Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 19th, 2017, 11:27 AM #1041
Blacksmith101 Blacksmith101 is offline
Grumpy Old Man
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 8,188
Blacksmith101 Blacksmith101 is offline
Grumpy Old Man
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 8,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublins View Post
Man, if for nothing else, I can't wait for SCOTUS to decide one way or another on this case, just because MDS' self-appointed constitutional lawyers have been particularly active this past week. Wading through pages of bickering and nit-picking is labor-intensive! 9:30 can't come fast enough!
+1000
I just wish the Lawyers who want to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin would start their own thread and leave the case specific threads for things actually pertaining to the cases. That way we could still get our legal education and have uncluttered access to case information.
Blacksmith101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2017, 12:57 PM #1042
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,055
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
I believe the 2A was always about individuals.
If that's the case, then why did Heller have to explicitly hold that the right which is protected is an individual one?


Quote:
Heller was specifically about disconnecting the right from the militia.
Yes, it certainly did that, to the point that the prefatory clause can now only be used to restrict the right further.


Quote:
I can't tell you the specifics of when the court raises issues sua sponte. The Court tends not to raise issues by themselves, but it does happen. See Kolbe 4th circuit en banc raising an issue that was not really addressed. Normally you loose the ability to appeal an issue if you have not raised it at the initial trial. Miller is an example. The latest per curiam (Jenkins v Hutton) also talks to this issue.
My question isn't about the lower courts raising issues. It's about whether or not they're bound by Supreme Court precedent when said precedent isn't explicitly raised by either party.

Last edited by kcbrown; June 19th, 2017 at 09:20 PM.
kcbrown is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2017, 12:58 PM #1043
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 286
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
I am aware that many people here believe that the judges are the problem. I remember sitting in the court room waiting for the Court to grant the temporary restraining order in Kolbe. I was shocked to find out that it was denied. Once I did the research, I found that, while I disagree with the Courts decision in Kolbe (district level), it is not unreasonable given how courts decide cases. If you look at all the cases that I listed, you will find, with minor exceptions, they present essentially the same argument. SCOTUS has passed on all most all of them.

There are so many losses because the plaintiffs bring the same loosing argument and expect different results. SCOTUS is not going to be more deferential because they made the rules.

I am tired of loosing and am willing to debate anyone as to why in hopes to inform more people why there are so many losses.
I don't expect different results. But to think that we have lost because of the quality of the arguments, versus the fact that the judges are acting in bad faith is pure naivety.
GlocksAndPatriots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2017, 01:12 PM #1044
CrueChief's Avatar
CrueChief CrueChief is online now
Cocker Dad
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Napolis-ish
Posts: 706
CrueChief CrueChief is online now
Cocker Dad
CrueChief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Napolis-ish
Posts: 706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blacksmith101 View Post
+1000
I just wish the Lawyers who want to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin would start their own thread and leave the case specific threads for things actually pertaining to the cases. That way we could still get our legal education and have uncluttered access to case information.
Couldn't agree more.
CrueChief is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2017, 01:20 PM #1045
ironpony's Avatar
ironpony ironpony is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Crofton/Davidsonville
Posts: 2,578
ironpony ironpony is offline
Senior Member
ironpony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Crofton/Davidsonville
Posts: 2,578
Does Peruta present a similar argument to the previous loses ? We may already have our answer then. Shew, I'll be in the reloading section.
ironpony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2017, 01:44 PM #1046
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 286
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpony View Post
Does Peruta present a similar argument to the previous loses ? We may already have our answer then. Shew, I'll be in the reloading section.
Yes, although the amicus briefs were better this time.
GlocksAndPatriots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2017, 01:52 PM #1047
Inigoes's Avatar
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 35,440
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
Inigoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 35,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpony View Post
Does Peruta present a similar argument to the previous loses ? We may already have our answer then. Shew, I'll be in the reloading section.
I would argue the participant behavior is extraordinary in this case.

The state stepping in, after it vehemently denied that no state laws were/are affected.
The en banc court went rogue, and answered a question that was not asked.
__________________
Life is tough, life is tougher when you are stupid.
Inigoes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2017, 02:21 PM #1048
fightinbluhen51's Avatar
fightinbluhen51 fightinbluhen51 is offline
"Quack Pot Call Honker"
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,768
fightinbluhen51 fightinbluhen51 is offline
"Quack Pot Call Honker"
fightinbluhen51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by danb View Post
Before first amendment principles were firmly established, all sorts of censorship and government pressure was permitted. First amendment doctrine as we know it was not really developed until the late 1920s. I am sure that there were a lot of appellate losses over that period.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results. There are so many losses currently primarily because 2nd Amendment law is really only in its infancy. What really matters at this point is the quality and persuasiveness of the dissents.
Do you listen to Andrew Klavan's podcast?
__________________

“It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, who keep on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men”-SAMUEL ADAMS, 1776
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
fightinbluhen51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2017, 02:25 PM #1049
danb's Avatar
danb danb is online now
These are not your droids
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Howard County
Posts: 10,817
danb danb is online now
These are not your droids
danb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Howard County
Posts: 10,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by fightinbluhen51 View Post
Do you listen to Andrew Klavan's podcast?
I have not..
__________________
"More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states."

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions...d/115084.p.pdf
danb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2017, 02:47 PM #1050
fightinbluhen51's Avatar
fightinbluhen51 fightinbluhen51 is offline
"Quack Pot Call Honker"
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,768
fightinbluhen51 fightinbluhen51 is offline
"Quack Pot Call Honker"
fightinbluhen51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by danb View Post
I have not..
He had on the lawyer that was instrumental in winning both the Pentagon Papers & the Citizens United cases @ SCOTUS. Forgive me I don't know what episode it was or I'd reference here.

