|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 6, 2012, 07:52 PM | #151 |
Member
Join Date: March 17, 2012
Posts: 32
|
Gura better chop off the legal historians at the kneecaps or get pro-2A historians on his side. I have a feeling that since the past few Pro-2A rulings have been based on historical precedent they are going to have very weighted words before the court.
|
July 24, 2012, 10:11 AM | #152 | |||||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The Stay Is Lifted!
For the criteria in granting a stay of judgment, pending an appeal, Judge Legg used the following:
Quote:
a. Likelihood of Success Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In a separate order, Judge Legg dissolved the stay to be effective 14 days from the Order. Why 14 days and not immediately? This is a simple consideration to the State. They now have time to file for a stay with the 4th Circuit and for that circuit to makes its determination of granting a stay. The reasonings of Judge Legg in dissolving the stay will be given great weight by the motions panel. Like his ruling, this memorandum of dissolving the stay was well written and I suspect that the State's Motion to Stay the Opinion will be denied. |
|||||
July 24, 2012, 10:19 AM | #153 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Awesome!
Thanks again to you Al for keeping us up to date.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
July 24, 2012, 11:04 AM | #154 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,496
|
We need more judges like this one.
|
July 24, 2012, 04:20 PM | #155 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 11, 2005
Posts: 114
|
I'm flabbergasted!
One more hurdle cleared!!!
|
July 24, 2012, 07:46 PM | #156 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
|
now how long do we have to wait for the 4th to rule?
|
July 24, 2012, 08:51 PM | #157 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Quote:
Too many variables at this point.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
|
July 24, 2012, 10:15 PM | #158 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Monday, the 30th, Alan Gura will file his response to MD's opening brief at the 4th. Monday, Aug. 13th, MD will file its reply brief.
Briefing will be complete at that time and we will await a date for oral arguments. A decision from that could come as soon as Dec. However, there is another factor to all of this. That is a decision in Moore/Shepard from the 7th Circuit. This can and will affect how the 4th might rule, all other things being equal. Why? First, the 7th Circuit is listened to by the rest of the country. It is a prestigious circuit, in and of itself. Secondly, Judge Posner is always listened to. He sits in the center chair of the Moore/Shepard panel. I (and most others) believe he will write the decision. Thirdly, this decision will most likely come out within the next couple of weeks - the spring 2012 session ends on Aug. 8th and the 2012 fall session begins on Sept. 5th - sometime before the beginning of the fall session. While the probable date of the Moore/Shepard is speculation, what is not speculation is that the decision will come out before orals are scheduled for Woollard. The 7th is known for being the "Rocket Docket" among the CCA. While we shouldn't be drinking our own "Kool-Aid," should the decision be in our favor, that will greatly affect what the 4th will do in this case. There is yet one more thing to consider. Should Judge Wilkinson be assigned to the panel that hears Woollard, expect a few fireworks. There is no love lost between him, the Heller five and Alan Gura. Judge Wilkinson has already opined that he believes that the Heller decision was made up out of the whole cloth. He was careful to couch his disrespect in Masciandaro, but it is there, nonetheless. |
July 25, 2012, 05:22 PM | #159 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
OK, with a lot of the variables mentioned by Al, how does this case and Moore/Shepard effect the California cases?
Sorry if this looks like a hijack. But they seem to be running in the same direction from my common man's point of view.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
July 26, 2012, 01:54 AM | #160 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
There are two cases that may or may not reach a decision in the 9th Circuit.
The first is Peruta v. San Diego. The other case is Richards v. Prieto (was Sykes v. McGinness). These cases both challenge the discretionary issue of carry licenses ("good cause"). The Peruta challenge was dismissed on the defendants MSJ. The Judge cited that Unloaded Open Carry (UOC) was enough to satisfy the 2A. The Judge in Richards thereafter ruled much the same. Now however, the law in CA has changed and UOC has been banned. That pretty much moots the opinions of the two Judges. It remains to be seen if the 9th will kick this back to the District Courts. The odds are 50/50 that they will. Enos (the MCDV case) has just started briefing at the 9th. The other CA cases are still at District Court. In other words, I don't think it will have much if any effect. Not for a while, at any rate (hoping I'm wrong). |
July 26, 2012, 06:37 PM | #161 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 30, 2008
Location: Marylandistan
Posts: 262
|
The consensus on Md Shooters is Judge Legg took his sweet time to make sure that his decision will not be overturned.
|
July 27, 2012, 06:52 PM | #162 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
It should not come as any surprise that today the Appellants/Defendants filed their Motion to Stay with the CA4 (I have yet to read it).
Here is the latest CA4 docket: Quote:
|
|
July 27, 2012, 07:09 PM | #163 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Summary:
I. DEFENDANTS ARE LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS, WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM II. DEFENDANTS HAVE A STRONG LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS III. THE LIKELIHOOD OF IRREPARABLE HARM IN THE ABSENCE OF A STAY FAVORS GRANTING A STAY IV. CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL INJURY TO OTHER PARTIES FAVORS GRANTING A STAY V. THE PUBLIC INTEREST FAVORS GRANTING A STAY VI. WE REALLY HATE THAT WE HAD OUR BEHINDS HANDED TO US BY JUDGE LEGG VII. IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN, THE SKY WILL FALL, BLOOD WILL RUN IN THE STREETS, AND OTHER FAMILIAR THEMES Ok, I added, VI and VII myself. Seriously what else can they say? They have to argue the law but I have this sense that it is a perfunctory exersize. May this be quickly denied so Marylanders can finally get to exercising their rights. |
July 27, 2012, 07:29 PM | #164 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I just finished a brief read of the Motion.
This is nothing more than a condensed version of their merits brief (which was a condensed version of all their pleadings at district) combined with their brief at district to continue the stay, all of which Judge Legg found unpersuasive. They have made no new arguments that undercuts Judge Leggs decisions, let alone any argument that Judge Legg abused his discretion in dissolving the stay at district. I expect the Motions Panel to find the same. |
July 27, 2012, 10:43 PM | #165 |
Member
Join Date: March 17, 2012
Posts: 32
|
The courts decision on granting a stay will definitely be the deciding factor on whether or not we will win IMHO. If the court rules that the stay is unwarranted the chances of them finding for the state is going to be near-zero. If they rule the stay is warranted, that constitutional rights can be abridged while a decision is being handed down, it will not bode well for us.
|
July 28, 2012, 02:05 AM | #166 | |
Member
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Posts: 18
|
Quote:
|
|
July 28, 2012, 08:34 AM | #167 |
Member
Join Date: April 20, 2012
Posts: 40
|
While I am delighted with Judge Legg's lifting of the stay I am more than a little surprised it was issued immediately after the tragedy in Colorado. I hope we don't live to regret this.
I also find it disheartening that MD continues to reject citizen's right to self defense, as ruled in Heller, all while providing state officials with personal security at the citizen's expense. Talk about privilege. The police don't prevent crime, they only investigate crime after the fact. But state officials have personal security specifically to prevent crimes against themselves, their families, and their property & possessions. The state continues to deny citizens any defense at all while over-protecting themselves. From us. It's truly absurd. This is one of the principal protections of the 2nd Amendment as ruled in Heller. IMHO. Here's hoping the 4th won't reinstate the stay, but I'm pretty sure they will. Bad timing & too much politics. |
July 30, 2012, 03:06 AM | #168 |
Member
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Posts: 18
|
You know what's funny?
Circuit Appeals court Stay requests are typically accompanied by reasons why a Judge abused his discretion. I searched using Adobe's finder tool, and nothing in there about "abuse of discretion" and the word "discretion" is only in there once. |
July 30, 2012, 09:52 AM | #169 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Gray, I really believe this brief was perfunctory. I'm sure someone will come along to tell me I am naive, but I think they have lost the will to fight this, but they have to appear to be trying.
|
July 30, 2012, 01:44 PM | #170 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Gura's response to the MD merits brief is in. Don't be scared of the length (100 pages), as the first 21 pages are TOC & TOA, and the last 10 are an appendix.
Tomorrow we will see his response to the motion to stay. |
July 30, 2012, 09:19 PM | #171 | ||||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
As always, Alan Gura's writing style is an easy read and settles lightly on the mind. Since the Appellant/Defendant has used most of the same arguments as they did at district court, Mr. Gura uses almost all of the allowable 14K words to rebut not only the State, but some of the State's amici briefs. He doesn't mince words here.
Of the many things he does say, I have to bring one quote to everyone's attention! In showing that the right is not a right bound to the front stoop, by quoting Dred Scott and Cruikshank, Alan Gura goes on to say: Quote:
The above brought several chuckles to my lips and my wife nearly fell off her chair, laughing so hard! In dealing with the amici, the following is typical of his writing style: Quote:
Here, Alan Gura is directly telling the court that the amici Historians have lied to the court. In doing this, it calls into question the validity of any other thing that this amici has said. Next Monday, we will have some amici briefs for the Appelles/Plaintiffs. I noted the following on pp 49-50 (pp 70-71 of the pdf): Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
July 30, 2012, 09:52 PM | #172 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
I've also read Gura's brief at length. The way the man has covered all the bases is phenomenal, and I, too, took particular glee in his debunking of the opposing amici's briefs.
__________________
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 craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
|
July 31, 2012, 09:00 PM | #173 | |||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
By the end of my lunch hour today, I was only halfway through my reading of the Piszczatoski reply brief. I knew that by the time I came home from work, Alan Gura's response to MD's Motion to Stay, would be in. It was, so I have stopped reading the other brief to read this one.
The State filed late Friday afternoon (the 27th). That same day, the CA4 ordered Gura to file a response by the next Tuesday (today). So Carl Hansen and Alan Gura had, at most, 4 days to craft a response, assuming they worked all weekend on the response. Considering Gura had to polish and finish off his reply to the State in the CA4 appeal (Woollard) and also the appeal at CA3 (Piszczatoski - even if David Jensen wrote most of it). So Monday was mostly shot. That brings it down to a mere 3 days. So it does not surprise me that there are some typos and gaffs in this brief. Some are glaring, some are subtle. They are there, nonetheless. Can you find them? Regardless, it does not detract from the brief. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And why shouldn't he? This is a great vehicle to use to deny the stay. Now, back to reading the Piszczatoski reply brief. |
|||
July 31, 2012, 09:36 PM | #174 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,496
|
Quote:
Did they really think he wouldn't check their quotation? |
|
July 31, 2012, 10:12 PM | #175 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
|
Great read, gents, and well worth the time. Laughed a bit at police officers "upholstered" firearms, but I am sure that the Judge will read the context. Gura and associates make me proud. This is going to make the state squirm. Well done.
Willie . |
|
|