Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI - Loaded Outside Home

  1. #1
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI - Loaded Outside Home

    Here's an article on a case involving 2A loaded outside the home that might be heard by SCOTUS.

    Issue involved an arrest in Virginia at a national park.

    Article here.
    Last edited by Sons of Liberty; 07-28-2011 at 12:17 AM. Reason: Arrest location corrected!
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  2. #2
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Hopefully SCOTUS will take the case. If they follow their own opinions in Heller and McDonald it should be a no brainer. And it would go a long way in helping us here in the PRK.

    ETA: PS - The way I understood the article I think he was arrested on the east coast, not CA.
    Last edited by coolusername2007; 07-27-2011 at 02:28 AM.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Sons of Liberty View Post
    Here's an article on a case involving 2A loaded outside the home that might be heard by SCOTUS.

    Issue involved an arrest in California at a national park.

    Article here.
    The arrest was in Virginia, not California.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
    The arrest was in Virginia, not California.
    The charge is rendered moot based on currect regulation if it was in conformance with VA law. However, VA law does not allow a concealed loaded handgun in a vehicle unless you have a CCW. I don't see whether or not he had one listed. If not, even today what he did was illegal per current regulations for Federal Parks/Forrests. This case is confusing with the mention of PDR regulations. What does that have to do with a case occuring in VA?
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  5. #5
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    Quote Originally Posted by coolusername2007 View Post
    ETA: PS - The way I understood the article I think he was arrested on the east coast, not CA.
    I stand corrected!
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    The charge is rendered moot based on currect regulation if it was in conformance with VA law. However, VA law does not allow a concealed loaded handgun in a vehicle unless you have a CCW. I don't see whether or not he had one listed. If not, even today what he did was illegal per current regulations for Federal Parks/Forrests. This case is confusing with the mention of PDR regulations. What does that have to do with a case occuring in VA?
    The conviction was for acts that occurred before the National Parks Amendment took effect. The NPA took effect on February 22nd, 2010. The events that precipitated this was pre-Heller. Rather than doing the smart thing and dropping the charges when Congress passed the law, they continued to doggedly prosecute Mr. Masciandaro and will not drop it, thus the appeal up to SCOTUS.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    329

    Question Hmmm...

    36 C.F.R. 4.12, failure to comply with a parking sign.

    “Front End Parking Only” area is should be illegal because it isn't about the public safety
    but for a lazy LEO don't wanna to get out and walking over to check the vehicle's tag at the back end parking.

    Should have written as in "non-moving motor vehicle violation".

    36 C.F.R. 2.4(b) (2007).

    Carrying or possessing a loaded weapon in a motor vehicle,
    vessel or other mode of transportation is prohibited, except that
    carrying or possessing a loaded weapon in a vessel is allowed
    when such vessel is not being propelled by machinery
    and is
    used as a shooting platform in accordance with Federal and State law.

    State law is unconstitutional because of the 14th Amendment or they are not in jurisdiction with federal NPS and/or NPS isn't jurisdiction with the State. They are many cases question about within the federal jurisdiction against the local government laws.


    Noted: On December 10, 2008—six
    months after Masciandaro's arrest but less than two
    months before his trial—the Secretary published a
    final version of the regulation, to take effect January
    9, 2009, which provided:

    Notwithstanding any other provision in this
    Chapter, a person may possess, carry, and transport
    concealed, loaded, and operable firearms
    within a national park area in accordance with the
    laws of the state in which the national park area,
    or that portion thereof, is located, except as otherwise
    prohibited by applicable Federal law.

    73 Fed. Reg. 74,966, 74,971–72 (codified at 36
    C.F.R. 2.4(h)).

    When 36 C.F.R. 2.4(h) took effect, Masciandaro
    had not yet been tried, and he promptly
    filed a motion with the magistrate judge to dismiss
    the charges against him, arguing that 2.4(h) had
    effectively superseded 2.4(b). He also argued
    that, in any event, 2.4(b) violated the Second
    Amendment, as applied to him and facially.

    On March 19, 2009, while Masciandaro's appeal
    to the district court was pending, the District
    Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary
    injunction, blocking enforcement of newly
    promulgated 2.4(h), because the Department of
    the Interior had failed to conduct the required environmental
    impact analysis. See Brady Campaign to
    Prevent Gun Violence v. Salazar, 612 F.Supp.2d 1(D.D.C.2009).

    Responding to this ruling, Congress
    promptly added language to an unrelated piece of
    legislation, which in essence reinstated 2.4(h) by
    statute. See Credit Card Accountability Responsibility
    and Disclosure Act of 2009 (“Credit CARD
    Act”), codified at 16 U.S.C. 1a–7b(b). Section
    512 of the Credit CARD Act provides:

    The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate
    or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual
    from possessing a firearm including an assembled
    or functional firearm in any unit of the
    National Park System or the National Wildlife
    Refuge System if—

    (1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited
    by law from possessing the firearm; and

    (2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance
    with the law of the State in which the unit

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Section 512 becomes effective on February 22, 2010. Section 512 affects implementation of the existing NPS regulations regarding the possession of firearms in national parks, by now allowing individuals to possess firearms if:

    (1) they are not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm and

    (2) such possession is in compliance with the law of the state in which the park unit or that portion of the unit is located.

    Section 512 applies to possession of firearms within the National Park System regardless of the jurisdictional status of the unit—exclusive, concurrent or proprietary.

    HUH?!? Around, around, around we go regardless the 14th Amendment clause in compliance with the law of the State?

    Are we getting from one nut of balls from them?

    Aren't you aware of this is one of a kind regardless the State or local government laws on knife, letter opener, sword, bow, pepper spray and etc.?
    Last edited by Wc; 08-13-2011 at 11:45 PM. Reason: Updating...

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    329

    Post Update

    Please see as above for up-to-date.

Posting Permissions

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