Freidman v. Highland Park (AWB)

danb said:

no update, not on the list.

Click to expand...

Inigoes said:

I do not have a good feeling about this one, because of Jackson v San Francisco.

Click to expand...

Inigoes said:

I do not have a good feeling about this one, because of Jackson v San Francisco.

Click to expand...

rlc2 said:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...court-postpones-decisions-on-gun-rights-case/

Chuck in IL: It has been whispered that neither side wants to hear any 2nd Amendment cases because neither side trusts Justice Kennedy.

Click to expand...

Maestro Pistolero said:

Who is doing the whispering? It would explain the 2A gridlock.

It takes 4 to grant and 5 to win. Most of the cert petitions have been appeals from anti gun decisions. Therefore the antis on the court would have no reason to grant cert and the pro-2A justices wouldn't grant cert if they knew or suspected it would result in a loss that would reduce or eviscerate the right forever.

Click to expand...

Maestro Pistolero said:

I hate to say it, but the best thing might be to wait for a change in the makeup of the court. Pn the other hand, the longer BS like Highland Park stands the more worried I am that it will calcify and spread. Such decisions and losses on appeal only embolden the antis.

Click to expand...

Maestro Pistolero said:

I hate to say it, but the best thing might be to wait for a change in the makeup of the court. Pn the other hand, the longer BS like Highland Park stands the more worried I am that it will calcify and spread. Such decisions and losses on appeal only embolden the antis.

Click to expand...

rlc2 said:

If you look at the collusion among left-wing groups, BLM, Everytown, and WaronWimmen types, calling for Executive Action, and the municipal actions passed since Jackson- Mag bans and instant criminalization by by LA city council, LT Gov Newsoms proposal for ammo registration in SF, the various efforts in NY and NJ, it would appear that the left is doubling down, daring citizens to sue, to protect their liberty.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by rlc2
If you look at the collusion among left-wing groups, BLM, Everytown, and WaronWimmen types, calling for Executive Action, and the municipal actions passed since Jackson- Mag bans and instant criminalization by by LA city council, LT Gov Newsoms proposal for ammo registration in SF, the various efforts in NY and NJ, it would appear that the left is doubling down, daring citizens to sue, to protect their liberty.

Click to expand...

ddestruel said:

you are right they are doubling down..... Suing isn’t getting us all of what we want maybe some out of the box thinking. i know thats for another thread but since I’m really pessimistic about any of the three cases up right now ill throw them into the mix



Nationally:
NRA Leading a charge to have congress attach conditions to a national security funding bill denying states access to grants or local PD subsidies if the state specifically institutes what congress views and defines as unconstitutional infringements on the 2nd amendment. lack of a constitutional carry or concealed carry permitting system for law abiding citizens. State imposed purchasing restrictions or ownership restrictions on ammunition otherwise deemed in common use including lead ammunition bans, likewise state imposed restrictions on firearms components including all forms of standard issue and available magazines otherwise available in majority of states, Any class of firearm ban that states need to administer and manage what is covered by the NFA tax stamp regulatory process. If they engage in bans then they are subject to reduced national security funding and grants.


At the state level:
get something on the ballot , a state constitutional amendment protecting a broad set of rights but coined as a means of restraining bonehead politicians and special deal making..... And being worded broadly you’d stand a better chance of ensnaring libertarians, liberals, and other independent voters with angst towards back room deals.....

Instead of attacking it as a 2nd amendment protection you attach the concept of restraint to multiple groups who we wouldn’t normally associate with and bring forth a measure aimed at cleaning up politics. (all while giving ourselves a solid tool to challenge things.)

=================================================

The equal protection amendment
_________________________________

Equal application of the law amendment for state lawmakers, civilians and civil servants of ca. All laws or ballot measures passed in the state of ca that impact enumerated rights identified in the us constitution (bill of rights) or state constitution must be narrowly tailored when applied to the private law abiding citizens and enforced equally. Laws and policies that affect law abiding citizens are to be subject to strict scrutiny review and that civilians and civil servants can not receive exemptions, special privileges ect that are not equally applied and available to all other law abiding citizens. Lawmakers may not exempt themselves nor may they refuse to defend these enumerated rights in court. No portion of this amendment is intended to prevent the state from regulating criminal acts, felons or the mentally ill.

==================================================




The wild card:
Article 5 convention
even longer shot but we need something to backstop the doubling down

Click to expand...

fightinbluhen51 said:

Orders are out; nothing.

Click to expand...

Inigoes said:

There is still a glimmer of hope. Certs have been granted in off days lately, the routine orders lists has been to deny certs.

Click to expand...

fightinbluhen51 said:

...it looks like they lacked enough impartial justices to actually hear the case. Four justices look like they recused themselves in that particular case.

Click to expand...

rambling_one said:

Um, could this be a new tact?

Click to expand...

fightinbluhen51 said:

Different case. NOT related to Freidman.

I'm pretty sure that is SOP when there aren't enough impartial justices to hear a certain case.

Remember, it could be as simple as they owned stock or something that is the parent company of a party to the case.

Click to expand...

In the year 2000, the Colorado Supreme Court denied Plaintiff Kenneth L. Smith’s (“Smith’s” or “Plaintiff’s”) application for membership to the Colorado bar after Smith refused to submit to a mental status examination. Following that denial and for the next nine years, Smith filed a series of lawsuits against the justices of the Colorado Supreme Court and against various state and federal judges who ruled against him in subsequent actions stemming from the adjudication of his bar application. The instant amended complaint, which Smith has filed pro se against the United States and 19 federal judges (collectively, “Defendants”), marks the eleventh lawsuit that Smith has filed stemming from the denial of his admission to the Colorado bar. (Amended Compl. (“Compl.”), ECF No. 8.) In the instant 277-page pleading, Smith generally maintains that the judges involved in his latest lawsuit, like those who decided all of his previous actions, have violated the Constitution and international law, and are therefore subject to criminal indictment and removal from the federal bench. (See id. ¶¶ 601-617.)

Click to expand...