Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Yep, I'm surprised. Also, this may allow the 7th circuit to rule first on Moore in Illinois.
-
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.
Peterson v. Martinez (10th Circuit) Official Appeals Thread
- Thread starter Gray Peterson
- Start date
Yep, I'm surprised. Also, this may allow the 7th circuit to rule first on Moore in Illinois.
lucky256
Regular Member
It's been four months now.
Maybe I'm impatient but I didn't know or think it could take this long.
I wish I knew:
How long it takes on average for this court to decide?
What's the longest time it took for a decision in recent history?
If it even has to be decided?
I hope I'm not beating a dead horse bringing this up again...
Maybe I'm impatient but I didn't know or think it could take this long.
I wish I knew:
How long it takes on average for this court to decide?
What's the longest time it took for a decision in recent history?
If it even has to be decided?
I hope I'm not beating a dead horse bringing this up again...
LoneEchoWolf
Regular Member
Same feeling, would love to know if they have set a date or anything yet? any update is nice if there is one! and if there is anything we can do to help in any way please let us know! you know we all have your back! Maybe we can have the Mods Sticky this thread as they did for the first case? as this case is very important to us in my oppinion.
Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
There is no update at this time. I'll be announcing the decision, & I check the CA10 website daily.
The decision is overdue. The theory is that the 10th circuit is awaiting the decision of 7th circuit with Moore/Shepard.
Wanna help? Contribute using the link in my signature. Freedom isn't free.
Last edited:
JamesB
Regular Member
Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Nothing yet.
Anubis
Newbie
nada
Today, I searched http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/clerk/opinions.php and found nothing between 10/01/2012 and 11/30/2012 on the subject case, known as 11-1149 in the 10th circuit court.
Today, I searched http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/clerk/opinions.php and found nothing between 10/01/2012 and 11/30/2012 on the subject case, known as 11-1149 in the 10th circuit court.
Last edited:
Beau
Regular Member
Anubis
Newbie
Too right. I like to fantasize that the anti court is holding onto the opinion so long because it's favorable to Gray and they wish they didn't have to agree with him.
We-the-People
Regular Member
Nah....they'd never do something like that. Our criminal "justice" system is totally above board and fair......isn't it? (sarcasm now off)
Saxxon
Regular Member
Breaking your reply down in proper English language logic, the word "criminal" seems to be an adjective describing "'justice' system" - ie, the justice system is criminal in its effect/intent. Do I understand this correctly?
We-the-People
Regular Member
Well that's one MAIN way to read it. Sorry, I'm fresh out of fancy prizes. It is nice to have someone finally get that meaning (though there may have been others who simply didn't state it).
The other way is that there isn't any justice in the criminal justice system, hence justice is placed in quotes.
I haven't settled on one over the other yet. However, as I continue in my CCJ training I'm more and more convinced that it's just a big dog and pony show intended to make us THINK we have the system our founding fathers designed. I assure you, nothing is further from the truth.
Let's say you're a working siff, barely able to pay the bills and keep a roof over your head and food on the table. Ooops, you just got served papers in civil court and you have 30 days to "respond". Oh crud, you have to pay (a lot of) money to file the response......and if you don't file teh response, the otheside wins by default. Yeah that's fair.
In criminal, there are "over 4500 federal crimes". Now the reason the number is "over 4500" is that even the federal government, after a 2 year research program, couldn't identity how many federal crimes were on the books but identified at least 4500.
And don't even try to figure out how the "modern courts" have constructed the exemptions to the fourth that are allowed to fly these days.
Yeah, I'm leaning towards the adjective use of the word criminal.
Anubis
Newbie
We will soon know. The 7th issued an opinion today in the cases of Moore and Shepard v IL. The IL ban on all forms of carry was ruled unconstitutional!
Last edited:
hopefully this will pave way for denvers ban on OC to be lifted... time will tell.
Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
A 28j will be filed soon in re Moore. For me, Denver's OC licensing requirement with state law creates an IL situation for me specific and for all others effected by lack of reciprocity.
davidmcbeth
Banned
The ruling was predictable ... if you happened to listen to the oral arguments they focused on the word "bear"..one old timer said "this does not mean bear in your home, does it? That wouldn't make any sense"
since9
Campaign Veteran
Unfortunately, the 7th has jurisdiction over IL, WI, and IN. Those of us here in Colorado fall under the 10th, along with UT, WY, KS, NM, and OK. Decisions at the federal court system level do carry some weight, with respect to precedence, but from what I understand, decisions made in one circuit are often ignored in another. Judge Black made a very key ruling in the 9th, but it's only been enforced in the State of AZ, since that's where the case was heard. California, also in the 9th, has subsequently passed laws in direct violation of his ruling.
shame there is no consistency. what a stupid system and process. i learned something today tnx!
Anubis
Newbie
True. But conflicting decisions in 2 circuits also enhance the probability that the Supreme Court will take one on appeal. This decision in the 7th found an unequivocal right to bear arms outside the home, which indicates may-issue is not acceptable. The recent Kachalsky v. Westchester decision in the 2nd found that may-issue was good enough and NY could require a reason beyond self-defense to issue a carry license. If either of these decisions is appealed to the Supremes, the conflict could induce them to take it.