Hanson V DC, The DC Magazine Capacity Case

[jcutonilli]

It doesn't have to define what the right is. Historically, arms included privately owned cannon and ships.

You've contacted George Lyon (attorney-of-record) about getting involved in this case?

While the amendment doesn't have to define what the right is, you do need to figure out what the right is in order to demonstrate infringement.

I have contacted both attorneys of record a week ago. No response.

 

[jcutonilli]

These Judges also have their politics before them. Judge Contreras deliberately ignored the precedent established in Heller, Bruen and other cases. He intentionally ignored plain text analysis and substituted a balancing test of his own creation instead which was completely incoherent and inappropriate in making reference to preserving a "police advantage". You tell me: Since when did that become part of any Second Amendment related analysis? Finally, he was purposefully inconsistent and sloppy with his verbiage to reach his desired outcome which was politically driven.

All judges are influenced by politics. He certainly did not ignore precedent. Even the guy you cite acknowledged that he described certain parts of the precedent correctly. The plaintiffs have been arguing that the Courts are using a balancing test since Heller and McDonald were decided. SCOTUS keeps denying the petitions. Bruen changed certain things, but based on how the Courts are interpreting things, not much has changed.

It is really up to the lawyers to point out the flaws in the arguments, yet they seem to do a poor job of it.

 

[rbird7282]

Oh the favors that were called it on that....

David Gregory Broke Gun Law, Newly Revealed Arrest Affidavit Shows (Video) - TheWrap

NBC News was aware of what the then-"Meet the Press" host could face for on-air stunt in late 2012

www.thewrap.com

Don't even think there were favors, they simply didn't want to charge one of their own and have the blowback. I don't think MPD would've done anything.

 

[Sunrise]

Don't even think there were favors, they simply didn't want to charge one of their own and have the blowback. I don't think MPD would've done anything.

An MPD detective (Wayne Gerrish) requested an arrest warrant for Gregory. It was denied by the DC Attorney General at the time.

Detective wanted arrest warrant for NBC's David Gregory

A D.C. detective wanted to arrest NBC's David Gregory for displaying a high-capacity magazine.

www.usatoday.com

Trying to find a live link to the actual affidavit, but it’s been some time.

EDIT: just found it —>

David Gregory | DC Gun Law | Ammunition Magazine

An Affidavit obtained by Legal Insurrection Blog shows that D.C. police wanted to arrest David Gregory for a gun law violation, but were denied by prosecutors.

legalinsurrection.com

 

[clandestine]

Because I understand the the other side's arguments and find fault with the plaintiff's arguments when they lose? It is about learning from your mistakes and making better arguments so that you will win the next time.

Maybe you are happy with the status quo and all of the losses that happen in Court. Doing the same thing over an over and expecting a different result is often described as insanity. It seems to describe what you seem to believe.

You claimed that we would lose NYRSPA/Bruen.

What 2A case have you argued and WON before a Circuit Court or SCOTUS?

 

[Sunrise]

All judges are influenced by politics. He certainly did not ignore precedent. Even the guy you cite acknowledged that he described certain parts of the precedent correctly. The plaintiffs have been arguing that the Courts are using a balancing test since Heller and McDonald were decided. SCOTUS keeps denying the petitions. Bruen changed certain things, but based on how the Courts are interpreting things, not much has changed.

It is really up to the lawyers to point out the flaws in the arguments, yet they seem to do a poor job of it.

A balancing test for preserving “Police Advantage” by limiting other DC carriers/owners to 10 Round Magazines is a wholly unsupported judicial analysis. There’s no support or justification for this type of analysis here. The Judge isn’t supposed to do this, but he did it anyway because of his political objective.

 

[Sunrise]

Even the guy you cite acknowledged that he described certain parts of the precedent correctly.

You mean this part about magazines being arms?:



That’s a very low bar.

 

[jcutonilli]

You claimed that we would lose NYRSPA/Bruen.

What 2A case have you argued and WON before a Circuit Court or SCOTUS?

I don't believe that I claimed we would lose Bruen. I certainly speculated on what the outcome might be based on the arguments that were made. I also help people better understand the other sides arguments, but I certainly do not support those arguments.

