VICTORY IN PALMER!!!!

[JoeRinMD]

It would help explain her total disregard for the facts as you pointed out.

is she really that obtuse? or does she have an alternate agenda?

Again, "true believer" comes to mind, with an ability to completely avoid/disregard all evidence and logic that might refute her visceral belief.

JoeR

 

[swinokur]

Just what we're looking for in our judiciary.

impartiality and logic.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

Esqappellate, I am very encouraged and heartened by your insight into the degree of integrity of the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court. I suppose I suspected as much, and I wanted to believe that. To have your firsthand knowledge is indeed encouraging that our system of checks and balances yet functions as intended however maddening the pace. The rash of positive 2A decisions in the past week or so stands as a monument to your point.

The pessimism that I read on here at times borders on a neurosis in my opinion, no matter how much it may be couched in supposedly logical analysis. The noise level of negativity is itself a bias that, at a point, seems to betray its own purported analysis. In my view, your vast and direct experience trumps such "analysis".

Thank you.

We shall see, when the Supreme Court inevitably takes another second amendment case how much deference they will have for their own relatively recent precedent. I suspect they will be far more deferential than some here believe.

 

[Kharn]

She just wanted this out of her court. More judicial cowardice.

sad.

Not sure what you're talking about with this, Judge Frederick Scullin is a man.

 

[swinokur]

Was referring to the judge in Kolbe vs O'Malley, Judge Blake, not Sculin

http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=3517625&postcount=2398

kcbrown, I agree with your thoughts on the perception of bias in the judiciary, especially when a layperson reads something truly specious like Judge Blake's decision in Kolbe.

 

[kcbrown]

Esqappellate, I am very encouraged and heartened by your insight into the degree of integrity of the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court. I suppose I suspected as much, and I wanted to believe that. To have your firsthand knowledge is indeed encouraging that our system of checks and balances yet functions as intended however maddening the pace. The rash of positive 2A decisions in the past week or so stands as a monument to your point.

(emphasis mine)

Careful with that. The desire to believe is precisely what causes people to arrive at erroneous conclusions about that which those beliefs are about.

The pessimism that I read on here at times borders on a neurosis in my opinion, no matter how much it may be couched in supposedly logical analysis.

Analysis is logical or it's not. There is no "supposed" about it. If the logic is faulty, then it will be possible to point out the faults. If it is not, then it stands no matter how pessimistic its conclusions.

The noise level of negativity is itself a bias that, at a point, seems to betray its own purported analysis. In my view, your vast and direct experience trumps such "analysis".

I hope you're right. Like I said, we have two competing predictive hypotheses here, and only one can stand. I will be perfectly happy if mine falls, because I do not like what it portends. But it seems sometimes that I am more willing to stare ruin in the face than most.

We shall see, when the Supreme Court inevitably takes another second amendment case how much deference they will have for their own relatively recent precedent. I suspect they will be far more deferential than some here believe.

And if they do not take another 2nd Amendment case?

At what point will you decide that the Supreme Court is done with the 2nd Amendment? What evidence would convince you of that?

 

[JC92]

When does Congress start talking about DC's gun law? All permanent legislation passed by DC has to be approved by Congress. DC's emergency legislation expires after 90 days, approximately mid-December. This has great potential to advance gun rights across the nation.

 

[swinokur]

Congress returns first week of January. IIRC they have 30 days to disapprove it, assuming they make it permanent in Dec.

Unless Sculin grants the PI and finds DC in contempt.

 

[gruntz03]

What are the chances that the Circuit Court goes against DC for the sole reason that they are pissed at DC for their contempt of a fellow judge's order?
Do they have that kind of institutional team unity?

 

[swinokur]

IMHO, zero. Courts don't work that way.

 

[krucam]

What are the chances that the Circuit Court goes against DC for the sole reason that they are pissed at DC for their contempt of a fellow judge's order?
Do they have that kind of institutional team unity?

