Masciandaro was a criminal case from when guns were illegal in national parks, before Heller.
This is about the core right of "Bear", since we already have the keep.
SAF SUES IN MARYLAND OVER HANDGUN PERMIT DENIAL UPDATED 3-5-12
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
Masciandaro was a criminal case from when guns were illegal in national parks, before Heller.
This is about the core right of "Bear", since we already have the keep.
AG Gansler's entire argument is weak at best. It predicates everything on the idea that it is the State's right to regulate the rights of the citizen, when it is absolutely necessary. O.K., when did they declare 'Martial Law'? More compelling, however, is how can you make that claim when clearly denying handguns has NOT made anyone safer! In fact, all statistics prove the contrary. If anything AG Gansler's argument could be used against him, if data proving the absence of firearms increases crime is introduced. You could then say, "AG Gansler, you are absolutely correct, the State DOES have the right to use the most prudent means to defend it's citizenry, however, unlike your supposition, denying law abiding citizens the right to protect themselves has been proven to NOT be the answer". In essence, he doesn't "tie the knot" with his own argument, in that he CAN'T prove that denying handguns has made anyone safer. EPIC FAIL!
ezliving
Besieger
Masciandaro decision is just awful. Sickening.
Yes, and it came from a lower court. Talk about "cherry picking".
Dan-o
fly in the wall
Ok, its out! Does the state have anything with Masciandaro argument?
Al Norris
Spud Head
Anyone remember the discussion about Judge Wilkinson and his animus to the 2A (and with Scalia in particular)?
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
Masciandaro set the law of the land in the Fourth, for now. Judge Legg really has little choice but to follow it, and Gansler made that clear. If Legg were to chart his own path he would be fairly accused of judicial activism. If we expect courts to follow rulings in our favor, we should not be shocked to learn they also follow jurisprudence when it is not in our interests, either.
Masciandaro could be appealed, or it someone could request an en banc review. The en banc would have the effect of "pulling" the case from the record until the full panel hears it. That means much of Gansler's current brief falls apart.
Someone better hope those NRA and SAF donations make their way to Masciandaro soon.
And in any case, we should expect this to lose in the District anyway. I like to be hopeful, but the fact is all these cases are meant to drive up to SCOTUS. They don't generally get there by winning.
Masciandaro could be appealed, or it someone could request an en banc review. The en banc would have the effect of "pulling" the case from the record until the full panel hears it. That means much of Gansler's current brief falls apart.
Someone better hope those NRA and SAF donations make their way to Masciandaro soon.
And in any case, we should expect this to lose in the District anyway. I like to be hopeful, but the fact is all these cases are meant to drive up to SCOTUS. They don't generally get there by winning.
Damn Patrick, that was the shortest and least promising post in this topic. 
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
Damn Patrick, that was the shortest and least promising post in this topic.
Not if you always expected to lose this round.
The SAF has described it's strategy as "lose fast". That is why we see so many delaying actions on the way up. Everyone is trying to make it hard on us.
The sooner we lose, the better. Honestly.
Williams has no impact at this stage. If the Supreme Court grants cert after a Woollard loss, it is no big deal. If they don't grant cert on Williams, we still want to lose fast and get to the next level.
Assume Williams is not granted cert (though I am optimistic there): we need to get through the appellate level by the next summer to request cert for a June 2013 ruling. The states have done a good job so far of setting that whole process back - we should have been in an earlier session.
Oh well. The sooner we lose, the sooner we win.
If that makes any sense at all.
Yeah, it makes sense. We get thru all the lower court BS, and aim straight for the top. ie SCOTUS
krucam
Ultimate Member
Wilkinson authored the Masciandaro decision. The article Al is referencing is by Wilkinson, criticizing the Heller decision, Of Guns, Abortions, and the Unraveling Rule of Law, April 2009
A few months later, a young, brash Attorney who happened to have argued and won the Heller decision, responded to Wilkinson's criticism of Heller. HELLER AND THE TRIUMPH OF ORIGINALIST JUDICIAL ENGAGEMENT: A RESPONSE TO JUDGE HARVIE WILKINSON -Alan Gura, July 2009
Ironic, isn't it that in a few months Mr Gura could possibly be standing before Judge Wilkinson in Oral Arguments at the Circuit? I truly hope we don't get that draw. Judge Traxler (Chester) on the other hand...
pcfixer
Ultimate Member
Al Norris
Spud Head
On the other hand, should Gura actually draw Judge Wilkinson (on the panel), the orals in that case will be epic. Failure, to be sure, but epic, nonetheless!
I'm not really looking forward to such an encounter, as I think Wilkinson will tear Gura apart, out of shear spite.
I'm not really looking forward to such an encounter, as I think Wilkinson will tear Gura apart, out of shear spite.
SkunkWerX
Ultimate Member
Perhaps Mr. Gura's and Judge Wilkinson's little sparring match sets the stage that Wilkinson cannot hear any of his cases, because of the appearance that he may not be able to be impartial? or is already biased?
Could Gura have set this up, in advance?
Could Gura have set this up, in advance?
I don't think Gura set it up since the judge started it. That said, he should recuse himself as bias will be assumed, regardless of the judges vote were he to stay on the panel if chosen.
yellowfin
Pro 2A Gastronome
How is the same negative bias not assumed in every court in NY and NJ on the same basis?
SkunkWerX
Ultimate Member
Set it up was a poor chocie of words. Perhaps Mr. Gura responded as sort of a "Book mark" for possible later use, should Judge Wilkinson rear his [ugly] head.
Totally agree about him recusing himself, now that he has gone on record, in printed word.
fightinbluhen51
"Quack Pot Call Honker"
- Oct 31, 2008
- 8,974
Not likely...and I don't know what effect scholarly papers would have on the court's actual actions. Authoring a paper which was retorted by a lawyer with a different legal opinion or view, isn't like having an interest (read stocks) in a corporation bringing suit against a competitor (obvious conflict of interest).
Personally, I'd prefer to draw the buttwipe in Wilkinson @ the 4th, only to have the en banc (a stronger ruling, in essence, if not in effect) slap him down before headed to SCOTUS for review.
I'm with Patrick however. We all want Woollard to win and win ASAP. Yet we want good jurisprudence, and we want the "core" of the right expanded. It seems as though Wilkinson screwed us with expanding the right and I'm not sure why someone hasn't stepped up to the plate for a petition for review (I think we missed the en banc deadline?).
Masciandaro exactly like Williams (only in a pre-Heller world) yes? Difference being he was in a national park. Certainly gets bearing outside the home answer, and it would nix a sensitive place. Someone HAS to take that question to the court. It's sitting there like a bad dog going "yeah yeah yeah, let's get that squirrel, come on we can take 'em, let me at 'em, let me at 'em." Both Masciandaro and Williams are "ripe" and certainly would save a lot of aggravation, time, and money for our side (thus allowing the right to be expanded through a "next" round of fights).
Srsanbo
Massive Member
- Oct 4, 2010
- 159
To sum up what Wilkinson says so eloquently: "Nevermind what the ambiguous Constitution says, our elected officials know better and we should live with their decisions because we elected them."
I am going to find some really soft 100% cotton paper for my printer so I can print up some wipes.
pcfixer
Ultimate Member
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
Hair-trigger posting... please include more than just the "headline" (6 Viewers)- Started by Mr H
- Replies: 11
-
-
-
(Duplicate - mods please close) MoCo trans student arrested for threatening school- Started by Lafayette
- Replies: 2