The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 16, 2012, 07:48 AM   #126
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,370
Too many courts are trying to claim that Heller only addressed possession in the home. In fact, the SCOTUS spoke primarily to "in the home" in Heller for the simple reason that the lawsuit was about possession in the home.

Once you get beyond that, any high school English teacher can tell you that a sentence reading "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is talking about ONE right, not two. The gun grabbers love to paint the SCOTUS as "activist" when they support the RKBA, but they are silent when a truly activist lower court tries to divide what is clearly ONE right into two rights: (1) a right to "keep" arms (only in the home -- a word and concept not appearing in the 2nd Amendment at all); and (2) a separate right to "bear" arms.

That said, even if it were construed as two separate and independent rights, the 2nd Amendment still says they "shall not be infringed."

This attempt to split what is clearly and grammatically one right into two separate and apparently unrelated rights is nothing more nor less than lower courts thumbing their noses at the SCOTUS. And I am under the impression that more than a few of the nine justices of the SCOTUS become rather testy when they perceive that lower courts are thumbing their noses at them.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 16, 2012, 10:23 AM   #127
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,085
I would not want to be the lawyer trying to explain to the SCOTUS how Heller created a home-bound right to self defense.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old June 16, 2012, 02:29 PM   #128
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
When Heller first came out I said its not going to be a slam dunk. Heller was pretty obvious in its ruling. It is a individual right. A person is entitled to defend themselves using a firearm and that there can be some regulation and that it should not be prohibitive in a person owning a firearm.

These are the same folks that said the Second Amendment did not mean what it said and are still in denial. They are going to have to be beat down by the judicial system and citizens voting till they are in submission. They will always be scheming to take away 2A rights because they don't beleive in individual rights to start with. They see the elite class and the government being the ultimate arbiter of rights and think that people are not smart enough to decide what is best for them.

An example of this was Ann Richards who was the governor of Texas. We the citizens of Texas approved a nonbinding resolution that asked for the right for concealed carry. Ann Richards had vetoed a previous bill for that. She vowed that no such law would pass while she was governor. So we kicked her out of office and sent her packing to do Doritos commercials for a candidate that said he would sign the bill if elected.

The job is not going to get done till the citizens come together and impose their will on the politicians. This is being done in states that are resistant to gun rights for individuals. So even with court decisions we must be vocal about our rights to the politicians and when they refuse to honor the law take them to court and vote them out.
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member
Eghad is offline  
Old June 17, 2012, 05:32 PM   #129
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 218
To Maestro's post: I definitely wouldn't want to be that lawyer either, especially since they'll most likely be making it to the EXACT same Heller majority. It'll be fun to see them tell SCOTUS that they MEANT to make the right homebound. I can just see it now-Scalia(or Alito) telling the state's attorney,"I wrote that opinion and know that isn't what we said."

If we hear that the attorney might as well have a seat and give up the rest of his time. It'll only get worse.
press1280 is offline  
Old June 18, 2012, 11:23 AM   #130
rts99
Member
 
Join Date: April 20, 2012
Posts: 40
Self Defense vs Recreation

Based on a cursory reading of the State's position they still view the RKBA as a permission, not a RIGHT, and only for recreational purposes. This is why MD "allows" transportion an unloaded firearms, locked & secured in one's vehicle, to places like gunshops & ranges. This has NOTHING to do with Self Defense.

Let us remember, in both Heller & McDonald, that the Supreme Court ruled that citizens have the RIGHT to keep & bear arms for Self Defense. As has been noted above that this right is most crucial in the home, but nowhere did the Supreme Court limit Self Defense to in the home. So MD's position, as well as many other states & DC, is that one may keep & bear arms in the home but they many NOT use them for Self Defense - even in the home. They may keep arms for recreation but NOT for Self Defense. This is in complete discord with the rulings in Heller and McDonald.

This is where I believe the issue truly lies: the RIGHT to Self Defense. It is based on a RIGHT to life and the RIGHT to defend that life. By denying citizens a RIGHT to Self Defense anywhere is denial of their unquestionable RIGHT to life. Self Defense is a Natural Right. IMHO this is what the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect as ruled by the Supreme Court. Twice.
rts99 is offline  
Old June 22, 2012, 07:05 PM   #131
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
Today was the day for any amici for the State of Maryland, to file. Here's what the docket shows (curtesy Krucam at MDShooters):

Quote:
06/22/2012 25 Open Restricted Document AMICUS CURIAE/INTERVENOR BRIEF by The American Public Health Association and American College of Preventive Medicine in electronic and paper format. Type of Brief: Amicus Curiae. Method of Filing Paper Copies: courier. Date Paper Copies Mailed, Dispatched, or Delivered to Court: 06/21/2012. [998881277] [12-1437] Jennifer DeRose

06/22/2012 26 AMICUS CURIAE/INTERVENOR BRIEF by Legal Community Against Violence in electronic and paper format. Type of Brief: Amicus Curiae. Method of Filing Paper Copies: courier. Date Paper Copies Mailed, Dispatched, or Delivered to Court: 06/22/2012. [998881388] [12-1437] Mitchell Dolin

06/22/2012 27 ORDER filed [998881417] granting filing of amicus curiae brief (FRAP 29(e)) Party added: American Public Health Association and American College of Preventive Medicine. Copies to all parties. [12-1437] (DL)

06/22/2012 28 APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL (Local Rule 46(c)) by Jennifer DeRose for American College of Preventive Medicine and American Public Health Association.[998881423] [12-1437] (DL)

06/22/2012 29 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS (Local Rule 26.1) by Amici Supporting Appellant American College of Preventive Medicine and American Public Health Association. Was any question on Disclosure Form answered yes? No [998881425] [12-1437] (DL)

06/22/2012 30 Docket correction requested from Ms. Jennifer Ann DeRose for American College of Preventive Medicine and American Public Health Association. Re: [25] amicus curiae Brief. Access to amicus curiae Brief has been restricted to case participants. [12-1437] (DL)

06/22/2012 31 ORDER filed [998881500] granting filing of amicus curiae brief (FRAP 29(e)) Party added: Legal Community Against Violence. Copies to all parties. [12-1437] (DL)

06/22/2012 32 APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL (Local Rule 46(c)) by Mitchell F. Dolin for Legal Community Against Violence.[998881504] [12-1437] (DL)

06/22/2012 33 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS (Local Rule 26.1) by Amicus Supporting Appellant Legal Community Against Violence. Was any question on Disclosure Form answered yes? No [998881516] [12-1437] (DL)

06/22/2012 34 AMICUS CURIAE/INTERVENOR BRIEF by AMICI CURIAE OF LEGAL HISTORIANS IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL in electronic and paper format. Type of Brief: Amicus Curiae. Method of Filing Paper Copies: hand delivery. Date Paper Copies Mailed, Dispatched, or Delivered to Court: 06/22/2012. [998881614] [12-1437] Andrew White
  1. #25 Amicus from The American Public Health Association and American College of Preventive Medicine. Locked by item #30 as restricted to case participants.
  2. #26 Amicus from Legal Community Against Violence LCAV.
  3. #34 Amicus from Legal Historians.

I've asked Krucam to upload the Historians brief. Hopefully, he will be along in a bit to do that.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf CA4 Woollard LCAV Amicus.pdf (601.8 KB, 4 views)
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old June 22, 2012, 07:15 PM   #132
krucam
Member
 
Join Date: September 21, 2010
Posts: 23
Here's the Legal Historians brief. Large at >7MB...
Attached Files
File Type: pdf CA4 Woollard Legal Historians Amicus.pdf (7.21 MB, 6 views)
__________________
Mark C.
DFW, TX
krucam is offline  
Old June 22, 2012, 09:55 PM   #133
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,310
Quote:
Here's the Legal Historians brief.
I found that not only disenheartening, but intellectually suspect.

