision, despite what the CA2 decided, despite Sandy Hook, then we will most likely see a cert grant in Kachalksy. The CA3 judges are not stupid. They know all of this. Their choices are to side with the badly worded and decided decision in the CA2, or to go with the decision by CA7 Judge Posner and that of the district court by Judge Legg (remembering that 2 other cases in the CA4 were also decided in favor of the right to carry, at about the same time as Woollard). The CA3 panel could conceivably render a decision before the cert stage is over in Kachalsky. This could be an indicator to the SCOTUS. Likely scenario at this point in time is for both the CA4 and the CA3 to hold their decisions until after a grant or denial of cert in Kachalsky. ETA: Both David Jensen and David Sigale are understudies to Alan Gura. |
January 19, 2013, 12:08 AM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
I don't knoe the rules on petitions for cert. How long does the SCOTUS have to decide whether to grant? (In my state appellate syustem, there are mandatory and jurisdictional time frames, but I don't think the feds have them.)
|
January 20, 2013, 11:11 PM | #46 |
Member
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
|
correct no limit but by tradition the end of the term but even then they can carry over if they want
|
January 28, 2013, 11:46 PM | #47 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Pursuant to the CA3 request for a supplemental briefing on the decisions in Kachalsky and the decision in Moore, Alan Gura and New Jersey both filed their respective briefs.
In eleven double-spaced pages, Alan Gura lays out exactly why the ca2 decision was wrong and why the CA7 decision was correct. This is a very compelling brief. Quote:
Quote:
From that point, agrees completely with the decision in Kachalsky (of course) and twist the Moore decision, in carefully selected quotes, so that in appearance, Judge Posner agrees with New Jersey (and by inference, kachalsky). Like the above quote, this is also a misleading argument. Judge Posner took the kachalsky panel to task over their shoddy decision. |
||
January 29, 2013, 12:07 AM | #48 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
|
^^ Excellent reading, and as usual thanks for your diligence in posting the PDF files.
BTW, I know that I read the files, and the count of "viewed" still reads zero. I would not put too much stock in the counter. Willie . |
February 12, 2013, 07:33 PM | #49 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Orals were held today. This is a must hear oral argument.
12-1150DanielJ.Piszczatoski,etalv.TheHon.PhilipMaenza,etal.wma |
February 12, 2013, 10:11 PM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
I've only made it through the first 20 minutes, but that is some heavyweight discussion going on. I'm kind of sad they went "intermediate scrutiny" so quick and used it as a baseline...and the one judge's admiration of Kachalsky...
So, people who are more acquainted with oral arguments, what's your take? |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|