En banc Decision in Peruta -- a loss

GlocksAndPatriots said:

Honestly, I can't really blame anyone for not joining a dissent from a denial. It serves no real purpose other than to let people (who may be your enemies) "know where you stand." Why show your cards early?

Click to expand...

777GSOTB said:

Jackson, Peruta and Kolbe....sorry, but NONE of them were damaged.

Norman was arrested, and thus was injured in the exercise of a fundamental right...They will take Norman.

So, when they take Norman...What say you?

Click to expand...

Inigoes said:

Williams from the 4CA was, and the SCOTUS rejected cert

Click to expand...

jcutonilli said:

I say you need to learn more about the law. The concept you are referring to is standing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) Every plaintiff needs to demonstrate injury in fact, that there is causal connection to the defendant, and that the lawsuit can redress the injury. All of the plaintiffs had standing ie was injured.

While it is possible that SCOTUS will take the case, it is very unlikely given the facts of the case and the cases that it has already passed on.

Click to expand...

frogman68 said:

Think our only remaining option is to file a case in Texas saying carrying outside the home is illegal. When the 5th gets it the rule it legal and make it nation wide like the Judge in Hawaii did

Click to expand...

777GSOTB said:

That's because there is no fundamental right to own a machine gun..Heller buried that one 6ft under...To never rise again.

Click to expand...

ComeGet said:

It actually might be best that the SC doesn't take a carry case until it has a solid conservative majority. Cert denial at this point is much better than a possible loss there.

Also, the WaPo said, "The Supreme Court has also upheld laws in Maryland and New Jersey that impose such restrictions on concealed-carry permits."

Huh? When was that? Did I miss it?

Click to expand...

ComeGet said:

It actually might be best that the SC doesn't take a carry case until it has a solid conservative majority. Cert denial at this point is much better than a possible loss there.

Also, the WaPo said, "The Supreme Court has also upheld laws in Maryland and New Jersey that impose such restrictions on concealed-carry permits."

Huh? When was that? Did I miss it?

Click to expand...

jcutonilli said:

That is not really what Heller said. Heller expressed that it would be a “startling reading” of the NFA. Given that Heller was about handguns in the home and not specifically about machine guns, it left the issue in a state that does not disturb the existing law. It does not really provide any real explanation.

Click to expand...

777GSOTB said:

District of Columbia v Heller, 554 U.S. 570(2008)


"We may as well consider.." (All the way to page 53...)"We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right."

Click to expand...

777GSOTB said:

So Scalia thinks short-barreled shotguns can be prohibited, but machine guns are or possibly could be, protected? There's some wishful thinking there...Yeah, the dissent said that M16's should be protected and Scalia went on to say, " but, that would be a startling read..." Machine guns aren't protected and they never will be...As they are not " in common use ".


District of Columbia v Heller, 554 U.S. 570(2008)


"We may as well consider.." (All the way to page 53...)"We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right."

page 55....."We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time."307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

Click to expand...

jcutonilli said:

You have are really hard time reading things. Heller does not say short barreled shotguns are prohibited. There has been nothing presented to the courts to say they are typically possessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Until someone can provide that information they will not be protected by the 2A. You need to remember Miller was killed before they could figure that out.

"startling reading" and "M-16" both only occur in the opinion once and they do not occur together. The "starling reading" quote is as follows: 'Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, ...' 554 US 570, 624 (pg 52 of the slip opinion)

Heller never really defined common use. You seem to have a numerical approach which has been categorized as circular reasoning by several courts. I have a different definition that equates common with society with common use meaning any legitimate societal use. The infantry and law enforcement demonstrate the legitimate societal use of machine guns.

Click to expand...

777GSOTB said:

So Scalia thinks short-barreled shotguns can be prohibited, but machine guns are or possibly could be, protected? There's some wishful thinking there...Yeah, the dissent said that M16's should be protected and Scalia went on to say, " but, that would be a startling read..." Machine guns aren't protected and they never will be...As they are not " in common use ".


District of Columbia v Heller, 554 U.S. 570(2008)


"We may as well consider.." (All the way to page 53...)"We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right."

page 55....."We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time."307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."[/QUOTE]

The issue and meaning usually now revolve around those words "common use at the time" and or "dangerous and unusual weapons". Is the current courts and judges
able to define those words within current law?
and m

Click to expand...

DC-W said:

That shouldn't stop anyone from participating in stuff here in MD. We can't expect help from the court or from congress, therefore we need to be doing all we can here to move the ball forward. 2018 elections are coming up...

Click to expand...

DC-W said:

They haven't shifted at all. If these kinds of cases were in front of them instead of Heller or McDonald, the result would be the same.

Let's hope Kennedy retires to get Hardiman on the court. Then RBG and Breyer. One can hope, right?

Click to expand...

pcfixer said:

The issue and meaning usually now revolve around those words "common use at the time" and or "dangerous and unusual weapons". Is the current courts and judges
able to define those words within current law?
and m

Click to expand...