They have to dig pretty deep to find historical precedents for the prohibition on carry, but when presented with counter-evidence like Nunn v. State, they sink to pointing out Judge Lumpkin's support of slavery by way of a tenuous rebuttal.

If this is the best professional veneer the opposition can muster, I'm feeling optimistic indeed.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 23, 2012, 07:15 AM   #134
SilverBulletZ06
Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2012
Posts: 32
Going through, the LCAV amicus is especially hilarious.

1) They decide to skip historical context of "wear, bear, or carry in case of confrontation" that SCOTUS laid out, and instead submit the abbreviated statement with the term that SCOTUS agree to no 2A rights outside the home because they said that the 2A "does not allow for anyone to carry at any time) [shortened].

2) Quoting Kachalsky, which is a farce of aruling in the 2CA. The judge there ruled on the lines of militia being military where Heller states otherwise and that the 2A is for hunting and that handguns aren't used for hunting, which goes against NYS' own laws for hunting which has handgun provisions.

3) "good cause" is a widely accepted standard, except that it is not the standard within 41 states.

4) "Good and substantial reason" does not burden constitutional standards, even though they have been repeatedly shot down when used for abridging the 1A.

5) "In the home only" blah blah blah. I think we all know how that one goes.

6) *** is up with the 16th and 17th century English law references?! The constitution was a far cry from the Magna Carta in scope and precedence. I'm still trying to wrap my head around these citations.

7) LCAV tries to argue that the 2A should not be expanded upon, but the SCOTUS drastically expanded on the scope when it turned from the previously used "collective right" to the more expansive "individual right".


The historical scholars Amicus Brief was interesting, but I'm wondering about the actual precedents set forth by him as to how it actually pertains to historical perspective. For instance, he quotes that Jefferson tried to put forth a law that limited people from carrying in order to combat poaching. "Put forth" would not be the same as "passed". Further, I see not historical analysis of the plethora of information that showed that founding fathers would not agree with modern gun control laws. For instance, how does one agree that militia is the intent, yet AWB's and magazine capacity limits are still laws in some states. He also skips two other parts: hunting and modern pistols on the battleground. Both are disproven against their rather cloistered look into the 2A. Modern pistols are indeed used for hunting in most, if not all, areas of the country. Because of significant advancements within the firearms industry, pistols are much more powerful and accurate compared with their smooth bore forebears. On the modern battlefield, pistols have become ever-present. If one were to argue the militia intent (which was of course STRUCK DOWN), then this too must be ignored because in today's world, the pistol is still used for combat.

In summation, the state and their amicii attempt to put a historical spin on the framers intent without any modern context to the RKBA, never mind the actual recent rulings from the SCOTUS that affirms that the 2A was HISTORICALLY to be considered "to keep and carry in case of confrontation".
SilverBulletZ06 is offline  
Old June 23, 2012, 07:58 AM   #135
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
What we are seeing, to a lessor extent, are the same arguments used to argue against Heller. We saw the same thing in McDonald, if you remember.

At the end of the day, when all of your well played arguments no longer hold sway, when your ideology has been thoroughly trashed, what can you do?

You re-argue your case with all the tired old arguments that you had used before. Hoping against all hope that this time, the outcome will be different.

Don Quixote would be proud!

Not to be left out, the Brady's filed an amicus late last night (they were having money problems and had to have a fund raiser to do this). Thanks again to Krucam, over at MDShooters, who checked the docket early this AM.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf CA4 Woollard Brady Amicus.pdf (151.0 KB, 9 views)
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old June 23, 2012, 11:53 AM   #136
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 379
Brady Campaign's opening argument:

"Don't look too closely at the Second Amendment - it's scary uncharted territory and we won't like what you'll see."
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old June 23, 2012, 04:41 PM   #137
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,370
The government has done the research for us, and it's all available on the internet.

In 2004, then AG Ashcroft commissioned a study on whether the 2nd Amendment secured an individual right to keep and bear arms. His conclusion, supported by exhaustive research, was "Yes."

http://www.justice.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

Twenty years before that, the United States Senate commissioned its own study of the 2nd Amendment, published in February 1982. This report also concluded that the RKBA is and always has been an individual right.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

Thus, for the anti-gun crew to continually claim that the Heller and McDonald decisions are the acts of an "activist" court, rewriting and undoing hundreds of years of precedent, is quite simply a flat-out lie.

These two studies can be found on the Internet but there have been multiple attempts to make them disappear. I long ago downloaded them onto my hard drive, and it's interesting that where I was able to find them today is NOT where I found them when I first copied them. Since there's no way to know how long they will stay available, I would strongly suggest that each of you who is interested in this (and if you weren't interested you probably wouldn't be reading this thread) download both reports and maintain your own copies. If we all do that, they can never be made to completely disappear.

And be sure to tell other people about them. The Senate report was 30 years ago, AG Ashcroft's report was 8 years ago. How many of you even knew of their existence?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 23, 2012, 05:00 PM   #138
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,085
Quote:
And be sure to tell other people about them. The Senate report was 30 years ago, AG Ashcroft's report was 8 years ago. How many of you even knew of their existence?
This is the first I've heard of either, and I've been watching this issue pretty close for 25 years.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old June 23, 2012, 06:21 PM   #139
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,370
^^^ Case in point.

The Ashcroft report is meticulously researched and chock full or legal citations. Any attorney in a pro RKBA case who isn't citing it as a persuasive authority just isn't doing his job.

It's 107 pages long. Here's the conclusion:

Quote:
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment’s operative clause, setting out a “right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution’s structure. The Amendment’s prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England’s Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment’s ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require.
So much for the "historians."
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 26, 2012, 09:12 AM   #140
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,068
I started reading the Brady brief. I am immediately struck by this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amici Curiae The Brady Center, etc.
Amicus brings a broad and deep perspective to the issues raised here and has a compelling interest in ensuring that the Second Amendment does not impede reasonable governmental action to prevent gun violence.
(Emphasis supplied)

A compelling interest in "ensuring that the Second Amendment does not impede" reasonable governmental action?!?!?

[sarcasm]Don't let that pesky Constitution get in the way of our plans. [/sarcasm]
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old June 26, 2012, 09:27 AM   #141
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,068
Thanks, AB. I didn't know about those reports, either, and they look like a good read.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old June 26, 2012, 06:00 PM   #142
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
Thanks, AB. I didn't know about those reports, either, and they look like a good read.
You're quite welcome, Counselor. Enjoy the reading, I think it'll be interesting. And I hope these two reports get more play and more publicity, because WE paid for them and there have been (apparently) concerted efforts over the years to make them disappear. We can't allow that to happen.

And we should be grateful that, for once (actually, for twice), our government used our tax dollars to perform a non-partisan task in a non-partisan manner, and both times it seems they did it well. I confess that I have not re-read either for a very long time, but my recollection from when I first encountered them was that they were fairly exhaustively researched and the evidence set forth in both reports is difficult to refute. Taken together, they appear to me to offer a formidable argument in support of the 2nd Amendment as both an individual right, and a right to keep and bear arms essentially without restriction.

Which, of course, happens to be exactly what the 2nd Amendment says. What a coincidence.

