fightinbluhen51
"Quack Pot Call Honker"
- Oct 31, 2008
- 8,974
I wasn't clear....I was voluntarily without power, running water or internet for 5 days at the Undisclosed Location (tm)
I'll buy your gas to get back there then? lol
I wasn't clear....I was voluntarily without power, running water or internet for 5 days at the Undisclosed Location (tm)
I'll buy your gas to get back there then? lol
anyone know of a time frame of when we should see/hear any news on this
moving forward
well, I go away for 5 days with no electricity, running water or internet access and look what happens?
Maybe I'll go away for another week and we'll have shall issue, no ballistic fingerprinting, no regulated long guns and no handgun roster.
I'll be back next Friday.
.
anyone know of a time frame of when we should see/hear any news on this
moving forward
Removing restrictions is what the Palmer case is about. That ruling should be coming out very soon, in fact I don't know why it is still delayed. We've been waiting on that one for a while and it's still at the lowest level but it is expected to escalate.
More plaintiffs named - http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=185653
anyone know of a time frame of when we should see/hear any news on this
moving forward
I think Patrick laid out what I thought was pretty accurate description of events somewhere in this thread. A year or more for anything substantial????
Yesterday, 12:36 PM #185
Patrick
Senior Member
Deadlines will be set for initial briefs, then response to those briefs. Then MD will file a request for an extension, which SAF will oppose with a request for a Motion for Summary Judgment. The state's request will be granted, the SAF request denied.
Then the state will file another brief and SAF will respond. At which point the court will call a hearing, where both sides will acknowledge no "finding" is required. SAF will again ask for an MSJ and MD will again request a delay. The MD motion will be denied but the court will allow MD time to formulate more arguments before actually ruling. Barring something interesting from MD, the court will issue their judgment.
This is pretty much how every single other case has gone.
If MD loses, they will request a stay on the MSJ while they appeal based on the inherent danger of letting people roam the streets with guns. The court may agree if MD paints a case that says they might win on appeal. But given this is a civil rights case, chances are the answer will be "tough".
Timeline front to back: 9 months although we could see things move much faster. I might owe Krucam dinner this year, yet.
That is one bet I'd be happy to lose.
The big likelihood for slowing the process down will be one of the other cases making it up the chain of the 4th or to the Supreme Court before the judgment is made. Then this court will go into hiatus waiting on the Supreme/Circuit Court to decide, just like so many cases that waited on McDonald. So if the NC case advances, or if Sykes in CA moves beyond the 9th...everything will probably stop. Not sure the NY case can advance fast enough to get in the way.
http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=732137&postcount=185
Nope, that's Kachalsky v. Cacace, the New York case.