En banc Decision in Peruta -- a loss

Elliotte · May 17, 2017

danb said:
The hearing might not even be until next Jan or Feb at this point. I'd have to look at the docket. Cases accepted now are probably mid to late term next year.

Best case is probably a ruling next June.

Like Kharn said, the cases that are perceived to be the most controversial, the ruling is often held and released near or at the end of the court term. It is possible for a case to be argued on the first day of arguments for a term and the ruling not released until the last day of the term. In addition to all the public spectacle of it all, it allows the justices and their staff more time to refine their arguments, time for drafts to be passed back and forth (allowing all sides to incorporate the other's arguments and address/counter them), and in theory scour the court records for any trace of related case law that might be impacted or influencing that the sides may not have mentioned.

GlocksAndPatriots · May 17, 2017

jcutonilli said:
I don't believe the term nobody should be used when talking about totally unrestricted gun rights. "What part of shall not be infringed don't you understand?" There are a number of people that like to say that.

The least burdensome restriction is another name for strict scrutiny. If you argue the case correctly, Heller states (holding 3) that a ban does not survive any of the standard of scrutiny (including intermediate scrutiny). Yet in all of the other CCW and AWB cases, the law survived intermediate scrutiny. Maybe the problem is not the court, but the argument used.

Judge Easterbrook has said a number of things, but he has used at least some evidence. It is completely false to say otherwise. When you are the judge you get to determine how to weight the evidence, until then they do.

What really surprised me about the AWB cases was the lack of data on actual self defense use with these firearms. While there are a few news reports here and there, there is no comprehensive database that details how often they are used for self defense. If you read the "Armed Citizen" in the NRA magazines you will find they rarely specify the type of firearm used. It is not surprising to me that these cases failed. There is no real empirical evidence to support the conclusion that they are commonly used for self defense. With a public safety argument, all that needs to be said is that it is the governments position that these are appropriate for the use.

I didn't say he doesn't "get" to weigh the evidence. I said he did so in bad faith.

GlocksAndPatriots · May 17, 2017

kcbrown said:
That a restriction on the ownership of a device will reduce the number of crimes in which that device is used is almost a tautology. But that's not the question you seem to think the court is asking. The question is whether or not it improves public safety, a question that the claim they're making here does not answer, because it fails to account for the other devices that can be used to accomplish the same ends.

The court here took the government at its word without criticism, and barely any comment, and threw the right under the bus anyway. That is the problem.

Right, and there's no reason to think that it had anything to do with the quality of lawyering from the gun rights side.

frogman68 · May 17, 2017

Re listed for tomorrow

jcutonilli · May 17, 2017

kcbrown said:
Really? Then explain Jackson v San Francisco. Explain the district court's holding in Osterweil v Bartlett.

If your claim is that the core right of self defense will prevail when the facts of the case are identical to those of Heller, then that's not really much of a claim, and not really much of a right, for that matter, is it?

No, the lower courts have determined that the limits of the right have been exceeded due to public safety claims.

Yes, the Court made that claim about scrutiny. But that doesn't make its statement factual. How could it be, if the Court didn't actually subject the law to those standards of scrutiny?

The Court determined that Jackson was not like Heller because it was not an absolute ban. Osterweil addressed a residency issue that was not present in Heller.

An individual right is not much of a right when you deal with societal issues. The courts consistently curtailed individual rights when public safety is the issue. These other individual rights don't get curtailed as often because there is not usually a substantial connection to public safety.

When you exercise the right of self defense you are by definition interacting with society. The government presents the negative aspects of firearms in society. The argument devolves into a he said, she said type of argument over the negative aspects that the courts are not equipped to handle. The courts in Friedman and Kolbe have deferred the weighing of this evidence to the legislature, whom they feel is more equipped to handle this type of argument. The legislature has already weighed the issue in favor of the law.

What you fail to address is that there are very negative societal benefits from relying on the government to provide public safety. If you can demonstrate that there are negative societal benefits from the governments actions you wind up demonstrating that there is not a substantial connection to public safety. This prevents the government from meeting intermediate scrutiny.