Basically laid out the 1A jurisprudence and how it didn't develop until the 1900s; noting that w/ Lincoln suspending habeas corpus and other federal laws against disparaging war efforts during WW1, cases didn't proceed until the 20th century.


You old folks (tongue in cheek) were far better educated in school than us young-in'. Though, I'm guessing you didn't get that education in school much either and was adult personal continuing ed. Just a point of order/interest that I've heard that two times now in as many weeks.
__________________

“It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, who keep on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men”-SAMUEL ADAMS, 1776
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
fightinbluhen51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2017, 03:05 PM #1051
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 352
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
If that's the case, then why did Heller have to explicitly hold that the right which is protected is an individual one?

My question isn't about the lower courts raising issues. It's about whether or not they're bound by Supreme Court precedent when said precedent isn't explicitly raised by either party.
The prefatory clause causes some confusion as to whether it is an individual one or a collective one. The district court felt it was a collective right as did four of the justices. Explicitly holding that it is an individual one clarifies the issue.

I don't know the specific answer to the court question, but if neither party raises the issue, the only party left is the court raising the issue. This is why I answered the question the way I did.
jcutonilli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2017, 04:54 PM #1052
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,483
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpony View Post
Does Peruta present a similar argument to the previous loses ? We may already have our answer then. Shew, I'll be in the reloading section.
Basically the same argument. Only difference now is Norman's ruling creating a split plus the unusual history of this case (en banc, state intervention,exc.).
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2017, 09:18 PM #1053
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,055
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
The prefatory clause causes some confusion as to whether it is an individual one or a collective one. The district court felt it was a collective right as did four of the justices. Explicitly holding that it is an individual one clarifies the issue.
That's most certainly true. But if clarification was necessary at that point, then it means there was no definitive/consistent treatment of it as an individual right prior to that.


Quote:
I don't know the specific answer to the court question, but if neither party raises the issue, the only party left is the court raising the issue. This is why I answered the question the way I did.
Hmm ... how might one go about discovering the answer?
kcbrown is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2017, 07:03 AM #1054
Inigoes's Avatar
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 35,440
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
Inigoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 35,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Basically the same argument. Only difference now is Norman's ruling creating a split plus the unusual history of this case (en banc, state intervention,exc.).
Has Norman even filed for cert? Isn't getting close to the end of the window?

We may only have to wait until Thursday to find out either way.
__________________
Life is tough, life is tougher when you are stupid.
Inigoes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2017, 07:43 AM #1055
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,483
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inigoes View Post
Has Norman even filed for cert? Isn't getting close to the end of the window?

We may only have to wait until Thursday to find out either way.
Norman has another month I think. It got the clock stopped by asking the FL supremes for a rehearing.
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2017, 08:12 AM #1056
Inigoes's Avatar
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 35,440
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
Inigoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 35,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Norman has another month I think. It got the clock stopped by asking the FL supremes for a rehearing.
There is no incentive for the SCOTUS to wait for Norman then. We will most likely hear about Peruta either Thursday or Monday. I seriously doubt they will hold Peruta over the summer.
__________________
Life is tough, life is tougher when you are stupid.
Inigoes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2017, 09:01 AM #1057
danb's Avatar
danb danb is online now
These are not your droids
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Howard County
Posts: 10,817
danb danb is online now
These are not your droids
danb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Howard County
Posts: 10,817
The only reason they would hold Peruta over the summer is if we are getting a PC opinion.

Just to reiterate the stats, Supreme Court tends to be light on grants until the last conference of June. The avg # grants the 4th conference is ~9, the avg number of grants per conference the 7 prior weeks is one or two.

I think that there are a number of cases that stand a decent (>40%) chance of being granted cert. We may get as many as 13 grants on Monday!
__________________
"More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states."

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions...d/115084.p.pdf
danb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2017, 10:23 AM #1058
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 160
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Norman has another month I think. It got the clock stopped by asking the FL supremes for a rehearing.
04/13/2017 DISP-REHEARING DY Petitioner's Amended Motion for Rehearing, Reconsideration and Clarification is hereby denied.

Yup,...looks like they have until July 13th.
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2017, 12:06 PM #1059
JC92's Avatar
JC92 JC92 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: MD
Posts: 82
JC92 JC92 is offline
Junior Member
JC92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: MD
Posts: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inigoes View Post
There is no incentive for the SCOTUS to wait for Norman then. We will most likely hear about Peruta either Thursday or Monday. I seriously doubt they will hold Peruta over the summer.
Why wouldn't the opportunity to combine Peruta and Norman be advantageous to SCOTUS? This would allow SCOTUS to address both Open Carry (Norman) and the G&S ruse in CA that is used to dissuade almost everyone from applying in the first place.
JC92 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2017, 12:11 PM #1060
Inigoes's Avatar
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 35,440
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
Inigoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 35,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by JC92 View Post
Why wouldn't the opportunity to combine Peruta and Norman be advantageous to SCOTUS? This would allow SCOTUS to address both Open Carry (Norman) and the G&S ruse in CA that is used to dissuade almost everyone from applying in the first place.
Norman has to petition the court first, which has not been done to date. As pointed out earlier in this thread they have until the middle of July.

__________________
Life is tough, life is tougher when you are stupid.
Inigoes is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (2 members and 2 guests)
bmorewineguy, Maestro Pistolero
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 -5. The time now is 09:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2016, Maryland Shooters, LLC