PowPow
Where's the beef?
It really is infuriating to see the English language abused to the point where existing law can simply be interpreted to mean something else in a regulation AND survive in multiple court proceedings.
Federal Judge Destroys DOJ in Opinion on Bump stocks.
- Thread starter wolfwood
- 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:
BlueHeeler
Ultimate Member
I do not know what is so legally confusing about, "The law defines a machine gun as one that shoots more than one shot automatically by a single function of the trigger. "
- Nov 11, 2009
- 30,955
"...Wikipedia..." Priceless--
ToBeFree
Ultimate Member
Must be some lawyer speak? N'est Pas?"...Wikipedia..." Priceless--
Thanks for the read.
- Oct 25, 2012
- 3,364
I do not know what is so legally confusing about, "The law defines a machine gun as one that shoots more than one shot automatically by a single function of the trigger. "
They can't seem to get "shall not be infringed" correct.
Our side doesn't quite get it either...
McKay v Sheriff Hutchens
Quoting from oral arguments:
NRA counsel, Shawn Brady, for McKay and appellants
Judge: Are you asking specifically for a license to carry concealed weapons?
NRA Counsel: Yes your honor
NRA Counsel: ...We're not disputing that they should have to have a license, that they should go through training, that they have to get 3 letters of recommendations from their neighbor and do background checks....
EDWARD PERUTA, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Alan Gura's Amicus Brief before the 9th Circuit Court
" To be sure, Appellees are able to license the carrying of handguns in
the interest of public safety. But they must not be in the business of
judging people’s character, or forcing individuals to prove a sufficiently
good reason for wanting to exercise something that is their right. "
wjackcooper
Active Member
- Feb 9, 2011
- 689
Perhaps Gura had the following in mind when he conceded licensing, but not ‘may” issue:
From Heller:
“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Regards
Jack
From Heller:
“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Regards
Jack
ezliving
Besieger
Did the US Gov refile a fresh motion to dismiss in Lane? Or is Lane the case, that the AP article mentioned, going to trial in July?
That is from an entity that is "on our side"? I must ask if the NRA is on our side in the HQL laswuit, if so ... do not let them speak lol.
wjackcooper
Active Member
- Feb 9, 2011
- 689
Seems to me Gura's concessions are mandated by Heller. Brady appears to be giving away the store, although he may be trying for "shall issue" and putting the other issues on hold for another case.
Regards
Jack
Regards
Jack
Gura had no problem throwing short barreled firearms under the bus in oral arguments, so now we have to overcome that issue one day, if it ever comes at all. Think about this. I can walk into a gun shop and walk out with a 26" bullpup rifle or shotgun within 30min, but I have to pay a $200 tax and wait 1yr for a short barreled rifle/shotgun that is of the same 26" in length...Gura F##KED us all on that, millions of gun owners, and he's a participant in pushing for licensing. He didn't need to move that position in Heller as those types of firearms were not part of the case, but somehow he can't move on the licensing issue which was most certainly part of the case as they HAD to get one in order to have a handgun in the home...BS
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, (2008)
Alan Gura at his finest....
"Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not “have a problem with . . . licensing” and that the District’s law is permissible so long as it is “not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75. We therefore assume that petitioners’ issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement."
DID YOU READ THAT...No problem with needing a license to have a handgun in your home!...Great move and also believes one is needed OUTSIDE the home.
Also " Shall Issue " a concealed carry license??...Scalia pretty clearly indicated that the 2nd Amendment protects no such right...IN THE 2008 HELLER DECISION...That's 10yrs ago and the gun, NUTS, are still pushing for concealed carry.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, (2008)
" Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."
DID YOU READ THAT?...Scalia is indicating that concealed carry can be prohibited under the 2nd Amendment. That conclusion is pretty obvious from that read.
Yes, it would be a joke if it weren't for the fact that if, licensing of OPEN CARRY outside the home gets in there, we(MILLIONS of gun owners) got F##KED by the NRA. A state can issue a, "Certificate of Competence", if the court rules they have a compelling state interest for the pubic's safety. We do not want the requirement of having to get a license. But again, they will lose another one here...NIce money maker for the lawyers though.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, (2008)
" Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."
Scalia is indicating(he's giving us a hint, is the way I see it) that concealed carry can be prohibited under the 2nd Amendment. That conclusion is pretty obvious from that read.
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
You have not supported your argument that
He certainly did not have a problem with some type of licensing. At this point I doubt SCOTUS will overturn licensing that is not arbitrary or capricious given the reluctance to address other restrictions.
I would not say that Scalia indicated concealed carry can be prohibited. He was merely stating the obvious. Past courts including SCOTUS have stated that concealed carry is not part of the right. If you want SCOTUS to accept concealed carry, you need to make a case for why they should overrule past precedent.
danb
dont be a dumbass
No, and you know full well thats not how appellate law works. You argue the question X and dont reach Y,Z. The Roberts court never reaches un-necessary questions. Not contesting Y and Z at this time is not the same as "being ok with them. "
Sometimes I wonder if you got your law degree from a gumball machine.
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
Did you even read what I wrote?
The previous poster claimed that Gura had
That is not entirely correct. He would have a problem with licensing if it was "enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner"
This is apparently taken directly from the oral argument.
I never said anything about him "being ok with them." Where is this quote you attribute to me?
danb
dont be a dumbass
Those quotes are in the context of one specific case before the court and nothing more.
How's this?...And there was no mention of sawed-off shotguns until this point in questioning.
Anthony M. Kennedy
But Just to be clear... and I don't want to misstate your position, but my understanding, I at least inferred that you would consider it reasonable to ban shipment of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns in interstate commerce?
Alan Gura
Yes, Your Honor.
The point is needing a license to exercise a right, period. Gura is all for it, when he should have/be opposing it completely. A state can just as easily issue a " Certificate Of Competence" over that of a license...I didn't see him argue that point. What restrictions are they reluctant to address?...Maybe it's because of the fact that a LICENSE is involved with those restrictions. If the restrictions are not arbitrary and capricious, then they are good to go according to Gura.
Why try and argue concealed carry cases at all, when past state supreme courts have ruled open carry can't be prohibited. That's a no-brainer there, yet every carry case has a participant wanting to conceal carry...Which means, you're just asking to LOSE the case....Not a very smart way to litigate.
My thing is that, to me 2A is 2A, whether you conceal, open, etc. Is 1A the same? Funny how power corrupts. This conceal crap has been an issue since the early 1800's. Guess back then not proper, manly, or gentlemanly to conceal. Hell, to me the first thing a perp would do is to assess who is open carrying and take them out first. I have no experience in litigation or whatever. I read these threads with interest and an attempt at understanding. But, I do know when someone is trying to put their dong in my arsh dry. That is how I feel about Gubbmint.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
-
-
Montgomery County Gun Buyback: Interfaith GVP Network Aims to Hit $30,000 Goal by April 20 (2 Viewers)- Latest: Bob A
-
3rd Circuit Case - Range v Atty General Non-Violent Misdemeanor as a Prohibitor (5 Viewers)- Latest: Inigoes
