Supreme Court may expand Second Amendment rights despite repeal of disputed gun restrictions - Page 10

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Supreme Court may expand Second Amendment rights despite repeal of disputed gun restrictions (Page 10 of 17)

Posted: 12/9/2019 12:10:22 PM EST

[#1]

Quote History

Quoted:

Criminal cases are seen with distaste, he plead guilty to both the mortgage fraud and the wrongfully acquired hunting licenses while a convicted felon. If he had filed suit before the hunting licenses incident, he would have been far better situated. Dumbasses aren't great test cases.

Kharn

View Quote

Game regulations are extremely complex.

He held a hunting license, he just improperly held a resident instead of a non-resident license in the mistaken belief that his residence in Wyoming qualified him as a "Resident" when in fact it did not.

Posted: 12/9/2019 12:19:11 PM EST

[#2]

Quote History

Quoted:

Well, look at how many people here support banning felons from owning guns.

This reinforces my belief that the court isn't going to touch MGs anytime soon. MGs, like felons, are scary.

View Quote

I don't have a problem with a felony conviction carrying punishments beyond prison including loss of rights. I do have a significant issue with what constitutes a felony conviction in today's America.

Posted: 12/9/2019 12:34:40 PM EST

[#3]

Quote History

Quoted:
Of note, Alan guras case, Medina v Barr (felon in possession case) was not granted certiorari today. That is a shame. That guy was convicted of a false statement on a mortgage app, felony. Paid off the loan early and everyone admits no harm was done. Too bad though, because he is a felon and gov says too dangerous to have a firearm. Supreme Court doesn’t want to wade into it. Here is his petition:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-287/114260/20190830122623701_3-cert_petition.pdf

View Quote

Shouldn’t we focus on a 2A right that exists outside the home before tackling which felons can own guns?

Posted: 12/9/2019 12:38:53 PM EST

[#4]

Quote History

Quoted:
Well, look at how many people here support banning felons from owning guns.

This reinforces my belief that the court isn't going to touch MGs anytime soon. MGs, like felons, are scary.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Of note, Alan guras case, Medina v Barr (felon in possession case) was not granted certiorari today. That is a shame. That guy was convicted of a false statement on a mortgage app, felony. Paid off the loan early and everyone admits no harm was done. Too bad though, because he is a felon and gov says too dangerous to have a firearm. Supreme Court doesn’t want to wade into it. Here is his petition:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-287/114260/20190830122623701_3-cert_petition.pdf

Well, look at how many people here support banning felons from owning guns.

This reinforces my belief that the court isn't going to touch MGs anytime soon. MGs, like felons, are scary.

MG are not even on the radar. Stuff like may issue, purchase permits, licensing, waiting periods, magazine capacity limits, assault weapons bans, ect, storage requirements, ect are all more likely to be heard first. Once we get the court to rule the 2A applies outside the home.

Posted: 12/9/2019 3:28:20 PM EST

[#5]

Quote History

Quoted:
Shouldn’t we focus on a 2A right that exists outside the home before tackling which felons can own guns?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Of note, Alan guras case, Medina v Barr (felon in possession case) was not granted certiorari today. That is a shame. That guy was convicted of a false statement on a mortgage app, felony. Paid off the loan early and everyone admits no harm was done. Too bad though, because he is a felon and gov says too dangerous to have a firearm. Supreme Court doesn’t want to wade into it. Here is his petition:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-287/114260/20190830122623701_3-cert_petition.pdf

Shouldn’t we focus on a 2A right that exists outside the home before tackling which felons can own guns?

It’s all part and parcel in the grand scheme. If we have a fundamental right to own a firearm in the home, but a paper crime that doesn’t harm anyone can strip you of that right forever, do we really have that right to begin with?

Posted: 12/9/2019 3:47:24 PM EST

[#6]

Quote History

Quoted:
I don't have a problem with a felony conviction carrying punishments beyond prison including loss of rights. I do have a significant issue with what constitutes a felony conviction in today's America.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Well, look at how many people here support banning felons from owning guns.

This reinforces my belief that the court isn't going to touch MGs anytime soon. MGs, like felons, are scary.

