John Wolver
Regular Member
imported post
fingers crossed that he is someone who upholds our constitution.
fingers crossed that he is someone who upholds our constitution.
-
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.
Lawsuit filed for carry in the District of Columbia
- Thread starter ianto94
- Start date
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
I've had my fingers crossed for a long time Wolver. It is freaking May and still no decision.
I've had my fingers crossed for a long time Wolver. It is freaking May and still no decision.
John Wolver
Regular Member
imported post
keep your head up
keep your head up
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
Oral arguments were 4 months ago. Why so long a wait for such a simple decision?
Oral arguments were 4 months ago. Why so long a wait for such a simple decision?
press1280
Regular Member
imported post
Probably waiting for guidance from McDonald.
Probably waiting for guidance from McDonald.
CraigC178
Regular Member
imported post
press1280 wrote:
I'm not so sure. I doubt that McDonald will address carry. My guess is that the court will limit its scope to incorporation and hopefully give some guidance to level of scrutiny. My understanding is that when it comes down to brass tacks McDonald is more of a 14th amendment issue than a true 2A question. Since DC isn't a state incorporation wouldn't effect the decision.
I'm no legal scholar, but I did stay at Holiday Inn Express.
press1280 wrote:
I'm not so sure. I doubt that McDonald will address carry. My guess is that the court will limit its scope to incorporation and hopefully give some guidance to level of scrutiny. My understanding is that when it comes down to brass tacks McDonald is more of a 14th amendment issue than a true 2A question. Since DC isn't a state incorporation wouldn't effect the decision.
I'm no legal scholar, but I did stay at Holiday Inn Express.
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
CraigC178 wrote:
CraigC178 wrote:
+1 Craig.
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
It has been 2 weks since Judge Kennedy has issued an opinion. Think he finally is going to make a ruling?
It has been 2 weks since Judge Kennedy has issued an opinion. Think he finally is going to make a ruling?
OC4me
Regular Member
imported post
Sounds like the Judge is waiting for the McDonald decision so as to allow him to 'edit' his decisionin case of a 'conflict'. He is just trying to cover his little robed hiney!
Sounds like the Judge is waiting for the McDonald decision so as to allow him to 'edit' his decisionin case of a 'conflict'. He is just trying to cover his little robed hiney!
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
I think the judge is a coward.
I think the judge is a coward.
Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
Thundar wrote:
He isn't being a coward. He is waiting for a decision from SCOTUS which may make part of a potential decision that he may make obsolete. The judge here isn't the friendliest to our interests, and he could have screwed us by making a decision early against us and force us to go in front of the Court of Appeals. He did not do that, unlike his colleague in Heller II
Thundar wrote:
He isn't being a coward. He is waiting for a decision from SCOTUS which may make part of a potential decision that he may make obsolete. The judge here isn't the friendliest to our interests, and he could have screwed us by making a decision early against us and force us to go in front of the Court of Appeals. He did not do that, unlike his colleague in Heller II
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
Gray Peterson wrote:
1) Justice delayed = justice denied
2) I don't think the judge is necessarily unfriendly to fundamental rights. I think that the judge is cowardly for waiting for adecision that may not have any relation to this case.
3) Heller II is right where it should be. It will arrive at the circuit court soon and at SCOTUS in 2012. If not decided sooner, it will determine whether strict scrutiny must apply to gun laws. The non-sensical ruling of the district court moron, I mean judge, that said that the RKBA only applies in your house will be overturned.
4) Judge Kennedy has had all of the facts and case law for many months. If he is waiting for McDonald, then he is a coward and a fool. McDonald is about the 14th A which does not apply to DC.
Gray Peterson wrote:
1) Justice delayed = justice denied
2) I don't think the judge is necessarily unfriendly to fundamental rights. I think that the judge is cowardly for waiting for adecision that may not have any relation to this case.
3) Heller II is right where it should be. It will arrive at the circuit court soon and at SCOTUS in 2012. If not decided sooner, it will determine whether strict scrutiny must apply to gun laws. The non-sensical ruling of the district court moron, I mean judge, that said that the RKBA only applies in your house will be overturned.
4) Judge Kennedy has had all of the facts and case law for many months. If he is waiting for McDonald, then he is a coward and a fool. McDonald is about the 14th A which does not apply to DC.
OC4me
Regular Member
imported post
I agree, but Kennedy also expects the McDonald decision to have plenty of dicta that may or may not impact his ruling. I don't have a good feeling about Kennedy. I hope I'm wrong. If he was going to rule favorable to the plaintiffs, he could have long ago.
I agree, but Kennedy also expects the McDonald decision to have plenty of dicta that may or may not impact his ruling. I don't have a good feeling about Kennedy. I hope I'm wrong. If he was going to rule favorable to the plaintiffs, he could have long ago.
VApatriot
Regular Member
imported post
Does anyone know the exact date thatthe ruling in the McDonald case is expected to be delivered? I had heard it was expected this week, but I have found no conformation of this, and the ruling has not yet been given.
Also, on the merits of this case, if I recall correctly, boththe majority and dissentingopinionson Heller did brieflyaddress the issue of "bear arms." I recall that it was acknowledged (bemoaned by the other side) that "bear" has always, historically meant to "carry,"and this was separate, and in addition to, the right to "keep" arms. Additionally, a case was cited from, I believe, either Tennessee or Kentucky, in which a ban on concealed carrywas upheld, whilea prohibition of open carry was found to be unconstitutional, as it wouldhave entirely eliminated the right to "bear" arms.
Even though this is not what the majority opinion of Heller wasdirectly addressing,should the fact that SCOTUS said it have any affect on the ruling issued by the lower court in this case?
Does anyone know the exact date thatthe ruling in the McDonald case is expected to be delivered? I had heard it was expected this week, but I have found no conformation of this, and the ruling has not yet been given.
Also, on the merits of this case, if I recall correctly, boththe majority and dissentingopinionson Heller did brieflyaddress the issue of "bear arms." I recall that it was acknowledged (bemoaned by the other side) that "bear" has always, historically meant to "carry,"and this was separate, and in addition to, the right to "keep" arms. Additionally, a case was cited from, I believe, either Tennessee or Kentucky, in which a ban on concealed carrywas upheld, whilea prohibition of open carry was found to be unconstitutional, as it wouldhave entirely eliminated the right to "bear" arms.
Even though this is not what the majority opinion of Heller wasdirectly addressing,should the fact that SCOTUS said it have any affect on the ruling issued by the lower court in this case?
OC4me
Regular Member
imported post
The Supreme Court can issue their ruling anytime, but they will probably wait until the last day this month (as they did last year).
Yes, the Scalia majority opinion in Heller, made it quite clear in their dicta (non-binding) that bear meant to carry. I'm not sure about the dissenting opinion, however.
The binding part of the Heller decision (the 'holding' of the case) dealt only with 'keeping' arms in the home.
The anti-gunners have been telling everybody that the Heller decision limits second amendment protection to the 'home' amongst some other wishful fallacies. Whilethis is technically true, they are intentionally misrepresenting the overall impact of the Heller case by just focusing on the bare holding itself.
The Supreme Court can issue their ruling anytime, but they will probably wait until the last day this month (as they did last year).
Yes, the Scalia majority opinion in Heller, made it quite clear in their dicta (non-binding) that bear meant to carry. I'm not sure about the dissenting opinion, however.
The binding part of the Heller decision (the 'holding' of the case) dealt only with 'keeping' arms in the home.
The anti-gunners have been telling everybody that the Heller decision limits second amendment protection to the 'home' amongst some other wishful fallacies. Whilethis is technically true, they are intentionally misrepresenting the overall impact of the Heller case by just focusing on the bare holding itself.
OC4me
Regular Member
imported post
The Supreme Court can issue their ruling anytime, but they will probably wait until the last day this month (as they did last year).
Yes, the Scalia majority opinion in Heller, made it quite clear in their dicta (non-binding) that bear meant to carry. I'm not sure about the dissenting opinion, however.
The binding part of the Heller decision (the 'holding' of the case) dealt only with 'keeping' arms in the home.
The anti-gunners have been telling everybody that the Heller decision limits second amendment protection to the 'home' (this and a few other otherfallacies). Whilethis is technically true, they are intentionally misrepresenting the overall impact of the Heller case by just focusing on the bare holding itself.
The Supreme Court can issue their ruling anytime, but they will probably wait until the last day this month (as they did last year).
Yes, the Scalia majority opinion in Heller, made it quite clear in their dicta (non-binding) that bear meant to carry. I'm not sure about the dissenting opinion, however.
The binding part of the Heller decision (the 'holding' of the case) dealt only with 'keeping' arms in the home.
The anti-gunners have been telling everybody that the Heller decision limits second amendment protection to the 'home' (this and a few other otherfallacies). Whilethis is technically true, they are intentionally misrepresenting the overall impact of the Heller case by just focusing on the bare holding itself.
VApatriot
Regular Member
imported post
OC4me wrote:
I justreread most of the dissenting opinion (my head is about to explode), and I see that I must haveeither misunderstood the first time I read itor simply incorrectly recalled when and where I readwhat arguments, as the dissenting opinion does not at all agree that "bear arms" means to carry for personal protection. It is possible that I read an anti-gun review of the majority opinion that was bemoaning that fact that it could be used to allow lawful gun carry in traditionally anti-gun localities.
OC4me wrote:
Thanks for the input.
I justreread most of the dissenting opinion (my head is about to explode), and I see that I must haveeither misunderstood the first time I read itor simply incorrectly recalled when and where I readwhat arguments, as the dissenting opinion does not at all agree that "bear arms" means to carry for personal protection. It is possible that I read an anti-gun review of the majority opinion that was bemoaning that fact that it could be used to allow lawful gun carry in traditionally anti-gun localities.