That is sort of the gist of Guru's Circuit Motion back on post 2362. As Esq mentioned there's a snowballs chance in Hell of it happening...

 

[gruntz03]

That is sort of the gist of Guru's Circuit Motion back on post 2263. As Esq mentioned there's a snowballs chance in Hell of it happening...

Sorry. I looked, but half of this crap is in latin or something!

 

[esqappellate]

Esqappellate, I am very encouraged and heartened by your insight into the degree of integrity of the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court. I suppose I suspected as much, and I wanted to believe that. To have your firsthand knowledge is indeed encouraging that our system of checks and balances yet functions as intended however maddening the pace. The rash of positive 2A decisions in the past week or so stands as a monument to your point.

The pessimism that I read on here at times borders on a neurosis in my opinion, no matter how much it may be couched in supposedly logical analysis. The noise level of negativity is itself a bias that, at a point, seems to betray its own purported analysis. In my view, your vast and direct experience trumps such "analysis".

Thank you.

We shall see, when the Supreme Court inevitably takes another second amendment case how much deference they will have for their own relatively recent precedent. I suspect they will be far more deferential than some here believe.

Thanks much. People are impatient. I get that totally. And I don't guarantee anything from the DC Circuit, one way or another, as judges are human and KC has a point in his cynicism as he points to the courts that refuse to recognize the right, as defined in Heller and McDonald. But cynicism is too convenient and easy to be accepted as it allows the cynic the excuse to stop thinking and stop pushing (it is hopeless after all). I've been mauled in courts and had my share of losses where the loss was not deserved (sometimes the client deserved to lose). But damn, study the legal systems of other countries in the world for perspective and you'll come away with more appreciation for our time-consuming, very expensive, complex and frustrating system of justice. The little guy can and does win here. All the time. And justice is done a lot more than it is denied. You need only look to Peruta to see a really fine jurist take apart with logic and reason the 2d, 3d and 4th Circuit's decisions. If the cynic is right, Peruta would have been a waste of time to pursue. O'Scannlain is not the only judge like that out there. Read Moore, written by Judge Posner, who was sharply critical of Heller, but nonetheless adhered faithfully to its logic and reasoning. Differing approaches and, yes, judicial resistance all fall comfortably within the bell curve of normal.

The folks here sometimes have short memories (or are too young to remember) the 1950s and the 1960 civil rights struggles. The 2A rights struggle has certainly been met with resistance, judicial and otherwise, especially in blue states where governments seek to control much more than in red states and where the concept of an armed citizen is something very foreign. But, that resistance is nothing compared with the massive resistance in the 60s. MSI has a chart that illustrates over time the truly amazing trend of the states in enacting CCW permit statutes. We have come a long way with multiple routes. That now includes Illinois, the bluest of the blue states, courtesy of both the 7th Circuit but also a lot of folks in Illinois that blocked Chicago and the state executive when they actually had to respond to the 7th Circuit's ruling in Moore. Let's count our blessings. With only 5 of my 7 permits, I can now drive (with the right route) from the Atlantic to the Pacific and not once disarm. That's an incredible change from a mere 10 years ago, not to mention the 60s and 70s and 80s.

 

[swinokur]

Here it is. Pretty good actually.

 

[kcbrown]

Here it is. Pretty good actually.

Yep. But note that it is a reflection of the legislative views of the states in question, not the courts. For evidence that the courts differ in that respect, one need only look at how the 5th Circuit handled NRA v BATFE and NRA v McCraw.

This is the opposite of how things went down during the civil rights movment. There, the courts took action first and the states fell in line only after the federal legislative and executive branches got heavily involved.


We hope the judiciary eventually follows along. Thus far, with a few (but only a few) notable exceptions, it hasn't.

 

[Brooklyn]

Yep. But note that it is a reflection of the legislative views of the states in question, not the courts. For evidence that the courts differ in that respect, one need only look at how the 5th Circuit handled NRA v BATFE and NRA v McCraw.

This is the opposite of how things went down during the civil rights movment. There, the courts took action first and the states fell in line only after the federal legislative and executive branches got heavily involved.


