Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Gura files an opposition to the motion for reconsideration.

  1. #1
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463

    Gura files an opposition to the motion for reconsideration.

    Today Gura made a strategic error by asking the district court judge to immediately deny the motion for reconsideration.

    Should the district court deny the motion for reconsideration the 30 day clock starts for the Defendants to file a notice of appeal. Once the appeal is filed there is a very real danger that the court of appeals will stay the district court ruling pending the appeal, we all know an appeal could take years before there is a decision.

    The district court judge could have sat on the motion for reconsideration until well after there was a handgun carry law to his liking in place.

    Here is a link to the memorandum in opposition to the motion for reconsideration.


    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse. Besides, Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution, concealed carry can be prohibited.

    "[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.

    "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. 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." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.

    "We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller." McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S. Ct. 3020 - Supreme Court (2010) at 3050.

    "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons..." Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 - Supreme Court (1897) at 282


    Charles Nichols President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  2. #2
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post

    "[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.

    "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons..." Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 - Supreme Court (1897) at 282


    Charles Nichols President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
    what kind of brain-dead.....?

    The first bit is fine though incomplete, the second is utter verbal diarrhea. Shall not be infringed means just that. Though I guess one can use the first ruling along with the 2A itself to justify OCing in DC. No one will though of course. Too busy accepting the government knows better and can remove rights at will
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    The legal "profession" is all about precise definitions.

    So if the definition of a SIMPLE word such as "is" is questionable/debatable (as per former weasel-worded President Clinton), then how much MORE so is the definition of "infringe?"
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 09-12-2014 at 02:50 PM.
    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Washington, DC USA
    Posts
    175
    It's good that Gura did point out the errors in the Defendant's ridiculous drivel, and it is documented. Gura suggests that the court deny the motion but Judge Scullin still isn't obligated to reply to anything between now and Oct 22nd.

    A lot of knowledgeable people think that the SCOTUS 5 wants this case, so DC appealing it would be fine. The Brady campaign and it's affiliates don't want it appealed because they understand the national impact of a SCOTUS decision. The corruption plagued politicians in DC don't care about any national impact. They just want to do whatever it takes to hold on to the ban, in some form, as long as possible.

  5. #5
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by Toymaker View Post
    Gura suggests that the court deny the motion...
    The last sentence on page one states "the Court should deny the motion expeditiously."

    That is more than a suggestion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toymaker View Post
    A lot of knowledgeable people think that the SCOTUS 5 wants this case, so DC appealing it would be fine.
    The problem is these are the same "knowledgeable people" who thought they would win Hightower v Boston, Kachalsky v Cacase, Drake v. Filko, Woollard v Gallagher, NRA v. McCraw, and Peterson v. Martinez.

    We don't want Gura getting a third bite at the apple via Palmer. He will once again argue before SCOTUS that the exercise of a fundamental right can be conditioned upon a government issued permission slip. One of the five justices may just buy off on that.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Washington, DC USA
    Posts
    175
    OK.......

    So he strongly suggests that the motion is denied. Again, that doesn't mean that Judge Scullin is obligated to respond. Judge Scullin could respond, or he could just accept it as a credible rebuttal to DC's ridiculous assertions and move on. It's expected that DC will present a law that is very restrictive so a response showing the errors of their twisted 'reasoning' was necessary to set the stage for the next step. Ignoring DC and not pointing out the flaws in their reasoning would have given their supporters a more solid base to work from.

    Have you ever wondered why Chief Justice Roberts twice ordered Judge Scullin specifically (2011 and 2014) to hear Palmer? Have you ever wondered why it's taken so long for Palmer to be heard? Why has California AG Harris decided to grab hold of Peruta and sit on it for as long as she can?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •