Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 13th, 2020, 05:13 PM #21
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,249
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Wait, what??

Um, just how else exactly would you measure the competence of a lawyer in the arena of Constitutional law litigation except by the quality of their arguments (and/or counterarguments)? You claim you need good arguments to win, right? If a lawyer consistently loses because of poor arguments, under what possible reasonable standard can you still claim him to be "competent"? After all, it's his job to win, no? If a lawyer often fails in his job, then how can you call him "competent"?
I would measure the competency of the lawyer by their argumentS and counterargumentS. I would not judge them by a single argument. The job of the lawyer is to represent the client, not necessarily to win. There are two sides and one side generally wins and the other generally loses. It is not necessarily the argument that determines a win or a loss. Certain cases are very black and white, while others are shades of grey.

A lot of people see the 2A as very black and white (what part of shall not be infringed to you not understand) but the historical prohibition on CCW demonstrates that the 2A is more grey than black and white.

The arguments that are presented in 2A cases are certainly consistent with various precedents on the issues. In that respect I do not see incompetence with respect to their arguments. I would not have expected them to fail.

My problem with the arguments is that they continue to use these same failed arguments and have not adjusted them to try and better address the issues that the court has raised.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2020, 05:25 PM #22
fred55's Avatar
fred55 fred55 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Spotsylvania Co. VA
Posts: 966
fred55 fred55 is online now
Member
fred55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Spotsylvania Co. VA
Posts: 966
I believe the 2A is very clear. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were written for the people, and by the founding fathers. I respectfully submit it has been “legal scholars” who have twisted and argued us into this mess. I don’t believe they will get us out of it; this grayish is far too profitable. No disrespect meant, simply my opinion. fred55
__________________
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so." -- Ronald Reagan
fred55 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2020, 05:37 PM #23
babalou's Avatar
babalou babalou is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Monkey County
Posts: 7,020
babalou babalou is online now
Senior Member
babalou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Monkey County
Posts: 7,020
Agreed

Quote:
Originally Posted by fred55 View Post
I believe the 2A is very clear. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were written for the people, and by the founding fathers. I respectfully submit it has been “legal scholars” who have twisted and argued us into this mess. I don’t believe they will get us out of it; this grayish is far too profitable. No disrespect meant, simply my opinion. fred55
I read all the rough drafts. They cut it down to remove verbose wording but was deemed correct. When they fight over where a damn comma is placed and why, you have a problem. All the rough drafts state that right to bear arms without impedence.
__________________
SOTAR Alumnus
MD Designated Collector
Patriot Picket Member
babalou is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2020, 07:15 PM #24
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,249
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by fred55 View Post
I believe the 2A is very clear. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were written for the people, and by the founding fathers. I respectfully submit it has been “legal scholars” who have twisted and argued us into this mess. I don’t believe they will get us out of it; this grayish is far too profitable. No disrespect meant, simply my opinion. fred55
I understand where you are coming from. I do not like all of the 2A losses that we have experienced either. Unfortunately the same Constitution that has the 2A, allows SCOTUS to resolve the issue. If you want things to change you need to convince SCOTUS. I tend to agree with you that the current "legal scholars" don't seem to be able to get us out of the situation. This is why I started to write these amicus briefs.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2020, 07:58 PM #25
OLM-Medic's Avatar
OLM-Medic OLM-Medic is online now
Not Banned Yet
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,634
OLM-Medic OLM-Medic is online now
Not Banned Yet
OLM-Medic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeadSled1 View Post
Would somebody please ban magazines greater than 1 round so we can get to the bottom of this shit. The states keep whittling it down and down. Just go for the gusto and be done with it.
the other side knows this is the most effective way because nobody will fight back
OLM-Medic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2020, 08:05 PM #26
CrueChief's Avatar
CrueChief CrueChief is offline
Cocker Dad/RIP Bella
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Napolis-ish
Posts: 1,845
CrueChief CrueChief is offline
Cocker Dad/RIP Bella
CrueChief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Napolis-ish
Posts: 1,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjackcooper View Post
Ok, I agree that we disagree.

In closing, two predications:

1. If Trump is defeated, the resulting Federal Judiciary will use Interest-balancing via intermediate scrutiny (with “public safety” providing cover) to completely neuter the 2A.

2. If trump wins, the resulting Federal Judiciary will use “text, history, and tradition” to restore the 2A to its rightful place as guardian of the Bill of Rights.

Regards
Jack
No chance the 2A gets elevated very much. Too many unelected judges with an agenda.
CrueChief is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2020, 08:19 PM #27
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,296
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
I would measure the competency of the lawyer by their argumentS and counterargumentS. I would not judge them by a single argument. The job of the lawyer is to represent the client, not necessarily to win.
Well, let's be clear here. "Win" means either that they win the case or that they reach a settlement that is agreeable to their client. And yes, their job is always to "win" by that definition. Why? Because that is what they were hired by their client to do.


Quote:
There are two sides and one side generally wins and the other generally loses. It is not necessarily the argument that determines a win or a loss. Certain cases are very black and white, while others are shades of grey.
If, for a given case, the arguments don't determine the win or loss, then what does? Am I detecting a tacit acknowledgement of bias on the part of judges in the system here?


Quote:
A lot of people see the 2A as very black and white (what part of shall not be infringed to you not understand) but the historical prohibition on CCW demonstrates that the 2A is more grey than black and white.

The arguments that are presented in 2A cases are certainly consistent with various precedents on the issues. In that respect I do not see incompetence with respect to their arguments. I would not have expected them to fail.
And yet, they did fail. When observations contradict your expectations, then it means that whatever guided your expectations is flawed and you have to go back and fix that.


Quote:
My problem with the arguments is that they continue to use these same failed arguments and have not adjusted them to try and better address the issues that the court has raised.
I can certainly agree with this. But that raises the question of why they haven't changed their arguments to address the issues. Surely failure to change one's arguments to address raised issues is a sign of incompetence, no?
kcbrown is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2020, 01:12 AM #28
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,249
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Well, let's be clear here. "Win" means either that they win the case or that they reach a settlement that is agreeable to their client. And yes, their job is always to "win" by that definition. Why? Because that is what they were hired by their client to do.
I still would not call a loss a win.

Quote:
If, for a given case, the arguments don't determine the win or loss, then what does? Am I detecting a tacit acknowledgement of bias on the part of judges in the system here?
The law. Certain cases are very black and white so the argument does not really affect the outcome. It simply the straight application of law. Many cases are more gray with varying degrees of grayness. Those are the case where the argument matters because thing can be interpreted in different ways.

Quote:
And yet, they did fail. When observations contradict your expectations, then it means that whatever guided your expectations is flawed and you have to go back and fix that.
That is typically what I do.

Quote:
I can certainly agree with this. But that raises the question of why they haven't changed their arguments to address the issues. Surely failure to change one's arguments to address raised issues is a sign of incompetence, no?
There may be a perfectly rational explanation as to why they have not changed their arguments. Until I find out, I am not willing to go there.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2020, 10:36 PM #29
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,296
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
I still would not call a loss a win.
Not saying that you did. I wouldn't call a loss a win either.


Quote:
The law. Certain cases are very black and white so the argument does not really affect the outcome. It simply the straight application of law. Many cases are more gray with varying degrees of grayness. Those are the case where the argument matters because thing can be interpreted in different ways.
OK, well, the cases we're talking about here are most certainly in the gray area, no?


Quote:
That is typically what I do.
In light of that, what did you find you had to change with respect to your prediction methods? What does that method look like now, in light of the fact that the arguments in question lost anyway?


Quote:
There may be a perfectly rational explanation as to why they have not changed their arguments. Until I find out, I am not willing to go there.
That's fair as far as it goes, but the thing is: if it causes them to lose the case, then how can it possibly be considered "rational"?
kcbrown is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2020, 02:55 PM #30
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,249
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Not saying that you did. I wouldn't call a loss a win either.
You essentially do when you say something is a win when "they reach a settlement that is agreeable to their client". That may be a benefit but I would not say that is a win.

Quote:
OK, well, the cases we're talking about here are most certainly in the gray area, no?
Some people would say these cases are black and white, but I would say there is more gray

Quote:
In light of that, what did you find you had to change with respect to your prediction methods? What does that method look like now, in light of the fact that the arguments in question lost anyway?
I learn that I needed to change my perspective from an advocate to a judge and understand what they are looking at and how they respond to various arguments. It is not about our position, but about how to present the case in a manner that will allow even skeptical judges to accept the argument.

Quote:
That's fair as far as it goes, but the thing is: if it causes them to lose the case, then how can it possibly be considered "rational"?
It is rational because I believe the lawyers do have a good understanding of the 2A amendment and how to litigate constitutional law. The problem is not the skillset of the person. The problem is figuring the best way to communicate that to the courts.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (1 members and 1 guests)
kcbrown
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2019, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service