We hope the judiciary eventually follows along. Thus far, with a few (but only a few) notable exceptions, it hasn't.

Really... the courts gave us Dred Scott first. Then some real 'action' . Then no less than 3 amendments, all ignored by the courts,then some direct action, a body count , a PR campain a power shift and then Brown, and Blake ..

Nearly 100 years after the end of the civil war.. we got the Civil rights act of 1964.

No the courts never really lead... not hardly.

And look up the stonewall riots to get some true perspective on the so called court led gay rights revolution.. the courts lead from behind more often than not...social change first, then agitation then some push politically, then when its safe the court pushes it over the line..

 

[danb]

Yep. But note that it is a reflection of the legislative views of the states in question, not the courts. For evidence that the courts differ in that respect, one need only look at how the 5th Circuit handled NRA v BATFE and NRA v McCraw.

This is the opposite of how things went down during the civil rights movment. There, the courts took action first and the states fell in line only after the federal legislative and executive branches got heavily involved.


We hope the judiciary eventually follows along. Thus far, with a few (but only a few) notable exceptions, it hasn't.

Not exactly. Lots of states have RKBA constitutional amendments (http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm). Sure some were recent (1970) but many were not (Alabama, 1819: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.).

People always say the federal courts (2,3,4) were unanimous until Peruta and Moore, but I think that's misleading. Much of the precedent for interpretation was set at the state level. Much of what's cited in Peruta are state supreme court precedents.

 

[Patrick]

When does Congress start talking about DC's gun law? All permanent legislation passed by DC has to be approved by Congress. DC's emergency legislation expires after 90 days, approximately mid-December. This has great potential to advance gun rights across the nation.

that's the wildcard. emergency legislation dies after 90 days and is not reviewed by Congress. permanent legislation is open to congressional review: 30 days for civil laws and 60 for criminal. most of the gun stuff is criminal. DC has yet to pass (or even consider) permanent legislation on this issue.

looking at Gura's motion, you can see it will slow things down a bit. DC would prefer a stay and no new legislation but that requires the circuit to move for them soon.

do the math then have fun thinking it over. long story short is that DC has a ticking clock and each tick works against it. slowing down the DC Circuit might remove an option from the district's table (doing nothing is an option). whittling down your opponents playbook is always a good thing.

back to Congress: if DC is forced to pass new legislation, then the GOP are going to have the option to review anything DC does ala guns. stretching this out through January opens some doors for action.

nobody knows if Congress will act, or how they would act. DC could be a springboard for bigger action, or something they will avoid entirely. but if the GOP does not act on this issue in the two short years they have the whole Congress, then they are showing they only are playing us for fools. we may all be hillbillies, but this thread shows us to be anything but foolish ones.

 

[swinokur]

DC must pass something permanent by mid December. They don't have a lot of time to do something by my calculations. weeks not months. I assume the 60 day clock starts when permanent legislation is enacted?

Gura's brief should be submitted just days before DC must do something permanent correct? By my calcs, Dec 17th? Gura has to have his reply brief in by Dec 11th?

 

[Patrick]

DC must pass something permanent by mid December. They don't have a lot of time to do something by my calculations. weeks not months. I assume the 60 day clock starts when permanent legislation is enacted?

Gura's brief should be submitted just days before DC must do something permanent correct? By my calcs, Dec 17th? Gura has to have his reply brief in by Dec 11th?

we are getting closer...

question: why must DC pass anything new if the circuit were to stay the decision?

that's what everyone here is missing. DC does not intend go change anything for good. they want to eke in under the clock and avoid permanent legislation.

so is Gura stretching the timetable with his latest motion? will it cause DC to make an permanent change they'd rather avoid?

I honestly don't know and will leave it others to say.

but DC has shown zero inclination to make permanent change. doing so opens possible issues they would rather avoid and makes it more likely congress will intervene (though Congress can intervene anyway, politically it would be more difficult without a new DC law).