I don't have a problem with a felony conviction carrying punishments beyond prison including loss of rights. I do have a significant issue with what constitutes a felony conviction in today's America.

The Devil's in the details. The 'no released felon can have firearms' drives the hoops we (non-felons) now jump through to prove that we are NOT, in fact, felons. The debate on whether or not to restrict a felon's right to keep and bear arms is separate from forcing non-felons to prove their innocence. Conflating those two issues ought to err on the side of the non-felons... and it currently does not.

Sure, some things which are felonies shouldn't be. That could be an easy litmus test: can you legally defend yourself with a firearm if you catch the perpetrator in the act, i.e. a de facto death penalty? Bam, felony. Maybe that easy, but there's probably holes. I gotta go back to work.

Posted: 12/9/2019 3:49:40 PM EST

[#7]

Im really hoping the supreme court gets off its ass and kicks some of these anti constitutional gun control laws in the nuts finally. ( mag bans, semi auto bans, accepted gun lists, etc ) any honest court making a ruling based on the constitution / facts would have no choice but to rule against them... however with everyone making rulings based on their fucking feelings, thats always iffy.

Posted: 12/9/2019 3:56:09 PM EST

[#8]

Quote History

Quoted:
It’s all part and parcel in the grand scheme. If we have a fundamental right to own a firearm in the home, but a paper crime that doesn’t harm anyone can strip you of that right forever, do we really have that right to begin with?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Of note, Alan guras case, Medina v Barr (felon in possession case) was not granted certiorari today. That is a shame. That guy was convicted of a false statement on a mortgage app, felony. Paid off the loan early and everyone admits no harm was done. Too bad though, because he is a felon and gov says too dangerous to have a firearm. Supreme Court doesn’t want to wade into it. Here is his petition:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-287/114260/20190830122623701_3-cert_petition.pdf

Shouldn’t we focus on a 2A right that exists outside the home before tackling which felons can own guns?

It’s all part and parcel in the grand scheme. If we have a fundamental right to own a firearm in the home, but a paper crime that doesn’t harm anyone can strip you of that right forever, do we really have that right to begin with?

Exactly.

Posted: 12/11/2019 5:55:55 PM EST

[#9]

Quote History

Quoted:

I just registered.

I wonder what kind of hors d'oevres, and whether they will have valet parking.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
For any of our members near DC, please represent AR15.com at this event and provide us with a full report afterwards.

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-second-amendment-at-the-supreme-court-what-to-expect-this-term-tickets-80064279415

I just registered.

I wonder what kind of hors d'oevres, and whether they will have valet parking.

DK-Prof, if you are still going to this event tomorrow, you can do a little prep work ahead of time by reading the comments that Duke University has made on the annotated oral arguments in the following PDF document:

https://sites.law.duke.edu/secondthoughts/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2019/12/NYSRPA-Mark-up-Duke-Center-for-Firearms-Law.pdf

I haven't read their comments yet, as I just came across this and I have to get ready to head out to a local event, but I will be reading it in its entirety later tonight when I return.

Posted: 12/11/2019 7:47:17 PM EST

[#10]

I started reading through the annotated PDF I referenced in the post before this one when on page 5 of 73 I see they referenced a brief by Historian Patrick Charles.

Link to that brief:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99640/20190514123434398_Charles

On page 45 & 46 of 50 of that Charles brief, they make the following comment:

Knowing the historiography of the Statute of
Northampton and Knight’s Case is important for two
reasons. First, it illustrates the ease by which myth
can consume historical fact. For decades, based on
nothing more than incomplete English Reports and a
highly selective reading of a handful of seventeenth-
and eighteenth-century legal commentators, a contin-
gent of legal scholars convinced many in the field that
their historical claim was valid, despite its lack of
substantiation and the evidence contradicting it. Sec-
ond, as can be seen by several appellate courts to have
examined this history, it illustrates how unsubstanti-
ated and poorly-researched history can influence judi-
cial outcomes. See Young v. Hawaii, 896 F.3d 1044,
1064 (9th Cir. 2018), vacated for rehearing en banc, 915
F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2019)

View Quote

Is this a slam at Nolo and Wolfwood?

