Young Opening Brief Filed

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!
  • jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    SCOTUS petition for cert in 3.2.1...

    I have not finished the entire argument yet, but I would file a motion for rehearing on the ground that they raised arguments not previously argued. I do not remember them raising any arguments about history and tradition prior to the last supplemental en banc brief. I am on pg 113 and all they talk about is the history and tradition. They admonished the plaintiffs for not raising issues at the district court, yet they allowed them to raise issues purely at the en banc court level.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    I finish the main opinion and no where do they discuss intermediate scrutiny. The dissent was unprepared to respond to the history and tradition arguments because the arguments were new and no one was able to properly respond to their arguments.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Have you figured out that history and tradition may not be as clear as everyone is making it out to be.

    History was pretty clearly laid out by the dissent. The majority couldn’t cite any US cases where, under an individual rights context, a total public carry ban was ruled permissible by a court.
    The mere existence of a law, like the Wyoming territorial law, isn’t evidence of constitutionality.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    History was pretty clearly laid out by the dissent. The majority couldn’t cite any US cases where, under an individual rights context, a total public carry ban was ruled permissible by a court.
    The mere existence of a law, like the Wyoming territorial law, isn’t evidence of constitutionality.

    They never really said anything about a total public carry ban. Their logic was an extension of the concealed carry ban. They used the logic that anything that would be publicly carried is small and concealable and that history (including US cases) bans these types of arms.

    My point is not that they are correct. My point is that history and tradition is not as clear cut as everyone makes it out to be. I believe this misapplication of history and tradition demonstrates that it can be easily misunderstood.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    They never really said anything about a total public carry ban. Their logic was an extension of the concealed carry ban. They used the logic that anything that would be publicly carried is small and concealable and that history (including US cases) bans these types of arms.

    My point is not that they are correct. My point is that history and tradition is not as clear cut as everyone makes it out to be. I believe this misapplication of history and tradition demonstrates that it can be easily misunderstood.

    That suggests they are trying to go down the road of the "only expensive Army/Navy repeaters & horseman's pistols allowed" and discriminate against firearms that a poorer person would own. A poor argument considering Dick Heller's firearm was a .22 revolver if I'm not mistaken.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    That suggests they are trying to go down the road of the "only expensive Army/Navy repeaters & horseman's pistols allowed" and discriminate against firearms that a poorer person would own. A poor argument considering Dick Heller's firearm was a .22 revolver if I'm not mistaken.

    No pistols allowed. Don't you know they are scary.

    Notwithstanding the advances in handgun technology, and their increasing popularity, pistols and revolvers remain among the class of deadly weapons that are easily transported and concealed. That they may be used for defense does not change their threat to the “king’s peace.” It remains as true today as it was centuries ago, that the mere presence of such weapons presents a terror to the public and that widespread carrying of handguns would strongly suggest that state and local governments have lost control of our public areas. Technology has not altered those very human understandings.

    I will need to check with the 9th circuit to see if the terrorizing is limited to physical presence or if talking about them constitutes terrorizing. Be on notice that you may have just terrorized everyone reading this thread.
     

    Deep Thought

    Active Member
    Jan 27, 2013
    575
    Columbia, MD
    No pistols allowed. Don't you know they are scary.



    I will need to check with the 9th circuit to see if the terrorizing is limited to physical presence or if talking about them constitutes terrorizing. Be on notice that you may have just terrorized everyone reading this thread.

    Hmmm. We definitely better defund and disband police then. They always carry weapons and therefore we should not let them terrorize our citizens.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,483
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom