SAF SUES IN MARYLAND OVER HANDGUN PERMIT DENIAL UPDATED 3-5-12

wjackcooper said:

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/Peruta-Opening-Brief-20110523.pdf

Jack

Click to expand...

EVOIXGSR said:

Yeah, so what's the latest with the case? I can't read through the last 5 pages of innuendo, legalese, and conjecture.

Click to expand...

Afield said:

I don't mean to be a concern troll, but there is a derail kinda starting in this thread

Click to expand...

Inigoes said:

Might be a bit of that stuff, until Oral Arguments in July...

Click to expand...

wjackcooper said:

Looks like I caused a lot of confusion. I stand corrected.

Sorry about that.

Jack

Click to expand...

krucam said:

Are you suggesting you don't want to be eaten?

Click to expand...

Kharn said:

Two weeks.

Click to expand...

wjackcooper said:

Judge Kozinski (before he became Chief Judge) was on target in
his dissent from rehearing en banc in Silveira v. Lockyer, when he said:
Judges know very well how to read the
Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic
to the right being asserted. We have held,
without much ado, that "speech, or . . . the press"
also means the Internet, see Reno v. ACLU, 521
U.S. 844, 138 L. Ed. 2d 874, 117 S. Ct. 2329
(1997), and that "persons, houses, papers, and
effects" also means public telephone booths, see
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 19 L. Ed. 2d
576, 88 S. Ct. 507 (1967). When a particular right
comports especially well with our notions of good
social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices
on elliptical constitutional phrases – or even the
white spaces between lines of constitutional text.
See, e.g., Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 79
F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc), rev'd sub nom.
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 138 L.
Ed. 2d 772, 117 S. Ct. 2258, 117 S. Ct. 2302
(1997). But, as the panel amply demonstrates,
when we're none too keen on a particular
constitutional guarantee, we can be equally
ingenious in burying language that is
incontrovertibly there.
It is wrong to use some constitutional
provisions as spring-boards for major social
change while treating others like senile relatives
to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit
annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution,
we must be consistent in interpreting its
provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence
sympathetic to individual rights, we must give
broad compass to all constitutional provisions
that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take
Case: 07-15763 05/23/2011 Page: 15 of 30 ID: 7761767 DktEntry: 179-1
Plaintiff-Appellants’ Petition for Rehearing Page 9
a more statist approach, we must give all such
provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to
gargantuan proportions while discarding others
like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully
applying the Constitution; it's using our power as
federal judges to constitutionalize our personal
preferences.
Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567 (2003)


Regards

Jack

Click to expand...

yellowsled said:

here we go again... link must have changed...
http://ia600101.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.docket.html

Click to expand...

BerBer5985 said:

Yeah exactly! I'm not reading through the 469 pages to try and track down what's going on. Does anyone have a simple answer?

Click to expand...