-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Szymecki v. Norfolk 2nd Amendment case dismissed by Judge Morgan!
- Thread starter Renegade
- Start date
Renegade
Regular Member
imported post
See Judge Morgan’s opinion and order…
See Judge Morgan’s opinion and order…
AbNo
Regular Member
imported post
What the hell? How is it that "the Norfolk ordinance is valid under Virginia Law"?
See page four, section IV.
What the hell? How is it that "the Norfolk ordinance is valid under Virginia Law"?
See page four, section IV.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
AbNo wrote:
That's the defendants assertion. The court is just re-stating a summary of the City's list of reasons. Which is kind of funny given that the Citymanager or somebodyapologized and said not long after the incident something to the effect Chet wasn't breaking the law.
AbNo wrote:
That's the defendants assertion. The court is just re-stating a summary of the City's list of reasons. Which is kind of funny given that the Citymanager or somebodyapologized and said not long after the incident something to the effect Chet wasn't breaking the law.
AbNo
Regular Member
imported post
So basically, this judge is either ignorant of, or purposefully ignoring VA State law?
So basically, this judge is either ignorant of, or purposefully ignoring VA State law?
imported post
AbNo wrote:
Nope! :banghead:
The judge is on the bench of a Federal court, hearing claims of violations of Constitutional rights. There are no claims of state law violation before this judge.
That the Norfolk ordinance was violative of state pre-emption law is not the question in this case. That issue was briefly mentioned in passing, and properly was not given any notice by the Federal court.
In case anyone missed it, the judge's order was exceedingly kind/gracious in that it allows defective pleadings to be amended so that they address issues where the plaintif has a better chance of succeeding. In other words, the jusge pointed out where Chet and his lawyers goofed, told them what Amendments they should have cited as being violated, and granted permission (read: encouraged) to amend the pleadings to cite those Amendments instead.
When a judge tells you he cannot help you under one Amendment but can go postal against Norfolk under another Amendment, you ought to listen and do what the judge tells you. :idea:
Chet will have his justice when all is said and done - do not despair. :monkey
stay safe.
skidmark
AbNo wrote:
Nope! :banghead:
The judge is on the bench of a Federal court, hearing claims of violations of Constitutional rights. There are no claims of state law violation before this judge.
That the Norfolk ordinance was violative of state pre-emption law is not the question in this case. That issue was briefly mentioned in passing, and properly was not given any notice by the Federal court.
In case anyone missed it, the judge's order was exceedingly kind/gracious in that it allows defective pleadings to be amended so that they address issues where the plaintif has a better chance of succeeding. In other words, the jusge pointed out where Chet and his lawyers goofed, told them what Amendments they should have cited as being violated, and granted permission (read: encouraged) to amend the pleadings to cite those Amendments instead.
When a judge tells you he cannot help you under one Amendment but can go postal against Norfolk under another Amendment, you ought to listen and do what the judge tells you. :idea:
Chet will have his justice when all is said and done - do not despair. :monkey
stay safe.
skidmark
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Great points, Skidmark. I have frequently read court cases for nearly 15 years for work and have seen this scenario as you discussed it several times. I typically see it in cases where it is obvious that the judge sympathizes with the plaintiff and is giving them a road map for successfully bringing the case.
Great points, Skidmark. I have frequently read court cases for nearly 15 years for work and have seen this scenario as you discussed it several times. I typically see it in cases where it is obvious that the judge sympathizes with the plaintiff and is giving them a road map for successfully bringing the case.
imported post
deepdiver wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'd just like to reframe the comment.
The judge is not only giving a roadmap for sucess, but ispersonally driving the bus that Norfolk et al. will be thrown under. :celebrate
In case anybody does not understand, let my say this - the federal judge WANTS Chet to win. He WANTS it so badly he can taste it.
stay safe.
skidmark
deepdiver wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'd just like to reframe the comment.
The judge is not only giving a roadmap for sucess, but ispersonally driving the bus that Norfolk et al. will be thrown under. :celebrate
In case anybody does not understand, let my say this - the federal judge WANTS Chet to win. He WANTS it so badly he can taste it.
stay safe.
skidmark
AbNo
Regular Member
imported post
skidmark wrote:
Also, :lol: at the bus comment.
skidmark wrote:
Ah, I am wiser. Thanks, Skid!
Also, :lol: at the bus comment.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
skidmark wrote:
skidmark wrote:
Question (not disagreeing). Do you conclude that based solely on the wording of the judge's order or on other information?
AbNo
Regular Member
imported post
Deep, go back and re-read the decision, take Skid's comments into consideration when you do it.
Deep, go back and re-read the decision, take Skid's comments into consideration when you do it.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
AbNo wrote:
AbNo wrote:
I have. I have now read it twice more. I don't disagree with skidmark as I said, I just am not prepared myself to make such a strong claim as to the judge's position based upon my reading which is why I asked the question.Deep, go back and re-read the decision, take Skid's comments into consideration when you do it.
AbNo
Regular Member
imported post
Eh, it may not be as strong as Skid worded it, but we can take a mile out of that given inch, can't we?
Eh, it may not be as strong as Skid worded it, but we can take a mile out of that given inch, can't we?
imported post
deepdiver wrote:
There is a great deal that will remain unsaid by me regardingmy conclusion that the judge is gearing up to drive a bus. I am willing to say that much of what leads me to my conclusion is based on judicial history - not just with this specific judge or with this specific court.
stay safe.
skidmark
deepdiver wrote:
There is a great deal that will remain unsaid by me regardingmy conclusion that the judge is gearing up to drive a bus. I am willing to say that much of what leads me to my conclusion is based on judicial history - not just with this specific judge or with this specific court.
stay safe.
skidmark
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
skidmark wrote:
skidmark wrote:
If you change your mind about it "remain(ing) unsaid", I would very much like to read your reasoning on the forum or in PM. I say that because I have come to respect your opinion and I ask to learn, not to challenge. Regardless, our opinions differ only as to matter of degree but not as to substance.
Lysander
Regular Member
imported post
deepdiver wrote:
deepdiver wrote:
Heh. Likewise, I'd be interested - as I try extremely hard not to use the words "slam dunk" or "open and shut" no matter how much I'm pestered to do so.
casullshooter
Regular Member
imported post
If the Judge is not driving the bus , he gave a well marked map to the plaintiffs lawyer. As to incorporation, Alan Gura spoke of this at the recent VCDL meeting at length. Go to VCDLs website and watch the video.
Regards
If the Judge is not driving the bus , he gave a well marked map to the plaintiffs lawyer. As to incorporation, Alan Gura spoke of this at the recent VCDL meeting at length. Go to VCDLs website and watch the video.
Regards