The Firing Line Forums

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

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 8, 2018, 10:58 PM   #51
Senior Member
Join Date: October 6, 2014
Posts: 637
We need a federal carry license. Too many states with too many different laws
Dano4734 is offline  
Old November 9, 2018, 09:52 AM   #52
Senior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 682
Originally Posted by Dano4734
We need a federal carry license. Too many states with too many different laws
That's my view, but sadly it seems half of the people supporting gun rights have a knee-jerk response against any action at the federal level, fearing that antis will use it to restrict their rights. As if the antis ever needed any such incentive to pass restrictive gun laws at the federal level, and we are now seeing Pelosi calling for just that.

This is why we lose, if we refuse to step forward at the federal level the only possible direction to go is backward. Until even those of us in the "good" states are affected by draconian gun laws. We are our own worst enemy, as soon as you concede an enumerated Constitutional right as really a states' rights issue we have lost, because the antis don't feel that way at all.
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old Yesterday, 09:00 AM   #53
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,885
the en banc response was filed
So what does it all mean/say?
steve4102 is offline  
Old Yesterday, 10:36 AM   #54
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 11,173
The response isn't a decision, it's just the appellant's brief stating why he doesn't think the state has a case. Basically, the appellant argues that there isn't really a circuit split on this issue (as the state argued), and therefore the state is "estopped" (prohibited) from appealing the decision.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old Today, 05:55 AM   #55
Spats McGee
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,558
One slight correction to AB's post: The estoppel issue wasn't due to a circuit split or lack thereof. According to the appellant, the State was estopped from arguing what it wanted to on appeal because that position was inconsistent with what they'd argued before. A party can't spend several years arguing "The law means X," and then turn around on appeal and claim "The law means Not-X."

The quoted scribd link sends me to a removal notice, "due to suspected copyright infringement." The link in Post #50 does not do so.
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old Today, 10:45 AM   #56
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 11,173
Thanks for the correction, Spats. I'm sure I have mentioned before that I'm not a lawyer. Now we see why.

I had the same issue with the links.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old Today, 11:51 AM   #57
Senior Member
Join Date: September 23, 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,878
my limited understanding about this is that the higher court did not decide in favor of the people's right to keep and bear arms; it instead stated that the lower court's ruling is incorrect and that the same court needs to rewrite their version of the law....
JERRYS. is online now  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 03:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07216 seconds with 9 queries