I think this is implicit in the Heller opinion. The problem is that it is not explicitly stated. This is because Heller was primarily concerned with an individual vs collective argument and not the public safety aspect.

GlocksAndPatriots · May 17, 2017

jcutonilli said:
The Court determined that Jackson was not like Heller because it was not an absolute ban. Osterweil addressed a residency issue that was not present in Heller.

An individual right is not much of a right when you deal with societal issues. The courts consistently curtailed individual rights when public safety is the issue. These other individual rights don't get curtailed as often because there is not usually a substantial connection to public safety.

When you exercise the right of self defense you are by definition interacting with society. The government presents the negative aspects of firearms in society. The argument devolves into a he said, she said type of argument over the negative aspects that the courts are not equipped to handle. The courts in Friedman and Kolbe have deferred the weighing of this evidence to the legislature, whom they feel is more equipped to handle this type of argument. The legislature has already weighed the issue in favor of the law.

What you fail to address is that there are very negative societal benefits from relying on the government to provide public safety. If you can demonstrate that there are negative societal benefits from the governments actions you wind up demonstrating that there is not a substantial connection to public safety. This prevents the government from meeting intermediate scrutiny.

I think this is implicit in the Heller opinion. The problem is that it is not explicitly stated. This is because Heller was primarily concerned with an individual vs collective argument and not the public safety aspect.

With all due respect, you just don't get it. We recognize that there are negative effects to guns. Nobody disputes that. I am arguing that the legislatures have "weighed" the evidence, which implies in good faith. In any event, it's exactly the job of the courts to second guess legislatures when their actions implicate a fundamental right. There's no principled reason the 2nd Amendment deserves full deference of the legislature when no other does.

jcutonilli · May 17, 2017

GlocksAndPatriots said:
With all due respect, you just don't get it. We recognize that there are negative effects to guns. Nobody disputes that. I am arguing that the legislatures have "weighed" the evidence, which implies in good faith. In any event, it's exactly the job of the courts to second guess legislatures when their actions implicate a fundamental right. There's no principled reason the 2nd Amendment deserves full deference of the legislature when no other does.

I don't think you get it. The 2A has nothing to do with the negative effects of guns. It is about how society protects itself and who is supposed to provide that protection. You agree with me about pubic safety curtailing individual rights, yet you tell me I don't get it when I tell you that is what the courts have been doing. It is not my opinion, it is the court and legislature opinion. I am trying to get people to understand public safety can't curtail public safety because it is not logical. It is a really hard job.

The legislature did weigh the evidence and found that it should put restrictions on guns. The court looked at what the legislature did and found that it appropriately weighed enough evidence to justify the restrictions. It is not the courts job to second guess the legislature. It is the courts job to determine if the boundaries of the law have been violated. They try and uphold what the legislature/congress legislates as evidenced by the Roberts decision upholding Obamacare and all the 2A cases.

GlocksAndPatriots · May 17, 2017

jcutonilli said:
I don't think you get it. The 2A has nothing to do with the negative effects of guns. It is about how society protects itself and who is supposed to provide that protection. You agree with me about pubic safety curtailing individual rights, yet you tell me I don't get it when I tell you that is what the courts have been doing. It is not my opinion, it is the court and legislature opinion. I am trying to get people to understand public safety can't curtail public safety because it is not logical. It is a really hard job.

The legislature did weigh the evidence and found that it should put restrictions on guns. The court looked at what the legislature did and found that it appropriately weighed enough evidence to justify the restrictions. It is not the courts job to second guess the legislature. It is the courts job to determine if the boundaries of the law have been violated. They try and uphold what the legislature/congress legislates as evidenced by the Roberts decision upholding Obamacare and all the 2A cases.

LOL. I'm done here.

swinokur · May 17, 2017

lawyers arguing.

good stuff.

jcutonilli · May 17, 2017

swinokur said:
lawyers arguing.

good stuff.

