Which shouldn't. If your rights are restored via due process, other states should recognize that.
Hamilton v. Pallozzi Orals coming up
- Thread starter esqappellate
- Start date
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!
Member Benefits:
Which shouldn't. If your rights are restored via due process, other states should recognize that.
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
Except Gura himself conceeded that was not exactly the case.
Seems much of the argument was left out. The questions of the Judges to Gura and Bowen were as if they (judges) want to remand for discovery and 2 step analysis.
By the same token, unless I heard wrong, Bowen and Gura seemed to want this panel to take a decision. Very hard to listen to both sides.
I am looking forward to the day, Juries can decide procedural motions!
By the same token, unless I heard wrong, Bowen and Gura seemed to want this panel to take a decision. Very hard to listen to both sides.
I am looking forward to the day, Juries can decide procedural motions!
GTO
mabe the panel did not want to make a decision on this??? or they were trying to avoid to make a decision because they did not want to be the first ones to make one?
mabe the panel did not want to make a decision on this??? or they were trying to avoid to make a decision because they did not want to be the first ones to make one?
Hopefully esqappellate will chime in with his opinion.. I have a feeling he will say the same thing as.........
but maybe with more explanation.
Brooklyn
I stand with John Locke.
That's not as bad as I had thought.
IMOH
I think remand is possible....they are looking to set some kind of guidance for how to make a true as applied challenge that does not put the law at risk on its face..
Hum
IMOH
I think remand is possible....they are looking to set some kind of guidance for how to make a true as applied challenge that does not put the law at risk on its face..
Hum
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Hopefully esqappellate will chime in with his opinion.. I have a feeling he will say the same thing as.........
but maybe with more explanation.
A tough argument for Alan Gura. He did as well as could be done, but the panel apparently wanted to relitigate established 4th Circuit precedent on whether an "as applied" challenge is *ever* available. That makes oral argument just impossible when the panel doesn't like or want to follow circuit precedent. There is just not much you can do with that. I will suspend judgment until I see the opinion.
so an En Banc hearing or cert before SCOTUS?
Doco Overboard
Ultimate Member
The brief in post #6 has some scary stuff in it. I didn't know you needed an HQL or carry permit to transport a pistol. I predict a win.
krucam
Ultimate Member
Might want to read post #29...
Maryland probably doesn't even prosecute these crimes. Nolle Pros if you pay it back.
He committed "grave misjudgment".... for credit card fraud. Doesn't seem that violent to me.
Ouch! "we also hold that evidence of rehabilitation, likelihood of recidivism, and passage of time are not bases for which a challenger might remain in the protected class of “law-abiding, responsible” citizen." This should be the test for our legislators. Wouldn't have many now would we.
Was this a jury trial? "Were we to permit this type of evidence on an as-applied Second Amendment challenge, it would invite any criminal defendant charged with a violation of § 922(g) or a state law analogue to argue what is essentially jury nullification. The criminal defendant would be able to freely admit violation of the law in the past, but request that the jury not convict on the grounds of rehabilitation, unlikeliness of re-offending, or the length of time that had passed since conviction."
But he is authorized to carry legally in DC as part of his employment. This decision is absurd.
He committed "grave misjudgment".... for credit card fraud. Doesn't seem that violent to me.
Ouch! "we also hold that evidence of rehabilitation, likelihood of recidivism, and passage of time are not bases for which a challenger might remain in the protected class of “law-abiding, responsible” citizen." This should be the test for our legislators. Wouldn't have many now would we.
Was this a jury trial? "Were we to permit this type of evidence on an as-applied Second Amendment challenge, it would invite any criminal defendant charged with a violation of § 922(g) or a state law analogue to argue what is essentially jury nullification. The criminal defendant would be able to freely admit violation of the law in the past, but request that the jury not convict on the grounds of rehabilitation, unlikeliness of re-offending, or the length of time that had passed since conviction."
But he is authorized to carry legally in DC as part of his employment. This decision is absurd.
If you lose your 2A rights forever, the same should be said of the 1A.
No felons should be allowed to vote using the court's logic.
No felons should be allowed to vote using the court's logic.
It should almost be said that you should never plead guilty, because this is what can happen.
Doco Overboard
Ultimate Member
Extra scary post 29 stuff, I think it would pay for everybody to apply for a permit just to have it on record that it was denied. The more felonies they hand out to firearms owners the more they can disarm. I predict a loss on the state after doing my ultra fast scan of all the briefs.
Silent Partner
Active Member
This is really screwed up. So Hamilton can poses a firearm while on duty as a security officer on Federal property, but can not poses same at his home in MD.
Can he poses a firearm as a security officer with DHS OFF Federal property ? As I read in the brief - NO . Am I correct ?
Can he poses a firearm as a security officer with DHS OFF Federal property ? As I read in the brief - NO . Am I correct ?
I am curious. Can you explain what your theory would be for a win?
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
According to the opinion of the court the answer depends on the jurisdiction. Apparently MD requires a formal pardon by the VA governor as opposed to the restoration of firearm rights that was granted by VA. MD gets to decide the criterion in its state and VA in their state. Personally I think the court played both sides of the issue. They decided it as a states rights issue, but it appears MD gets to decide what constitutes a crime in VA.
The 4CA followed precedent from the 3CA. A Pennsylvania state trooper was involuntarily committed, which means he lost his right to own guns. The court ruled he can have a gun on duty.
These court's are really messed up. It's okay to further government interests but not personal ones.
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
‘Why is nothing being done?’: Concerns grow about drug use, fighting in Montgomery Co. school bathrooms
- Started by RFBfromDE
- Replies: 10
-
-