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
imported post
VApatriot wrote:
SCJ Opinion: "The Second Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments which constitute bearable arms. The amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existance of the right and declares only that it shall not be infringed.": SCJ A. Scalia 2008
SCJ Ginsburg on ‘Bearing Arms’
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:F7Qk-ewm_BkJ:[url]http://www.poli-sci.utah.edu/~dlevin/jud_pro/DC_v_Heller.pdf+to+bear+ginsburg+definition&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbTuvbisxDqL3k_QsWhZX8ZfbYyQ8w]http://www.poli-sci.utah.edu/~dlevin/jud_pro/DC_v_Heller.pdf+to+bear+ginsburg+definition&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbTuvbisxDqL3k_QsWhZX8ZfbYyQ8w]http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:F7Qk-ewm_BkJ:http://www.poli-sci.utah.edu/~dlevi...&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbTuvbisxDqL3k_QsWhZX8ZfbYyQ8w[/url][/url]
"At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose--confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” . . . Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."
Of note... and I can't imagine nobody seems to have caught this... "SCJ Ginsburg: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ”
Therefore... it seems obvious that the 'bearing' part of 2A was intended to be exercised at the descretion of the bearer. "upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket" Open or concealed made no difference. No difference was intended. If a certain thing is not prohibited, then it is legitimate by default.
All US laws must be consistant with the Constitution or they have no legitimate effect of law at all. Yet.... we have such 'laws' in abundance along with those who would willingly enforce such legislative contrivances as imposed. I call it tyranny.
VApatriot wrote:
SCJ Opinion: "The Second Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments which constitute bearable arms. The amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existance of the right and declares only that it shall not be infringed.": SCJ A. Scalia 2008
SCJ Ginsburg on ‘Bearing Arms’
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:F7Qk-ewm_BkJ:[url]http://www.poli-sci.utah.edu/~dlevin/jud_pro/DC_v_Heller.pdf+to+bear+ginsburg+definition&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbTuvbisxDqL3k_QsWhZX8ZfbYyQ8w]http://www.poli-sci.utah.edu/~dlevin/jud_pro/DC_v_Heller.pdf+to+bear+ginsburg+definition&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbTuvbisxDqL3k_QsWhZX8ZfbYyQ8w]http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:F7Qk-ewm_BkJ:http://www.poli-sci.utah.edu/~dlevi...&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbTuvbisxDqL3k_QsWhZX8ZfbYyQ8w[/url][/url]
"At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose--confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “
Of note... and I can't imagine nobody seems to have caught this... "SCJ Ginsburg: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ”
Therefore... it seems obvious that the 'bearing' part of 2A was intended to be exercised at the descretion of the bearer. "upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket" Open or concealed made no difference. No difference was intended. If a certain thing is not prohibited, then it is legitimate by default.
All US laws must be consistant with the Constitution or they have no legitimate effect of law at all. Yet.... we have such 'laws' in abundance along with those who would willingly enforce such legislative contrivances as imposed. I call it tyranny.
OC4me
Regular Member
imported post
Was this really in the Heller Decision dicta (in particular: "all instruments which constitute bearable arms")? If so then I'm ecstatic. I read the decision back then but don't recall that little nugget.
Edited to add: A quick Google search seems to bear the above out. But didn't Scalia muddle up the definition (scope) of covered arms elsewhere in the decision (i.e. in regards to machine guns in particular)?
Was this really in the Heller Decision dicta (in particular: "all instruments which constitute bearable arms")? If so then I'm ecstatic. I read the decision back then but don't recall that little nugget.
Edited to add: A quick Google search seems to bear the above out. But didn't Scalia muddle up the definition (scope) of covered arms elsewhere in the decision (i.e. in regards to machine guns in particular)?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
I'm only up to page 21, but Alito has ripped Chicago & Oak Park a new butthole that begins at the heels and goes to the crown of the head.
Applies the 1866 Freedmans Act and as I see it creates a "protected class" of gun owners. Maybe not as protected as race, sex, etc. but certainly more protected than automobile owners.
[bold]Alito notes several times that self defense "in the home" was NOT the limit of Heller - merely the paramount place of exercise of the right. I'm thinking this is in fact clarification of Heller - in which case DC will be collectively ******** its pants as they tear out their hair.[/bold]
I've got to read it over again with a note pad at hand, and then do some cross-checking, but my impression is that McDonald is a bigger win than we had any right to expect. With the majority split between due process and privileges it could mean that eventually both will come into play. I'm happy with due process but would really have liked to see privileges prevail.
Best of all - actually 2 bests of all 1) Slaughterhouse does not apply, and 2) Cruickshank and Miller are essentially removed from stare decis. Hooray!
stay safe.