User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 12:21:32 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Was it ‘Trumps’ Supreme Court that sent Remington packing.. does the cuckmaster get credit for that one? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: I imagine that was in the process of being anti-Trump. They are probably hoping this issue will cause people to oppose him, and that may happen in NY, but who there is for him anyway? This is a fine example of the good Trump has done for 2A issues by appointing conservative judges, and chances are if he is re-elected he will get the chance to appoint more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 12:55:49 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure if it was this thread or another that posted the hour-long audio of the argument of NYSRPA v. City of NY, but I just stumped upon this version from Reddit -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z7WVOorveU
I already listened to the whole thing yesterday, but neat to see the "toon" version. Makes it easier to follow along who is talking. Though they animated RBG upright. 
The attorney arguing for the Plantiffs (Clement) did a hell of a job.. did some research and he is very experienced in arguing in front of the USSC. The guy representing NYC was all "umm, uhh, well, ahhh". Basically saying anything he could to say "oh yeah, totally moot, we won't hassle them, no way". Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 1:08:47 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure if it was this thread or another that posted the hour-long audio of the argument of NYSRPA v. City of NY, but I just stumped upon this version from Reddit - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z7WVOorveU
I already listened to the whole thing yesterday, but neat to see the "toon" version. Makes it easier to follow along who is talking. Though they animated RBG upright.
The attorney arguing for the Plantiffs (Clement) did a hell of a job.. did some research and he is very experienced in arguing in front of the USSC. The guy representing NYC was all "umm, uhh, well, ahhh". Basically saying anything he could to say "oh yeah, totally moot, we won't hassle them, no way". I got a more positive spin from hearing the arguments than I did from reading them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 1:17:07 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure if it was this thread or another that posted the hour-long audio of the argument of NYSRPA v. City of NY, but I just stumped upon this version from Reddit - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z7WVOorveU
I already listened to the whole thing yesterday, but neat to see the "toon" version. Makes it easier to follow along who is talking. Though they animated RBG upright.
The attorney arguing for the Plantiffs (Clement) did a hell of a job.. did some research and he is very experienced in arguing in front of the USSC. The guy representing NYC was all "umm, uhh, well, ahhh". Basically saying anything he could to say "oh yeah, totally moot, we won't hassle them, no way". |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 1:41:20 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you consider that to be an anti 2A ruling? I do not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: I imagine that was in the process of being anti-Trump. They are probably hoping this issue will cause people to oppose him, and that may happen in NY, but who there is for him anyway? This is a fine example of the good Trump has done for 2A issues by appointing conservative judges, and chances are if he is re-elected he will get the chance to appoint more. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 1:42:16 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I just registered. I wonder what kind of hors d’oevres, and whether they will have valet parking.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 2:15:22 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure if it was this thread or another that posted the hour-long audio of the argument of NYSRPA v. City of NY, but I just stumped upon this version from Reddit - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z7WVOorveU
I already listened to the whole thing yesterday, but neat to see the "toon" version. Makes it easier to follow along who is talking. Though they animated RBG upright.