I encourage anyone and everyone who sees this thread to both bookmark and download these two reports. As I've said, they have long since disappeared from the respective sites where I first found them. They are currently accessible on the Internet if you know they exist and go looking for them, but it very much seems to me that various entities have been trying hard to keep them from public knowledge. The fact that so few people even on this forum were aware of them suggests that the effort to keep the reports from the light of day has largely been successful.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 29, 2012, 01:53 PM   #143
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
Just so we know what's coming, here's briefing schedule for Woolard at CA4:
Appendix/Opening Brief: 6/15/2012 - done
Optional, Amici for Appellants: 6/22/2012 - done
Pltf Response Brief: 7/16/2012
Optional, Amici for Appelles: 7/23/2012
MD Reply Brief: 7/30/2012
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old June 30, 2012, 10:40 AM   #144
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amici Curiae The Brady Center, etc.
Amicus brings a broad and deep perspective to the issues raised here and has a compelling interest in ensuring that the Second Amendment does not impede reasonable governmental action to prevent gun violence.
How can anyone who writes such drivel look themselves in the mirror?
Davey is online now  
Old July 2, 2012, 11:03 AM   #145
rts99
Member
 
Join Date: April 20, 2012
Posts: 40
Judge Legg

So has Judge Legg decided to maintain his temporary stay until after the 4th Circuit rules? I was expecting an official ruling for or against the temporary stay before the end of June. So much for expectations.......

Last edited by rts99; July 2, 2012 at 02:55 PM.
rts99 is offline  
Old July 2, 2012, 01:26 PM   #146
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
It was commonly accepted that the Judge might rule sooner, rather than later. Those of us that thought this (myself included) were wrong.

There is nothing on PACER, as of 5 minutes before this post, to indicate that Judge Legg has ruled on the stay. AFAIK, the ruling to continue or lift the stay is still pending.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 2, 2012, 11:52 PM   #147
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
A bit more from the CA4 docket.

Quote:
06/25/2012 38 Corrected AMICUS CURIAE/INTERVENOR BRIEF by Amici Supporting Appellant American College of Preventive Medicine and American Public Health Association in electronic and paper format. Type of Brief: Amicus Curiae. Method of Filing Paper Copies: courier. Date Paper Copies Mailed, Dispatched, or Delivered to Court: 06/21/2012. [998881891] [12-1437] Jennifer DeRose

06/25/2012 39 ORDER filed [998881933] granting filing of amicus curiae brief (FRAP 29(e)) Party added: Legal Historians. Copies to all parties. [12-1437] (DL)

06/25/2012 40 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS (Local Rule 26.1) by Amicus Supporting Appellant Legal Historians. Was any question on Disclosure Form answered yes? No [998881949] [12-1437] (DL)

06/25/2012 41 DOCKETING FORMS FOLLOW-UP NOTICE ISSUED to Erin Murphy for Amicus Supporting Appellant Legal Historians, Dwight William Stone, II for Amicus Supporting Appellant Legal Historians and Mr. Andrew Clayton White for Amicus Supporting Appellant Legal Historians re: filing of appearance form (Loc.R. 46(g)). Appearance form due on 06/28/2012 from Erin Murphy, Dwight William Stone II and Andrew Clayton White. Mailed to: Erin Murphy. [12-1437] (DL)

06/25/2012 42 ORDER filed [998881986] granting filing of amicus curiae brief (FRAP 29(e)) Party added: Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Maryland Chiefs of Police Association, International Brotherhood of Police Officers and Major Cities Chiefs Association. Copies to all parties. Mailed to: Erin Murphy, Jonathan Lowy, Daniel Vice, S. Chartey Quarcoo, Matthew Sullivan. [12-1437] (DL)

06/25/2012 43 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS (Local Rule 26.1) by Amici Supporting Appellant Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Major Cities Chiefs Association and Maryland Chiefs of Police Association. Was any question on Disclosure Form answered yes? No [998881996] [12-1437] (DL)

06/25/2012 44 DOCKETING FORMS FOLLOW-UP NOTICE ISSUED to Jonathan Lee Diesenhaus for Amici Supporting Appellant Maryland Chiefs of Police Association, International Brotherhood of Police Officers and Major Cities Chiefs Association, Mr. Jonathan Elias Lowy for Amicus Supporting Appellant Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, S. Chartey Quarcoo for Amici Supporting Appellant Maryland Chiefs of Police Association, International Brotherhood of Police Officers and Major Cities Chiefs Association, Matthew C. Sullivan for Amici Supporting Appellant Maryland Chiefs of Police Association, International Brotherhood of Police Officers and Major Cities Chiefs Association and Daniel R. Vice for Amicus Supporting Appellant Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence re: filing of appearance form (Loc.R. 46(g)). Appearance form due on 06/28/2012 from Jonathan Lee Diesenhaus, Jonathan Elias Lowy, S. Chartey Quarcoo, Matthew C. Sullivan and Daniel R. Vice. Mailed to: Jonathan Lowy, Erin Murphy, W. Chartey Quarcoo, Matthew Sullivan, Daniel Vice. [12-1437] (DL)

06/25/2012 46 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF (PAPER) file-stamped, on behalf of American College of Preventive Medicine and American Public Health Association. Number of pages: [29]. Entered on Docket Date: 06/25/2012.[998882050] [12-1437] (DL)

06/25/2012 47 APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL (Local Rule 46(c)) by Jonathan L. Diesenhaus for Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.[998882251] [12-1437] Jonathan Diesenhaus
If you followed the above, the original 6/22 doc #25 was stricken and a corrected amicus brief, doc #38, was entered. Whatever caused it to be "locked" was removed/corrected/omitted.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 4, 2012, 08:57 PM   #148
SilverBulletZ06
Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2012
Posts: 32
I really don't know why I keep reading these individually. I don't think I have seen a new shred of evidence or argument since Masciandaro.

The sad part is that in many cases the same old argument has been upheld. I'm interested more in the reply briefs and amicus to see what they say now that there has been a large positive ruling for the 2A.
SilverBulletZ06 is offline  
Old July 4, 2012, 10:36 PM   #149
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, IA, WA
Posts: 1,275
Quote:
The sad part is that in many cases the same old argument has been upheld.
Which is why they keep using the same old argument -- because it works. Moreover, it creates precedent, which means it will work on other similar cases in the future.

Until the Supreme Court steps in and cuts them off at the knees!
__________________
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 personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old July 6, 2012, 07:18 PM   #150
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
We all know, or should know, that Alan Gura has a busy month ahead of him. Enough so that he has requested a 2 week extension to file his response brief in Woollard.

Quote:
07/05/2012 50 MOTION by Appellees Second Amendment Foundation, inc. and Raymond Woollard to extend filing time for response brief until 07/30/2012, reply until 08/22/2012. Date and method of service: 07/05/2012 ecf. [998888474] [12-1437] Alan Gura

07/05/2012 51 ORDER filed [998888873] granting Motion to extend filing time 14 days [50], updating/ resuming briefing order deadlines. Response brief due 07/30/2012. Copies to all parties.Mailed to: Erin Murphy. [12-1437] (DL)

07/05/2012 52 DOCKETING FORMS FOLLOW-UP NOTICE ISSUED to Erin Murphy for Amicus Supporting Appellant Legal Historians, Dwight William Stone, II for Amicus Supporting Appellant Legal Historians and Mr. Andrew Clayton White for Amicus Supporting Appellant Legal Historians re: filing of appearance form (Loc.R. 46(g)). Appearance form due on 07/10/2012 from Erin Murphy, Dwight William Stone II and Andrew Clayton White. Mailed to: Erin Murphy. [12-1437] (DL)
This was almost immediately granted by the court (doc #51).

Additionally, attorneys for appellant amicus Legal Historians have filed forms to appear at the orals (doc #52).

So the current timeline is:
Plaintiff Response Brief: 7/30/2012
Optional, Amici for Appelles: 8/6/2012
MD Reply Brief: 8/22/2012
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.17850 seconds with 8 queries