Too late. His big and vulgar mouth got him sent to banned camp
“Poor soul he was just too high strung”
So sad
“Poor soul he was just too high strung”
So sad
Last edited:
His motherNow I'm wondering if SW51 was jeff g redux
HahahahahaOr if he was from South Carolina
As a non-attorney spokesperson…..Even tho it hurts me to say it, i would give 2CA 3 weeks to explain their actions and if within that time frame they do not, then again appeal to SCOTUS saying hey we gave 2CA time to explain their actions and they refused to do so and present it to Thomas since Sotomayor has already had her chance.
"It would be up to the people to revolt against any government that defies the rule of law...and that will never happen..."When you bar anyone from owning a firearm you're setting precedent...wording that is not found in the amendment. As long as there is one precedent for violating someone's rights the gun grabbers will always exploit it. that's why there should be no exceptions. Instead of banning people from owning because they are criminals, you put those who use guns to commit crimes in prison for LONG time.
SCOTUS has plenty of "authority" but no way to enforce it. If the states or the federal government decided not to abide by their ruling there isn't much the court could do, especially right now when the AG is a far left lunatic. It would be up to the people to revolt against any government that defies the rule of law...and that will never happen...
Reading it now. It's got to feel good having this obvious of a win to argue from.
1) They bring up that the CCIA is retaliation by the state for the bruen decision. They quote the antigunners a few times saying this is to fight against the bruen decision and to defy the SC. They say the state misrepresents the purpose of the CCIA in their argument and that its not something necessary to comply with bruen.
2) These shatter the state's interlocutory argument. They say the interlocutory posture of the case is BECAUSE the state appealed it up. Basically asking how the state can say its wrong for a higher court to take this, when THEY bumped it up to a higher court on their appeal. They also say the CCIA is so damned unconstitutional that it's a proper application of the SC to remedy.
3) It's time for the percolator. They say that the state is full of sh!t when they say the SC needs to let lower courts figure this out for a while before revisiting it. They argue that bruen isn't new jurisprudence, but just restating old jurisprudence like heller and mcdonald. They also argue that they're not asking the SC to make a ruling, only to scrap the stay and allow the lower court's ruling to go in to effect. They close with examples of the SC revisiting cases shortly after ruling on them in the past.
4) status quo argument. They argue that the status quo is what the courts corrected law to be prior to the CCIA taking effect. They say even after passing, the court challenged have stayed different aspects of the CCIA so its changed too much to even become status quo since passed. They reiterate that lower courts already found the CCIA unconstitutional, so status quo is before what's currently argued...or before the CCIA.
5)
Revoked for what? Doing something legal?
As I stated go read the statute. It says if you have a permit, you may carry open or concealed.
As I said I did it in front of two MSP Troopers. No problem
The ignorance is strong with some
I can't see Sotomayor writing an opinion in support of the lower court against the 2CA ... Her entire being and DNA is probably so furiously enraged by having to support the lower court. that I for one can't imagine her doing it !If Sotomayor did bring this before the whole court before making a ruling, Oh boy to be a fly on the wall when Thomas gets hold of it or has a say and could Thomas write the ah "order" while Sotymayor just signs off on it or "help" Sotomayor write it for if so ,I am willing to think that it would be a very ah major smack down to 2CA for failing to do their jobs as required by SCOTUS and thus not happy at being smacked down and so would not look very kindly upon NY even tho its their own fault they caused said smack down in the first place.
Next is the 2CA panel hearing the appeal and deciding whether to overturn the DC decision or concur. It's 2CA, so it'll almost certainly be an overturn. Hopefully the plaintiffs will skip the en banc appeal, because it's just added cost and time, and do a direct appeal to SCOTUS. And no matter the outcome, En Banc just delays the inevitable good SCOTUS outcome.Hi All, I have a question about the future process for this case. Now that SCOTUS has sent it back to the Second Circuit, what happens next. Does it mean that a 3 judge panel hears the case, and then the losing party can petition the entire Second Circuit to hear the case. and then the losing party in that second decision takes it back to SCOTUS? Or will the process allow SCOTUS to hear the case as soon as the Second Circuit schedules hearings and hears the case in the summer? I'm just trying to understand how many steps there are between now and when the case goes back to SCOTUS for the final ruling that Justices Thomas and Alito seem to be keen to give? Thanks for educating a non-lawyer.
Cal68
I drove a tank. Held a General's rank.I was at the wall just a few months before it came down. I was in Lithuania in ‘89 when the Soviet tanks rolled in. Interesting times.
Yeah, well, there is A LOT of that going around.IMHO 2CA is acting like a child throwing a hissy fit...
I have enough relatives and acquaintances from NY that I recognize 2CA's attitude. I wouldn't say hissy fit, I'd call it more "We know we're right and you're wrong, and anyway who the h*ll are you flyover state yokels to tell NY what to do?"IMHO 2CA is acting like a child throwing a hissy fit...
I have a few pieces of the wall. Great history.I was at the wall just a few months before it came down. I was in Lithuania in ‘89 when the Soviet tanks rolled in. Interesting times.
Thanks for the clear explanation. Very much appreciated by this non-lawyer!Next is the 2CA panel hearing the appeal and deciding whether to overturn the DC decision or concur. It's 2CA, so it'll almost certainly be an overturn. Hopefully the plaintiffs will skip the en banc appeal, because it's just added cost and time, and do a direct appeal to SCOTUS. And no matter the outcome, En Banc just delays the inevitable good SCOTUS outcome.
Alito has thrown a wild card into the process, though, with his statement about timeliness of 2CA's actions. If 2CA tries to drag out the process, which NY will certainly encourage them to do now that the stay's in place, the plaintiffs can do another direct appeal to SCOTUS after some (still TBD) time and end this in our favor.