The attorney arguing for the Plantiffs (Clement) did a hell of a job.. did some research and he is very experienced in arguing in front of the USSC. The guy representing NYC was all "umm, uhh, well, ahhh". Basically saying anything he could to say "oh yeah, totally moot, we won't hassle them, no way". Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 6:02:13 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Neither is the mooting of this case, by that logic Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: I imagine that was in the process of being anti-Trump. They are probably hoping this issue will cause people to oppose him, and that may happen in NY, but who there is for him anyway? This is a fine example of the good Trump has done for 2A issues by appointing conservative judges, and chances are if he is re-elected he will get the chance to appoint more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 6:15:54 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mooting the case would be a delay for the side of gun rights. But not an anti gun ruling It's anti-gun, it's anti-constitution, anti-freedom and anti- government accountability. No big deal though...right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 6:22:37 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mooting this case would show every government body in the nation that all you have to do is do unconstitutional things right up until the SCOTUS grants Cert and then change the law and double pinky swear you won't change it back. It's anti-gun, it's anti-constitution, anti-freedom and anti- government accountability. No big deal though...right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 6:28:33 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Was it ‘Trumps’ Supreme Court that sent Remington packing.. does the cuckmaster get credit for that one? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: I imagine that was in the process of being anti-Trump. They are probably hoping this issue will cause people to oppose him, and that may happen in NY, but who there is for him anyway? This is a fine example of the good Trump has done for 2A issues by appointing conservative judges, and chances are if he is re-elected he will get the chance to appoint more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 6:32:14 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you just being argumentative or do you really have no idea how legal challenges work? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Mooting this case would show every government body in the nation that all you have to do is do unconstitutional things right up until the SCOTUS grants Cert and then change the law and double pinky swear you won't change it back. It's anti-gun, it's anti-constitution, anti-freedom and anti- government accountability. No big deal though...right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 6:34:13 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Such a tool Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: I imagine that was in the process of being anti-Trump. They are probably hoping this issue will cause people to oppose him, and that may happen in NY, but who there is for him anyway? This is a fine example of the good Trump has done for 2A issues by appointing conservative judges, and chances are if he is re-elected he will get the chance to appoint more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 6:37:11 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You have this mental gymnastics thing down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 6:40:33 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The question in the Remington case was; Is a corporation partially liable for the illegal use of a product if its advertising promoted the illegal use. its not a guns rights question. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: You have this mental gymnastics thing down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 6:43:45 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are you just being argumentative or do you really have no idea how legal challenges work? When challenged on the specifics of the the law the city only offered their word as assurance that no repercussions would befall the plaintiffs...I'm sorry but in a state where your guns rights specific to hand guns are determined based on your "need" and "moral character" as determined by bureaucrats....that's not good enough. NYS actively opposes gun rights at every level. Their actions are not to be considered in good faith, and the actions of the state legislature were indeed cynical. The points I paraphrased and maybe dramatized in my post aren't mine, they are the points made by the solicitor general, Mr. Clement and various supreme court justices....so please...inform the class why they are wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 6:44:25 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don’t think it’s going to turn out the way you think it’s going to turn out. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: You have this mental gymnastics thing down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 6:45:52 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did you listen to the audio of the oral arguments? Everyone involved recognizes that the state took specific and extraordinary measures to change the law so that this case would be considered moot, only after the court granted cert. This maneuvering has a history at the supreme court and there is case law specifically addressing the inadequacy of these type of actions as a remedy. When challenged on the specifics of the the law the city only afford their word as assurance that no repercussions would befall the plaintiffs...I'm sorry but in a state where your guns rights specific to hand guns are determined based on your "need" and "moral character" as determined by bureaucrats....that's not good enough. NYS actively opposes gun rights at every level. Their actions are not to be considered in good faith, and the actions of the state legislature were indeed cynical. The points I paraphrased and maybe dramatized in my post aren't mine, they are the points made by the solicitor general Mr. Clement and various supreme court justices....so please...inform the class why they are wrong. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Are you just being argumentative or do you really have no idea how legal challenges work? When challenged on the specifics of the the law the city only afford their word as assurance that no repercussions would befall the plaintiffs...I'm sorry but in a state where your guns rights specific to hand guns are determined based on your "need" and "moral character" as determined by bureaucrats....that's not good enough. NYS actively opposes gun rights at every level. Their actions are not to be considered in good faith, and the actions of the state legislature were indeed cynical. The points I paraphrased and maybe dramatized in my post aren't mine, they are the points made by the solicitor general Mr. Clement and various supreme court justices....so please...inform the class why they are wrong.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 6:48:10 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did you listen to the audio of the oral arguments? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did you listen to the audio of the oral arguments? Everyone involved recognizes that the state took specific and extraordinary measures to change the law so that this case would be considered moot, only after the court granted cert. This maneuvering has a history at the supreme court and there is case law specifically addressing the inadequacy of these type of actions as a remedy. If the court rules the case is moot, it is a case decision on mootness, not gun rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 6:49:50 PM EST