Posted: 12/11/2019 10:01:49 PM EST

[#11]

Quote History

Quoted:
I started reading through the annotated PDF I referenced in the post before this one when on page 5 of 73 I see they referenced a brief by Historian Patrick Charles.

Link to that brief:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99640/20190514123434398_Charles

On page 45 & 46 of 50 of that Charles brief, they make the following comment:

Is this a slam at Nolo and Wolfwood?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:
I started reading through the annotated PDF I referenced in the post before this one when on page 5 of 73 I see they referenced a brief by Historian Patrick Charles.

Link to that brief:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99640/20190514123434398_Charles

On page 45 & 46 of 50 of that Charles brief, they make the following comment:

Knowing the historiography of the Statute of
Northampton and Knight’s Case is important for two
reasons. First, it illustrates the ease by which myth
can consume historical fact. For decades, based on
nothing more than incomplete English Reports and a
highly selective reading of a handful of seventeenth-
and eighteenth-century legal commentators, a contin-
gent of legal scholars convinced many in the field that
their historical claim was valid, despite its lack of
substantiation and the evidence contradicting it. Sec-
ond, as can be seen by several appellate courts to have
examined this history, it illustrates how unsubstanti-
ated and poorly-researched history can influence judi-
cial outcomes. See Young v. Hawaii, 896 F.3d 1044,
1064 (9th Cir. 2018), vacated for rehearing en banc, 915
F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2019)

Is this a slam at Nolo and Wolfwood?

Attached File

Posted: 12/12/2019 12:16:26 PM EST

[#12]

Quote History

Quoted:
I started reading through the annotated PDF I referenced in the post before this one when on page 5 of 73 I see they referenced a brief by Historian Patrick Charles.

Link to that brief:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99640/20190514123434398_Charles

On page 45 & 46 of 50 of that Charles brief, they make the following comment:

Is this a slam at Nolo and Wolfwood?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:
I started reading through the annotated PDF I referenced in the post before this one when on page 5 of 73 I see they referenced a brief by Historian Patrick Charles.

Link to that brief:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99640/20190514123434398_Charles

On page 45 & 46 of 50 of that Charles brief, they make the following comment:

Knowing the historiography of the Statute of
Northampton and Knight’s Case is important for two
reasons. First, it illustrates the ease by which myth
can consume historical fact. For decades, based on
nothing more than incomplete English Reports and a
highly selective reading of a handful of seventeenth-
and eighteenth-century legal commentators, a contin-
gent of legal scholars convinced many in the field that
their historical claim was valid, despite its lack of
substantiation and the evidence contradicting it. Sec-
ond, as can be seen by several appellate courts to have
examined this history, it illustrates how unsubstanti-
ated and poorly-researched history can influence judi-
cial outcomes. See Young v. Hawaii, 896 F.3d 1044,
1064 (9th Cir. 2018), vacated for rehearing en banc, 915
F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2019)

Is this a slam at Nolo and Wolfwood?

No, a slam at all the courts interpreting those statutes. The rest of the quote:

(reading Knight’s Case and en-suing legal commentary as interpreting the Statute of Northampton to prohibit only the carrying of danger-ous weapons in a threatening manner, and allowing the carrying of “common (not unusual) arms for de-fense (not terror)”); Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (reading Heller as fore-closing an examination of the history of the Statute of Northampton and English law governing the carrying of dangerous weapons); Moore v. Madigan, 708 F.3d 933, 936-37 (7th Cir. 2012) (reading Heller as requiring an limited, narrow interpretation of the scope of the Statute of Northampton in the wake of Knight’s Case).

Posted: 12/12/2019 12:28:03 PM EST

[#13]

Quote History

Quoted:
DK-Prof, if you are still going to this event tomorrow, you can do a little prep work ahead of time by reading the comments that Duke University has made on the annotated oral arguments in the following PDF document:

https://sites.law.duke.edu/secondthoughts/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2019/12/NYSRPA-Mark-up-Duke-Center-for-Firearms-Law.pdf

I haven't read their comments yet, as I just came across this and I have to get ready to head out to a local event, but I will be reading it in its entirety later tonight when I return.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
For any of our members near DC, please represent AR15.com at this event and provide us with a full report afterwards.

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-second-amendment-at-the-supreme-court-what-to-expect-this-term-tickets-80064279415

I just registered.

I wonder what kind of hors d'oevres, and whether they will have valet parking.

DK-Prof, if you are still going to this event tomorrow, you can do a little prep work ahead of time by reading the comments that Duke University has made on the annotated oral arguments in the following PDF document:

https://sites.law.duke.edu/secondthoughts/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2019/12/NYSRPA-Mark-up-Duke-Center-for-Firearms-Law.pdf

I haven't read their comments yet, as I just came across this and I have to get ready to head out to a local event, but I will be reading it in its entirety later tonight when I return.

Thanks.

Unfortunately, it turns out that I probably won’t make it, since I have some later afternoon/evening meetings in VA.

Posted: 12/16/2019 9:37:27 AM EST

[#14]

Orders came out. Still no decision on mootness or anything else.

Posted: 12/16/2019 9:40:07 AM EST

[#15]

Quote History

Quoted:
Orders came out. Still no decision on mootness or anything else.

View Quote

Looks like they might decide on the merits after all...……...

Posted: 12/16/2019 9:45:35 AM EST

[#16]

Quote History

Quoted:

Looks like they might decide on the merits after all...……...

View Quote

there is plenty of time for them to moot it between now and then. or, they could have voted to moot it and have a lot of dissenting opinions which take time to write. so, i don't think i would take this as any indication of how they are going to rule, only that they haven't released the ruling yet.

Posted: 12/16/2019 9:47:58 AM EST

[#17]

Quote History

Quoted:
there is plenty of time for them to moot it between now and then. or, they could have voted to moot it and have a lot of dissenting opinions which take time to write. so, i don't think i would take this as any indication of how they are going to rule, only that they haven't released the ruling yet.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Looks like they might decide on the merits after all...……...

there is plenty of time for them to moot it between now and then. or, they could have voted to moot it and have a lot of dissenting opinions which take time to write. so, i don't think i would take this as any indication of how they are going to rule, only that they haven't released the ruling yet.

After last weeks decision to hear three Trump tax cases, I would think they will try to spread out their rulings in controversial cases, rather than do a decision dump in June 2020.

Posted: 12/16/2019 9:55:05 AM EST

[#18]

Quote History

Quoted:

there is plenty of time for them to moot it between now and then. or, they could have voted to moot it and have a lot of dissenting opinions which take time to write. so, i don't think i would take this as any indication of how they are going to rule, only that they haven't released the ruling yet.

View Quote

Ok...…...thanks.

Posted: 12/16/2019 10:16:34 AM EST

[#19]

Quote History

Quoted:
After last weeks decision to hear three Trump tax cases, I would think they will try to spread out their rulings in controversial cases, rather than do a decision dump in June 2020.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Looks like they might decide on the merits after all...……...

there is plenty of time for them to moot it between now and then. or, they could have voted to moot it and have a lot of dissenting opinions which take time to write. so, i don't think i would take this as any indication of how they are going to rule, only that they haven't released the ruling yet.

After last weeks decision to hear three Trump tax cases, I would think they will try to spread out their rulings in controversial cases, rather than do a decision dump in June 2020.

They always do a decision dump in June.
We may get the NY gun case, good or bad, before June as Nolo suggested.

Posted: 12/16/2019 11:08:40 AM EST

[#20]

Quote History

Quoted:

They always do a decision dump in June.
We may get the NY gun case, good or bad, before June as Nolo suggested.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Looks like they might decide on the merits after all...……...

there is plenty of time for them to moot it between now and then. or, they could have voted to moot it and have a lot of dissenting opinions which take time to write. so, i don't think i would take this as any indication of how they are going to rule, only that they haven't released the ruling yet.

After last weeks decision to hear three Trump tax cases, I would think they will try to spread out their rulings in controversial cases, rather than do a decision dump in June 2020.

They always do a decision dump in June.
We may get the NY gun case, good or bad, before June as Nolo suggested.

Lots of controversial cases this term. June is in an election year. They are going to spread rulings out. They are not going to drop major decisions on abortion, trump taxes and guns on the same day or even same week.

Posted: 12/16/2019 11:15:18 AM EST

[#21]

Quote History

Quoted:
Lots of controversial cases this term. June is in an election year. They are going to spread rulings out. They are not going to drop major decisions on abortion, trump taxes and guns on the same day or even same week.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Looks like they might decide on the merits after all...……...

there is plenty of time for them to moot it between now and then. or, they could have voted to moot it and have a lot of dissenting opinions which take time to write. so, i don't think i would take this as any indication of how they are going to rule, only that they haven't released the ruling yet.

After last weeks decision to hear three Trump tax cases, I would think they will try to spread out their rulings in controversial cases, rather than do a decision dump in June 2020.

They always do a decision dump in June.
We may get the NY gun case, good or bad, before June as Nolo suggested.

Lots of controversial cases this term. June is in an election year. They are going to spread rulings out. They are not going to drop major decisions on abortion, trump taxes and guns on the same day or even same week.

That's how the SC rolls and has done so for 50 years. They end their term in June, and drop all their rulings for the term before they leave town for vacation. The most important cases are released on the last days.

Kharn

Posted: 12/16/2019 11:24:30 AM EST

[#22]

Quote History

Quoted:
That's how the SC rolls and has done so for 50 years. They end their term in June, and drop all their rulings for the term before they leave town for vacation. The most important cases are released on the last days.

Kharn

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Looks like they might decide on the merits after all...……...

there is plenty of time for them to moot it between now and then. or, they could have voted to moot it and have a lot of dissenting opinions which take time to write. so, i don't think i would take this as any indication of how they are going to rule, only that they haven't released the ruling yet.

After last weeks decision to hear three Trump tax cases, I would think they will try to spread out their rulings in controversial cases, rather than do a decision dump in June 2020.

They always do a decision dump in June.
We may get the NY gun case, good or bad, before June as Nolo suggested.

Lots of controversial cases this term. June is in an election year. They are going to spread rulings out. They are not going to drop major decisions on abortion, trump taxes and guns on the same day or even same week.

That's how the SC rolls and has done so for 50 years. They end their term in June, and drop all their rulings for the term before they leave town for vacation. The most important cases are released on the last days.

Kharn

That’s not even close to factually accurate. Decisions have been released in December, May and June and sometimes July. They are not dumping every case from the term on the way out he door.

Posted: 12/16/2019 12:46:43 PM EST

[#23]

Quote History

Quoted:
That’s not even close to factually accurate. Decisions have been released in December, May and June and sometimes July. They are not dumping every case from the term on the way out he door.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Looks like they might decide on the merits after all...……...

there is plenty of time for them to moot it between now and then. or, they could have voted to moot it and have a lot of dissenting opinions which take time to write. so, i don't think i would take this as any indication of how they are going to rule, only that they haven't released the ruling yet.

After last weeks decision to hear three Trump tax cases, I would think they will try to spread out their rulings in controversial cases, rather than do a decision dump in June 2020.

They always do a decision dump in June.
We may get the NY gun case, good or bad, before June as Nolo suggested.

Lots of controversial cases this term. June is in an election year. They are going to spread rulings out. They are not going to drop major decisions on abortion, trump taxes and guns on the same day or even same week.

That's how the SC rolls and has done so for 50 years. They end their term in June, and drop all their rulings for the term before they leave town for vacation. The most important cases are released on the last days.

Kharn

That’s not even close to factually accurate. Decisions have been released in December, May and June and sometimes July. They are not dumping every case from the term on the way out he door.

Decisions are released as they are ready (two easy ones were released last week), but the most controversial rulings require the most work, thus being held until the last week in June. Extending the term beyond 30 June is an extremely rare occasion, or an emergency ruling related to a capital case.

Kharn

Posted: 12/16/2019 3:03:42 PM EST

[#24]

Quote History

Quoted:
Decisions are released as they are ready (two easy ones were released last week), but the most controversial rulings require the most work, thus being held until the last week in June. Extending the term beyond 30 June is an extremely rare occasion, or an emergency ruling related to a capital case.

Kharn