Lawyers loosing

MD AWB
DC AWB
NY AWB
CT AWB
Highland Park AWB
CO Magazine Limit
SF Storage Ordinance
MD CCW
NJ CCW
CA CCW
etc

NOT GOOD

jbrown50 · May 18, 2017

Public safety is the new collectivist code phrase. The phrase implies that their actions are about protecting us, the public, when it's really not but the naïve general public soaks it up because it sounds good.

Individuals make up the public so individual safety is public safety but the collectivists are using the phrase as a façade. What they really mean is protection of the elites (them), their way of life, and the infrastructure surrounding them.

ironpony · May 18, 2017

After reading this thread I may not be able to use IANAL any longer! sarcasm

Inigoes · May 18, 2017

ironpony said:
After reading this thread I may not be able to use IANAL any longer! sarcasm

But did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

Kharn · May 18, 2017

jcutonilli said:
Lawyers loosing

MD AWB
DC AWB
NY AWB
CT AWB
Highland Park AWB
CO Magazine Limit
SF Storage Ordinance
MD CCW
NJ CCW
CA CCW
etc

NOT GOOD

If we've loosed them, we can catch them again.

swinokur · May 18, 2017

the cases were in MD, CA, NJ, CT, NY and DC. no surprise.

The only surprise was CO, which is now full of CA libs.

777GSOTB · May 18, 2017

jcutonilli said:
Lawyers loosing

MD AWB
DC AWB
NY AWB
CT AWB
Highland Park AWB
CO Magazine Limit
SF Storage Ordinance
MD CCW
NJ CCW
CA CCW
etc

NOT GOOD

MD AWB...Not using AW for self-defense=No damage to right.
DC AWB...Not using AW for self-defense=No damage to right.
NY AWB...Not using AW for self-defense=No damage to right.
CT AWB...Not using AW for self-defense=No damage to right.
Highland Park AWB..Not using AW for self-defense=No damage to right.
CO Magazine Limit...Not using firearm/magazine for self-defense=No damage to right.
SF Storage Ordinance...No arrest under statute=No damage to right.
MD CCW...No protected right to CCW=No damage to right.
NJ CCW...No protected right to CCW=No damage to right.
CA CCW...No protected right to CCW=No damage to right.

Caetano v Mass...Using stun-gun for self-defense and arrested=Damage to right...Winner, winner, chicken dinner. :party29:

DanGuy48 · May 18, 2017

777GSOTB said:
MD AWB...Not using AW for self-defense=No damage to right.
DC AWB...Not using AW for self-defense=No damage to right.
NY AWB...Not using AW for self-defense=No damage to right.
CT AWB...Not using AW for self-defense=No damage to right.
Highland Park AWB..Not using AW for self-defense=No damage to right.
CO Magazine Limit...Not using firearm/magazine for self-defense=No damage to right.
SF Storage Ordinance...No arrest under statute=No damage to right.
MD CCW...No protected right to CCW=No damage to right.
NJ CCW...No protected right to CCW=No damage to right.
CA CCW...No protected right to CCW=No damage to right.

Caetano v Mass...Using stun-gun for self-defense and arrested=Damage to right...Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

How are MD, NJ and CA CCW restrictions not damaging to the right? Any infringement on a right is damaging it seems to me.

jcutonilli · May 18, 2017

Kharn said:
If we've loosed them, we can catch them again.

Know courts don't like to here loose cases. Makes them two difficult two catch.

Next you are going to tell me that potatoo does not end with too o's

ironpony · May 18, 2017

Inigoes said:
But did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

Actually one of my favorite lines.

pcfixer · May 18, 2017

DanGuy48 said:
Any infringement on a right is damaging it seems to me.

Exactly.!! I'm not going to ask permission on what type of firearm I can buy. AR or otherwise. I'm not going to ask permission to carry a pistol for self defense and not going to ask permission to defend myself.

En banc Decision in Peruta -- a loss

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Banned

Banned

товарищ плачевная

Ultimate Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

Banned

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Member

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics