The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 16, 2013, 03:13 PM   #201
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,238
As to California: there are two cases pending before the 9th Circuit and they're very cool in their own right. And with Kachalski dead they can't delay for much longer.

Two different Federal judges came to the same conclusions in NorCal and SoCal: "concealed carry can be restricted to may-issue so long as unloaded open carry remains legal". And then after those two judges ruled, the morons at the California legislature banned unloaded open carry...handing the 9th Circuit a horrible hot potato!

We've also got a 9th Circuit/Hawaii-based case...dunno status on that.
__________________
Jim March

Last edited by Vanya; April 16, 2013 at 03:25 PM. Reason: corrected spelling.
Jim March is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 04:18 PM   #202
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 201
Not to get too far off track, but some people have the impression there's favorable and unfavorable circuits. Each panel is 3 judges out of a minimum of 11(the 9th has 30 something). It's the luck of the draw. Woollard in the 4th circuit, considered a conservative court because of the states encompassed, got 2 Clinton and 1 Obama appointee. Peruta in the 9th, however, got 2 GOP appointed judges. We have to remember the best way to SCOTUS is a circuit split, and that includes losing at least 1 case.

Woollard was just denied en banc(no suprise), so now 90 days to petition SCOTUS. Gura will obviously wait to see how IL shakes out, but it seems unlikely IL will push at this late stage. This also gives time for Peruta and Muller to get decided and get an official split.
press1280 is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 04:38 PM   #203
smoking357
Junior Member
 
Join Date: November 27, 2012
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim March
Madigan therefore is sitting on a very bad hand. She can appeal to the US Supremes and likely hand us gunnies a powerful win, or she lets the 7th Circuit ruling stand in which case we get either strong shall-issue or Vermont Carry in a matter of months.
She's sitting on an excellent hand. She can safely ignore the 7th, because it has no enforcement powers, and Obama isn't going to help them out. Illinois is lost.

In the interim, the Illinois legislature can pass a carbon copy of New York's law, and Madigan can call the state in compliance and drag things out another couple years. If Posner goes to war with the 2nd Circuit with a stark break, the Supreme Court will likely take the case, but Roberts likes guns in theory, but not in practice, so this doesn't end well.

Don't win cases. Win elections.
smoking357 is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 04:42 PM   #204
smoking357
Junior Member
 
Join Date: November 27, 2012
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris
In order to win, we have to fight where the battles take us. That is, in every case, unfriendly districts and unfriendly circuits.
That's a strategy destined for failure, with negative consequences so great that rights in favorable jurisdictions are harmed.

If you want guns, move to where guns are welcome. You can't have it both ways.

Quote:
And you are who, to tell everyone else to stop bringing cases?
I'm the guy who's right. I'm the guy who knows how this works. Which guy are you?

Quote:
Or, are you here just to stir the pot?
The "pot" is gun rights, and I'm not the one stirring that up. The "pot" is not this stage or an ego war.
smoking357 is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 06:28 PM   #205
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,238
Quote:
She's sitting on an excellent hand. She can safely ignore the 7th, because it has no enforcement powers, and Obama isn't going to help them out. Illinois is lost.
Like hell.

If local law enforcement is ordered to disobey a federal civil rights ruling...well "stuff" just got very, very real.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 06:32 PM   #206
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,343
Quote:
She's sitting on an excellent hand. She can safely ignore the 7th, because it has no enforcement powers, and Obama isn't going to help them out. Illinois is lost.
Off the top of my head, I don't recall if the case included a general injunction against enforcing the current law. If so, the federal courts can enforce their injunction through the use of their contempt powers, up to and including throwing people, or at least politicians, in jail.

If the case didn't include a general injunction, a separate suit could be brought if Illinois continues to enforce the law. In addition, every time local government, or individual acting under color of state law (including police) enforced that law, they could be sued for violating 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 (violation of civil rights) for damages and attorney fees. All of this would be in federal court and, believe me, a few hefty judgments would take care of the problem. None of this would require President Obama's assistance.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 06:40 PM   #207
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoking357
...I'm the guy who knows how this works....
If you know how things work, what have you ever actually accomplished?
__________________
Formerly known as fiddletown
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 08:24 PM   #208
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoking357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al
And you are who, to tell everyone else to stop bringing cases?
I'm the guy who's right. I'm the guy who knows how this works. Which guy are you?
I'm the guy who wrote an article that was published in Feb. 2007 that spelled out what the Court would do in Heller. What exactly have you done?
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 08:19 AM   #209
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 365
The Kachalski denial seems to have had an immediate effect on Illinois politics

Anti-gun lawmakers in Illinois introduced a may-issue carry bill in the form of an amendment - House Floor Amendment #1 to HB0831

It didn't take them long to choose the "may issue" strategy.

I noticed the Illinois / Moore thread was closed so I thought I'd put this here.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 08:25 AM   #210
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,957
Quote:
Anti-gun lawmakers in Illinois introduced a may-issue carry bill in the form of an amendment - House Floor Amendment #1 to HB0831

It didn't take them long to choose the "may issue" strategy.

I noticed the Illinois / Moore thread was closed so I thought I'd put this here.
I'd guess they had that bill drafted before the ink in Posner's signature was dry and have just been waiting for some optimal moment within the deadline to unveil it.
csmsss is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 10:12 AM   #211
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,276
The Moore Thread is not closed! See Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7) - Page 20 - The Firing Line Forums
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 10:52 AM   #212
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 365
I must be losing my mind... I could have sworn the thread was closed
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 12:28 PM   #213
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 533
Not to worry Luger, I found it.

It should arrive in tomorrow's post...
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 02:23 PM   #214
Willie D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Posts: 1,112
Was just reading this article on Kachalsky and was wondering if this dim view of Alan Gura is widely held? I don't know much about him but I've seen his name referenced reverentially plenty of times on 2A forums ("Gura says...").

I'm not ready to make an opinion based on one article but this one - written by another 2A Lawyer - seems to suggest that Gura isn't the man for the job.




http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...-Take-Next-One
Willie D is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 03:22 PM   #215
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,065
He's won two court cases in front of the Supreme Court.

I think the two big ones, too. Heller and McDonald not?

Edit: Which, if I am remembering right, means he got the 2A to be an individual right incorporated against the States.
JimDandy is online now  
Old April 17, 2013, 04:51 PM   #216
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,468
Quote:
I'm not ready to make an opinion based on one article but this one - written by another 2A Lawyer - seems to suggest that Gura isn't the man for the job.
If Kuklowski has a better candidate for the job, I'm all ears.

As Jim pointed out, Gura knows what he's doing, and he's been a spectacular advocate. He won the biggest 2A case in pretty much forever, and he followed it with a second a year later.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 05:32 PM   #217
Willie D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Posts: 1,112
Quote:
He's won two court cases in front of the Supreme Court.

I think the two big ones, too. Heller and McDonald not?

Edit: Which, if I am remembering right, means he got the 2A to be an individual right incorporated against the States.

But if you read the article in my post, the author suggests that the amicus briefs played a bigger role in Heller and that Gura's in-court performance wasn't up to snuff.


Again, I'm not making an arguement here, I'm just seeing if this opinion of Gura is an isolated thing.
Willie D is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 05:42 PM   #218
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,276
The writer, Ken Klukowski, wrote the following:

Quote:
McDonald was a three-way argument, where legal superstar Paul Clement argued for the NRA. Clement’s argument was flawless (as usual), and easily won the case. By contrast, not a single justice out of the nine--liberal or conservative--voted in favor of Gura’s argument.
Did he forget Justice Thomas' concurring opinion, wherein Thomas wrote that the P or I clause (of the 14th - and thereby overturning Slaughterhouse, which everyone agrees should have been overturned) was in fact the right way to find for the plaintiffs? Remembering that without Justice Thomas' concurrence, the case would have been lost is a fact that an able attorney would have made note of... Unless you have an agenda.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 06:50 PM   #219
smoking357
Junior Member
 
Join Date: November 27, 2012
Posts: 14
Gura is selling hope, and that's what many here want. They desperately want to think that they'll be able to carry a gun on the streets of Los Angeles and New York City, and they'll back anyone who smokes that pipe with them.

I heard Professor Lund's argument in person, and it was, indeed, brilliant, economical, justifiable and correct.

For now, the folks at SAF and especially CalGuns must STOP! filing lawsuits, as these are destined for adverse rulings or hopefully only dismissal with prejudice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
If Kuklowski has a better candidate for the job, I'm all ears.
Let the NRA lead and give the orders. Just because you want there to be legal action doesn't mean there should be legal action.

Note: Gura has done much work, advanced many strong arguments, and raised much awareness for this right. He deserves a great deal of credit and gratitude.

When his client poses with a big check, however, it taints the movement. When Gura deliberately omits open carry arguments, some question his motives.

Last edited by smoking357; April 17, 2013 at 08:23 PM.
smoking357 is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 06:57 PM   #220
smoking357
Junior Member
 
Join Date: November 27, 2012
Posts: 14
Some of the comments were interesting. I saw Charles Nichols posted. While he may lose his case, as he's in California, at least he's presenting a clear, complete and correct argument.
smoking357 is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 11:31 PM   #221
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,273
Quote:
Let the NRA lead and give the orders.
They are not perfect. If someone has a sound case, with good arguments, they should present it. I seem to remember that happening with a security guard in D.C., and the NRA initially didn't want to press the case.
raimius is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 09:14 AM   #222
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,065
Quote:
They are not perfect. If someone has a sound case, with good arguments, they should present it. I seem to remember that happening with a security guard in D.C., and the NRA initially didn't want to press the case.
Wasn't that the Heller case that ended up getting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms an individual right, that the NRA didn't want to lead us to?

And gave us In the Common Use For Lawful Purposes used as part of the floor argument against the AWB amendment to S.649?

The SAF and the NRA approach the "problem" from two different ends. Neither is perfect, neither should be the sole avenue for redress. Both will have victories and losses. Both can nullify the other's loss- either through legislative mooting of a judicial case, or judicial challenge to a legislative misstep.

We need them both, and we need them to work together.
JimDandy is online now  
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 10:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13551 seconds with 8 queries