• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

An interesting Federal Court decision

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Good decision. It has applicability beyond Idaho (and Virginia). It should be moved to General Discussion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Mods here spend way too much time doing stuff they shouldn't, and not enough time doing things they should!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
Mods here spend way too much time doing stuff they shouldn't, and not enough time doing things they should!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
When you own and operate your own site, you are the determining factor.

Here not so much, if at all. Let's not go down that road again.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,449
Location
Valhalla
I am free to comment. You are free to do whatever you will about it--including choosing to ignore all criticism. I suspect you will take some official action, but as usual, I really don't care if you do.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
Could we get back to the discussion about the court decision?

I think we all agree it's a good one. As things stand now, it only applies to the District of Idaho. And not really, as it is only a preliminary injunction against the Corps of Engineers from enforcing thjeir No Guns regs until the case actually goes to trial and a decision is reached there.

Then we can expect an appeal to the 9th Circuit - which has had more decisions overturned by SCOTUS than any other Circuit.

For a few comments, look here: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2014/01/injunction_agai.php#comments

So - hold our breath? No. Watch with interest? Yes.

stay safe.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
It is one that will have broad effect beyond Idaho (and Virginia). The Corps of Engineers have land and water all over the US.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,277
Location
northern wis
I seen other decisions at the lower levels that disagree with the powers to be.

It seems their first response to it is, it only applies in that jurisdiction.

If is some thing they like they tend to use the lower decision to push for changes across the country.

I don't see the Corps changing anything besides in this courts jurisdiction.

We well see
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
It can only be immediately enforced within that jurisdiction. However, the case, while not controlling, is compelling in other jurisdictions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
I seen other decisions at the lower levels that disagree with the powers to be.

It seems their first response to it is, it only applies in that jurisdiction.

If is some thing they like they tend to use the lower decision to push for changes across the country.

I don't see the Corps changing anything besides in this courts jurisdiction.

We well see
Eugene Volokh provides a link and analysis.

Other useful info at that site:

Gun Control, Mass Shootings, and Political Ignorance

See a Crime and Videorecord It? Go to Prison
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
This happened to a friend of a friend of mine. 15 year old kid in Connecticut. He was an "aspiring videographer", took his camera with him everywhere... got wind of a fight that was going to be happening at school, and he filmed it. During the course of the investigation, he turned the film over to the cops. Despite the local officer not considering him for a crime, days later, they arrested him, and he eventually spent the better part of a YEAR in jail. Unjustly tried as an adult as some sort of an accomplice. Exposed much corruption in the Connecticut judicial system.

15 Year Old Boy Sentenced and Convicted as Adult for Videotaping a Fight

TFred
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
TFred, that is precisely the point of not talking to the police. If you don't, you may be hassled (probably illegally) as Primus points out. If you do, you run the risk, small but extremely consequential, of helping the cops and DA arrest and convict you of something you don't even realize has been legislated into crimehood.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,474
Location
Northern Piedmont
It can only be immediately enforced within that jurisdiction. However, the case, while not controlling, is compelling in other jurisdictions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
Right. A violation of the injunction in Virginia would be a basis for a rule to show cause in the USDC in which the injunction was granted.
 
Top