 

[jcutonilli]

A balancing test for preserving “Police Advantage” by limiting other DC carriers/owners to 10 Round Magazines is a wholly unsupported judicial analysis. There’s no support or justification for this type of analysis here. The Judge isn’t supposed to do this, but he did it anyway because of his political objective.

The judge never used the term "Police Advantage".

As stated previous the test is not "commonly *owned*". The test is "in common use". The number of rounds fired are used to demonstrate a common use. The information supplied by the plaintiffs seem to confirm that the extra capacity is not used.

 

[jcutonilli]

You mean this part about magazines being arms?:



That’s a very low bar.

I was referring to one of your favorite sections

"He starts with "whether the prohibited weapons are ‘typically possessed . . . for lawful purposes.” That's the correct standard for 2A protection."

It is pretty clear that this judge is not ignoring Heller and Bruen as you have claimed.

 

[Sunrise]

The judge never used the term "Police Advantage".

You should reread it:

“The District’s LCM ban keeps the advantage police have over armed civilians who may be suspects or engaged in criminal activity.”

You’re right: The Judge says “advantage police” instead of “police advantage”.

 

[Sunrise]

As stated previous the test is not "commonly *owned*". The test is "in common use". The number of rounds fired are used to demonstrate a common use. The information supplied by the plaintiffs seem to confirm that the extra capacity is not used.

As for your second point, again:



This was a bad faith analysis by the Judge on this issue. I’m at a loss for how you don’t see that.

 

[jcutonilli]

As for your second point, again:



This was a bad faith analysis by the Judge on this issue. I’m at a loss for how you don’t see that.

According to the judge "the Complaint and the motion for a preliminary injunction focus on Plaintiffs’ right of self-defense." (footnote pg 16) The judge focused on what the plaintiffs told him to focus on and the plaintiffs could not back up what they were saying. The problem is not the judge, it is the plaintiffs lawyers and their poor arguments.

Your twitter guy even mentions this. "if it is true that the Plaintiffs conceded this point too easily, they should argue it differently on summary judgment."

 

[Biggfoot44]

How many shot are fired does provide information about common usage. It is up to the lawyer to provide context, which the plaintiffs lawyers have not really done.

Not quite , and only potentially indirectly so .

Common usage of particular firearms or categories of firearms is quantifiable , including their capacities . Whether in specific instances how many rounds are used , doesn't change their common usage .

 

[Occam]

Common usage of particular firearms or categories of firearms is quantifiable , including their capacities . Whether in specific instances how many rounds are used , doesn't change their common usage .

Exactly. I hate this semantic BS. I use my carry SIG every day. By carrying it. It serves its purpose, as a tool for unlikely but important circumstances. Just like the common tire iron in every car's trunk. Its most common use is to provide the possessor with the comfort of knowing he or she is thusly equipped for a unlikely but possibly life-altering turn of events. That is a common use. It is THE common use.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Understanding the other side's arguments / viewpoints/ contexts is important . Doesn't mean accepting or agreeing with them , just gives you better ability to counter them .


Yeah , any lawyer has multiple potential avenues to persue . Can't argue every single one every single time , and certain arguments don't blend well together . There is always MMQB'ing to what if persued X, Y and Z , instead of A,B, and C , or vise versa .

Commonly Owned vs Common Usage ?
If a particular firearm ( in Common Ownership ) is of particular usefulness for a particular purpose . it would be difficult , neigh impossible , to Disprove that they weren't commonly used for their intended purposes .

 

[Biggfoot44]

I thought the most common usage of jack handle/ lug wrench was to jack up car / change a tire ? ( An actual * tire iron* is a different tool for different purposes )

 

[Occam]

I thought the most common usage of jack handle/ lug wrench was to jack up car / change a tire ? ( An actual * tire iron* is a different tool for different purposes )

I agree on that technicality, but don't change the point I was making through the use of that term. Every tool is used by the fact of its possession.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Ok . I wasn't sure if that wasn't a wink- nod for jack handles to be field expedient impact weapons .

 

[Sunrise]

You should reread it:

View attachment 411687

“The District’s LCM ban keeps the advantage police have over armed civilians who may be suspects or engaged in criminal activity.”

You’re right: The Judge says “advantage police” instead of “police advantage”.

@jcutonilli: You did see this, right?