TTMD
Ultimate Member
- Nov 10, 2012
- 1,245
Right, the instructions do not specify *handgun* marksmanship on the dd214.
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:
I finally got it right TT
TTMD
Ultimate Member
- Nov 10, 2012
- 1,245
Ha! I didn't catching that that was your post! That's pretty funny actually.I finally got it right TT
yessir
color me schooled now.
ha
color me schooled now.
ha
rlc2
Active Member
The Washington Post's View:
"DC's gun protections should stand."
S/B titled: "Post Editors get it wrong, again".
WAPO's useful idiot progtard trolls are noticeably missing, while editors getting schooled in comments, however.
Nothing from Volokh, yet.
"DC's gun protections should stand."
S/B titled: "Post Editors get it wrong, again".
WAPO's useful idiot progtard trolls are noticeably missing, while editors getting schooled in comments, however.
Nothing from Volokh, yet.
The article does point out people who should be "allowed".
I guess that should go for newspapers being allowed to publish articles critical of a judge's opinion.
- Mar 8, 2013
- 6,993
Hahaha! The WaPo calling a well thought out and articulated judicial opinion cavalier? Go figure. I suppose the editors know what is best for all the minion readers.
Dogabutila
Ultimate Member
- Dec 21, 2010
- 2,362
But but but if it's not in agreement with them it can't possibly be well thought out!
Mr H
Unincited Co-Conservative
Imagine if the country was run by the editorial boards of WaPo and/or NYT.....
Oh, sorry... didn't mean to scare anyone.
Dogabutila
Ultimate Member
- Dec 21, 2010
- 2,362
Gonna have nightmares now thanks...
fightinbluhen51
"Quack Pot Call Honker"
- Oct 31, 2008
- 8,974
I find it more than just ironic that Judge Scullin is actually a senior judge on the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. He's currently assigned to DC to help ease the docket congestion here, thanks to SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts.
Isn't Palmer (that got the ball rolling) also the case that got reassigned multiple times by said Chief Justice because of all the stalling in the DC District?
It got reassigned once, likely because the original judge retired in 2011. Now I don't know if it's normal for the SCOTUS chief to do this; I would think the DC District Chief Judge would be the one to do it, for whatever reason it was Roberts.
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
I am working from memory, but Palmer saw three judges: Kennedy; ???; Scullen. The last two were assigned by the Chief after Kennedy sat on the case so long, which I guess is his MO for nearly every case.
They speak of a concern that prosecutions might become unconstitutional but I've always heard of defendant trying to draw out the clock, not shorten it. I don't know.
The 'War on Drugs' resulted in the federalizing of many previous state drug crimes, which has increased the load on federal courts by several fold. I am not trying to jack the thread with talk of the WoD, but was just answering your question with what little I have learned about reassignments and crowded dockets. I hope any discussion over the utility/futility of the WoD ignites in a new thread...
EDIT: Interesting SCOTUS Factoid: The Chief Justice is the head of the entire federal judiciary, and that means the entire third branch of government. Managing that beast (procurement, staffing, security, building leases nationwide, etc.) would be a massive undertaking for anyone without a day job, let alone a sitting justice. From what I understand, CJ Roberts takes a team approach and the other sitting justices each take responsibility for various pieces, including management and testifying before Congress over appropriations for their "section" of the branch. It's pretty impressive the way they work together, actually. I suspect that a sitting justice is about the busiest (and hardest working) senior government employee in the USA.
From what I read, CJ reassignments to out-of-circuit Senior Judges (semi-retired) are more common than in the past (Palmer was one of 10-12 reassigned in the DC Circuit at that time, I think). When a circuit is so backed up they literally have no more room on the docket, the CJ has to step in and get out of town resources. CJ Roberts testifies in front of Congress every year that the shortage of judges is critical and that the Constitutional limits of a speedy trial are at risk. I've heard other justices echo the same concern.
They speak of a concern that prosecutions might become unconstitutional but I've always heard of defendant trying to draw out the clock, not shorten it. I don't know.
The 'War on Drugs' resulted in the federalizing of many previous state drug crimes, which has increased the load on federal courts by several fold. I am not trying to jack the thread with talk of the WoD, but was just answering your question with what little I have learned about reassignments and crowded dockets. I hope any discussion over the utility/futility of the WoD ignites in a new thread...
EDIT: Interesting SCOTUS Factoid: The Chief Justice is the head of the entire federal judiciary, and that means the entire third branch of government. Managing that beast (procurement, staffing, security, building leases nationwide, etc.) would be a massive undertaking for anyone without a day job, let alone a sitting justice. From what I understand, CJ Roberts takes a team approach and the other sitting justices each take responsibility for various pieces, including management and testifying before Congress over appropriations for their "section" of the branch. It's pretty impressive the way they work together, actually. I suspect that a sitting justice is about the busiest (and hardest working) senior government employee in the USA.
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
SAF filed a motion with Scullen requesting contempt for DC because they failed to give a Maryland resident - an approved DC firearms instructor - his carry permit yesterday pursuant to law. This is pure foot-dragging, as an approved instructor has already met every legal obligation for the permit. This is not a case where they can claim they are backlogged - they have already processed his background investigation and registered his firearm.
News reports that DC has also filed a motion to stay Judge Scullen's original injunction, but I do not have the text of that yet.
SPECIAL NOTE: Some of you may know the personalities listed in these kinds of filings, either in social media or in real life. PLEASE respect as much privacy as you can and keep the banter down when it comes to the names and personas in all such filings. Also, in this case and others please remember to not link online names and real names unless the people involved have requested such. I can tell you from experience it is not fun to be Google-bait. Let's talk about the case...not those who step up and represent us all.
SAF Motion attached.
News reports that DC has also filed a motion to stay Judge Scullen's original injunction, but I do not have the text of that yet.
SPECIAL NOTE: Some of you may know the personalities listed in these kinds of filings, either in social media or in real life. PLEASE respect as much privacy as you can and keep the banter down when it comes to the names and personas in all such filings. Also, in this case and others please remember to not link online names and real names unless the people involved have requested such. I can tell you from experience it is not fun to be Google-bait. Let's talk about the case...not those who step up and represent us all.
SAF Motion attached.
TTMD
Ultimate Member
- Nov 10, 2012
- 1,245
Patrick - not sure if it's the attachment or Tapatalk, but the SAF link isn't working.
KevinK
Ultimate Member
PDF opened, seems to be Tapatalk.
TTMD
Ultimate Member
- Nov 10, 2012
- 1,245
Well that's lovely. Ok, thanks Kevin.
- Mar 8, 2013
- 6,993
"Court Ignoring Period," this ought to be good!