[#20]
The deep state patriot act judges will save us
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 7:01:23 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I read the transcripts the day they were released. Partially true. it was a city law, not state. The city changed their law. ordinarily such voluntary action would not moot a case. the fear being that once dismissed they bring back the challenged conduct. The STATE then passed a law saying the city cannot bring back the conduct. As much as i wish the case were not moot, it very likely is due to the combination of those two actions. If the court rules the case is moot, it is a case decision on mootness, not gun rights. 1: The state can pass laws in direct conflict with the constitution/BOR as long as; 2: They reverse the decision if/when someone is able & wealthy/connected enough to bring a case to the USSC & the small chance they will grant the case. That is why it is dangerous if they go moot. Their concern should be to prevent that sort of conduct by the state so that they are considering constitutionality when drafting laws, rather than drafting laws in direct conflict with the constitution and then daring someone to take them to court given the probability such a challenge would even make it far enough to matter. Allowing the state to avoid the USSC ruling by changing the law post-cert basically acknowledges that unconstitutional laws can stand as long as they are changed at the 11th hour + survive to the USSC. The USSC, if it were concerned with enforcing constitutionality....would decide to continue the case to ensure that legal challenges would not be prevented by playing the odds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 7:02:14 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mooting the case would be a delay for the side of gun rights. But not an anti gun ruling Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: I imagine that was in the process of being anti-Trump. They are probably hoping this issue will cause people to oppose him, and that may happen in NY, but who there is for him anyway? This is a fine example of the good Trump has done for 2A issues by appointing conservative judges, and chances are if he is re-elected he will get the chance to appoint more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 7:05:53 PM EST
[#23]
Clement also argued that even under New York's new regulations, his clients could still be penalized if they did not travel directly to a firing range outside the city, such as if they stopped for coffee.
But Richard Dearing, an attorney for New York, said that the city guaranteed that gun owners would not be prosecuted for such stops. And he said that any challenge to the new regulations would have to be argued in a future battle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 7:09:22 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The deep state patriot act judges will save us |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 7:26:36 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I read the transcripts the day they were released. Partially true. it was a city law, not state. The city changed their law. ordinarily such voluntary action would not moot a case. the fear being that once dismissed they bring back the challenged conduct. The STATE then passed a law saying the city cannot bring back the conduct. As much as i wish the case were not moot, it very likely is due to the combination of those two actions. If the court rules the case is moot, it is a case decision on mootness, not gun rights. The city didn't change their law, they changed they way they enforced it and then the state preempted the city law with it's own changes...undoubtedly on the advise of the city attorneys. Pretending that NYS and NYC don't coordinate efforts is foolish. My point is that condoning this type of behavior on the part of a state or city government, by allowing the case to be judged moot, without any form of permanent injunctive relief, only encourages jurisdictions to enact laws that would be considered unconstitutional, simply because this case formalized a method to avoid a binding court decision. This potentially has effect far beyond the 2A. Can you imagine the chilling effect this could have on plaintiffs, knowing that after untold thousands of dollars and 5 years of litigation the government can just call a Mulligan, shake the etch-a-sketch and it all goes away, with no legally binding result to show. If determined to be moot this specific case essentially ended at the 2nd circuit, in a loss. Yes, the law was changed but in a way that actually gives pistol permit holders state wide fewer rights, not more. The state took actions specifically to avoid a judgement here, extraordinary actions. For 100 years NYC has been allowed to make it's own rules, to ignore the laws of the state, and have it's own process. Now, at the 11th hour before a SCOTUS decision, the state steps in and preempts the city on gun laws? bullshit. This was a craven and cynical attempt to avoid a judgement that they know will expand gun rights. I have no faith in NYS to not reverse course at some point in the future and return to the conditions that precipitated this case |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 8:43:06 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The question in the Remington case was; Is a corporation partially liable for the illegal use of a product if its advertising promoted the illegal use. its not a guns rights question. - The federal law protecting dealers and manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits, has a clause stating something to the effect that the protection only applies if the dealer or manufacturer complied with all laws. - The state happened to have a law placing limits on what a dealer or manufacturer could have in it's advertising for a gun. Remington was supposedly in violation of that law. If they were in violation, then the wording of the federal law granting immunity from frivolous lawsuits, indicates that the immunity is void and Remington can be sued. It's my understanding that Remington was asking for the lawsuit to be dismissed due to the immunity from that federal law. If so, that was the wrong approach, and they probably should have been challenging the state law (that they did not comply with and resulted in their immunity being removed) or focusing on how the lawsuit was attempting to punish them for the criminal actions of someone who obtained their product by killing the lawful owner of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 9:18:51 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think I have read of NY prosecuting people for this type of stop. for the legal eagles here, would this constitute perjury? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Clement also argued that even under New York's new regulations, his clients could still be penalized if they did not travel directly to a firing range outside the city, such as if they stopped for coffee.
