View Single Post
Old October 31, 2010, 11:59 AM   #84
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,540
Thanks for that, Maestro. When I looked Friday, none of this was showing up. I should know better, and should have looked yesterday (folks, this is why it's important to have more than one set of eyes looking at these things).

If you were to read the opinion of Judge Kendall in denying the injunction (item #77 on the docket, and at the link Maestro gave), you will see where she is implicitly siding with the City on all accounts, even to the granting of the MTD by the City (this is inherent in the way she worded her denial).

The Judge has ignored the body of case law that was presented in the briefs by the plaintiffs and the NRA amicus brief, in favor of mere (almost totally) unsupported opinion by the defendants that there is no right to bear arms, outside the house.

I believe that the 7th Circuit will overturn this decision in part, and grant a preliminary injunction.

Moving on. The opposition reply to the MTD (Item #80 on the docket) is a good read and set outs in explicit terms where the City is wrong on each and every count (and by inference, Judge Kendall herself).

As Judge Kendall has already indicated, she will nevertheless, rule against the plaintiffs, and grant the Motion To Dismiss, by the defendants. Thus, eliminating the preliminary injunction, granted by the Circuit.

This too will be appealed and overturned. Case law is against this Judge.

Should the City be as determined as D.C., they will appeal to the SCOTUS. Cert will be denied and the 7th Circuit opinion remain in force. (cert will be denied, as the issue is not ripe - that so many other cases are waiting in the wings, will not escape the notice of the Court)

All of this will happen within a years time.

What this case establishes, should I be correct, is that bearing arms outside the home is an integral part of the core right. Implicit in that right is to train. That no government can regulate training ranges, to the point they don't exist, most especially if they insist on training as a requirement to license the keeping and/or bearing of arms.

NB: OK, I'm reading this through my crystal ball. Remember, I could be very, very wrong on all accounts. I'm not an attorney, I'm not a law professor. I'm merely an amateur constitutional speculator.
Al Norris is offline  
Page generated in 0.03595 seconds with 7 queries