But Richard Dearing, an attorney for New York, said that the city guaranteed that gun owners would not be prosecuted for such stops. And he said that any challenge to the new regulations would have to be argued in a future battle. Does a city attorney saying the city would guarantee hold any actual weight in court? Would a future person charged be able to use this as a defense? I'd think not. Any govt employee that says "let our bad law stand, we promise not to use it" needs to be fired immediately |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 10:42:07 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The point being, and pointed out by Justice Gorsuch I believe, is that the city and the state do not operate or legislate independent of each other. The lawyer for the city openly admitted that the city supported the bill to change the permit law. The city didn't change their law, they changed they way they enforced it and then the state preempted the city law with it's own changes...undoubtedly on the advise of the city attorneys. Pretending that NYS and NYC don't coordinate efforts is foolish. My point is that condoning this type of behavior on the part of a state or city government, by allowing the case to be judged moot, without any form of permanent injunctive relief, only encourages jurisdictions to enact laws that would be considered unconstitutional, simply because this case formalized a method to avoid a binding court decision. This potentially has effect far beyond the 2A. Can you imagine the chilling effect this could have on plaintiffs, knowing that after untold thousands of dollars and 5 years of litigation the government can just call a Mulligan, shake the etch-a-sketch and it all goes away, with no legally binding result to show. If determined to be moot this specific case essentially ended at the 2nd circuit, in a loss. Yes, the law was changed but in a way that actually gives pistol permit holders state wide fewer rights, not more. The state took actions specifically to avoid a judgement here, extraordinary actions. For 100 years NYC has been allowed to make it's own rules, to ignore the laws of the state, and have it's own process. Now, at the 11th hour before a SCOTUS decision, the state steps in and preempts the city on gun laws? bullshit. This was a craven and cynical attempt to avoid a judgement that they know will expand gun rights. I have no faith in NYS to not reverse course at some point in the future and return to the conditions that precipitated this case Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: I read the transcripts the day they were released. Partially true. it was a city law, not state. The city changed their law. ordinarily such voluntary action would not moot a case. the fear being that once dismissed they bring back the challenged conduct. The STATE then passed a law saying the city cannot bring back the conduct. As much as i wish the case were not moot, it very likely is due to the combination of those two actions. If the court rules the case is moot, it is a case decision on mootness, not gun rights. The city didn't change their law, they changed they way they enforced it and then the state preempted the city law with it's own changes...undoubtedly on the advise of the city attorneys. Pretending that NYS and NYC don't coordinate efforts is foolish. My point is that condoning this type of behavior on the part of a state or city government, by allowing the case to be judged moot, without any form of permanent injunctive relief, only encourages jurisdictions to enact laws that would be considered unconstitutional, simply because this case formalized a method to avoid a binding court decision. This potentially has effect far beyond the 2A. Can you imagine the chilling effect this could have on plaintiffs, knowing that after untold thousands of dollars and 5 years of litigation the government can just call a Mulligan, shake the etch-a-sketch and it all goes away, with no legally binding result to show. If determined to be moot this specific case essentially ended at the 2nd circuit, in a loss. Yes, the law was changed but in a way that actually gives pistol permit holders state wide fewer rights, not more. The state took actions specifically to avoid a judgement here, extraordinary actions. For 100 years NYC has been allowed to make it's own rules, to ignore the laws of the state, and have it's own process. Now, at the 11th hour before a SCOTUS decision, the state steps in and preempts the city on gun laws? bullshit. This was a craven and cynical attempt to avoid a judgement that they know will expand gun rights. I have no faith in NYS to not reverse course at some point in the future and return to the conditions that precipitated this case Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 10:46:04 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The new NY state law includes a carve-out for NYC to still institute their own regulations IIRC. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2019 11:33:21 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you consider that to be an anti 2A ruling? I do not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2019 8:08:38 AM EST
[#31]
This is the last chance for FJGR to side with the Libs and screw us royally another time on a large scale.
It will then be 'settled law' ensuring it's perpetual existence. FJR wants to take it up now before President Trump replaces FRBG and he loses his ability to screw us over with tortured (mis)interpretations of the Constitution. He won't be able to do that once there is a majority of Justices that are Constitutionalists. I hope that I am wrong. I pray that I am wrong. I fear that I am right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2019 8:13:37 AM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The question in the Remington case was; Is a corporation partially liable for the illegal use of a product if its advertising promoted the illegal use. its not a guns rights question. The question in the Remington case was, does the PLCAA bar a lawsuit from even being heard based on the plaintiffs claims. It made no determination at all about the merits of the suit. I happen to think SCOTUS made the wrong choice there, but your characterization of it is not correct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2019 8:22:55 AM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope. That was not the question. The question in the Remington case was, does the PLCAA bar a lawsuit from even being heard based on the plaintiffs claims. It made no determination at all about the merits of the suit. I happen to think SCOTUS made the wrong choice there, but your characterization of it is not correct. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: The question in the Remington case was; Is a corporation partially liable for the illegal use of a product if its advertising promoted the illegal use. its not a guns rights question. The question in the Remington case was, does the PLCAA bar a lawsuit from even being heard based on the plaintiffs claims. It made no determination at all about the merits of the suit. I happen to think SCOTUS made the wrong choice there, but your characterization of it is not correct. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2019 9:18:22 AM EST
[#34]
It's going to be an excruciating wait for the decision to come out.
Although I'm leaning hopeful on the moot decision. Given how this went down I think SCOTUS realizes that NYC and NYS forced their hand on this. What was originally a 2A case has much larger implications now. Imagine the butt hurt if the hot button Liberal issues were attacked in the same way. There have been a lot of conservative lower level judge appointments lately. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2019 10:06:56 PM EST
[#35]
Tomorrow is the earliest we COULD find out about whether the case is moot. When the orders come down. Not saying it will be tomorrow, just that it is the earliest day to release orders after Friday’s conference. I still,believe they moot this case possibly with a grant of cert on a better case.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2019 10:18:12 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tomorrow is the earliest we COULD find out about whether the case is moot. When the orders come down. Not saying it will be tomorrow, just that it is the earliest day to release orders after Friday's conference. I still,believe they moot this case possibly with a grant of cert on a better case. It truly is a waiting game. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2019 5:19:23 AM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tomorrow is the earliest we COULD find out about whether the case is moot. When the orders come down. Not saying it will be tomorrow, just that it is the earliest day to release orders after Friday’s conference. I still,believe they moot this case possibly with a grant of cert on a better case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2019 10:04:01 AM EST
[#38]
Not mooted yet. Orders are up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2019 10:05:32 AM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not mooted yet. Orders are up. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2019 10:08:03 AM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not mooted yet. Orders are up. if it was mooted...would it have been announced today? mootness doesn't require any opinion be written so...if they voted on it there would be no reason for delay...correct? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2019 10:08:51 AM EST
[#41]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2019 10:10:09 AM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
well holy shit. if it was mooted...would it have been announced today? mootness doesn't require any opinion be written so...if they voted on it there would be no reason for delay...correct? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not mooted yet. Orders are up. if it was mooted...would it have been announced today? mootness doesn't require any opinion be written so...if they voted on it there would be no reason for delay...correct? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2019 10:33:29 AM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2019 10:40:17 AM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Denied without any comment. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2019 10:54:07 AM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not mooted yet. Orders are up. Mance v Barr, interstate handgun sales Pena v Horan, CA handgun roster Rogers v Grewal, NJ CCW Cheeseman v Polillo, NJ CCW Ciolek v NJ, NJ CCW, pro se so highly unlikely to be "the" case Gould v Brookline, MA CCW Those are all the cases I can think of that are being held at the moment. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2019 11:17:31 AM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The conservative Justices stick their toes into new areas very timidly, they don't dive off the 10m platform. Kharn Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2019 11:27:25 AM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Denied without any comment. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2019 11:49:28 AM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't see how any case could be more mild than this one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 Kharn Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2019 11:53:57 AM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't see how any case could be more mild than this one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2019 12:03:02 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 This reinforces my belief that the court isn't going to touch MGs anytime soon. MGs, like felons, are scary. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
