|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#321
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If we get a positive ruling, "carry" will be the same as "abortion" except that the red-blue states will be reversed. All tricks that have been tried in the past ended up not working and ended up only affirming the SCOTUS ruling. Here is a glimpse of what can happen: due to games with sensitive areas, SCOTUS "determines that sensitive areas are only those that have secured perimeter and metal detectors." If the antis keep pushing against SCOTUS, this is what *will* happen.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#322
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#323
|
|||
|
|||
In every civil rights victory in the past, states have tried every trick you can imagine. Poll taxes, grandfather clauses, all kinds of tricks. Courts don't tolerate stuff like that. Lower courts can sort those problems out without needing to go all the way back up to SCOTUS every time.
__________________
"Weakness is provocative." Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024 Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered. |
#324
|
|||
|
|||
Only if they want to. Courts that are inclined to read Heller and McDonald as restrictively as possible (which seems to be most of the Federal judiciary at this point) will be inclined to read SCOTUS next gun case that way too. "Delay and obstruct" will be their watchword, then as now.
|
#326
|
||||
|
||||
When SCOTUS feels like announcing something. IIRC, that's usually
In this case "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 12, 2013" so after that. [ ETA Thanks, Kharn! ]
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. Last edited by Librarian; 04-04-2013 at 6:40 PM.. |
#328
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Similarly, we are talking about legislators directly challenging Heller and McDonald which are now established law (even Sotomayor said so), not about expanding 2A or any new scope. Remember, we've already won by far the most difficult part. Kachalsky can (should) seal the deal on "bear." Almost all current attacks on us are technicalities: cosmetic features, capacities, taxes, registration, licenses, etc. Those are really administrative in comparison to "keep" (Heller, McDonald) and "bear" (hopefully Kachalsky).
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#329
|
|||
|
|||
IVC and others, you really are a calm eye in the storm. Its nice to hear every now and again. Thans
|
#330
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
We will have a ruling on the right to carry by april 15th? |
#331
|
|||
|
|||
No. On the 15th we find out if SCOTUS agrees to hear the case. If they take the case expect a ruling in June of 2014.
|
#333
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The 7th Circuit has ruled IL no-issue unconstitutional in Moore v. Madigan. After they refused an en-banc hearing, the only option left to Madigan is to petition SCOTUS since the appellate process is otherwise complete. This ruling already establishes the "bear" part and is in itself a huge victory for us. It also all but guarantees that SCOTUS will have to take Kachalsky since this ruling is inconsistent with the 2nd Circuit ruling in Kachalsky. In other words, if SCOTUS grants the certiorari we are at the very last step in defining "bear," which has already been clearly implied in Heller. If SCOTUS doesn't grant the cert, we keep the "bear" ruling in the 7th Circuit. Now, there are other technical details and possibilities, but a simple analysis at this time points to "heads we win, tails they lose." The real question is the scope of the ruling and permissible restrictions, which we won't know until 2014 at the earliest. Let Feinstein waste her time with silly frontal attack that will go nowhere, while we work the flanks with heavy artillery that will set the precedent for a long time to come.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member Last edited by IVC; 04-04-2013 at 9:47 PM.. |
#334
|
||||
|
||||
How do
WE Keep 'bear' ruling from the 7th We aren't in the 7th |
#335
|
||||
|
||||
The sad thing is IL is in the 7th, but the IL supreme court has declared the 7th's decision isn't binding, citing people v. stansberry.
So much for incorporation.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#336
|
||||
|
||||
It's a high level ruling supporting our position and it stays on the record forever. Besides, those who are in the jurisdiction of the 7th Circuit are also part of "us" - we're in this together.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#337
|
||||
|
||||
Another very compelling reason for SCOTUS to take the Kachalsky case. IL Supremes asked for it, and SCOTUS should give it to them, preferably the hard way.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#338
|
||||
|
||||
Calendar marked!
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#339
|
|||
|
|||
I'm glad I have a good supply of anti-diarrhreal drugs on hand!! This thing is really work'n on my nerves!
__________________
Things usually turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out. |
#340
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
So while you're right in that the lower courts can sort through those problems without having to go all the way to SCOTUS every time, you're wrong about the implication that they will. They won't. This stuff will have to go to SCOTUS every time because the lower courts abhor the right and will do everything to ensure that it gets minimum traction.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#341
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
This will not be the case with a liberal set of justices on the Court. Such a set of justices will be happy to ignore stare decisis if doing so allows them to achieve the utopia they envision themselves being empowered to help create. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#342
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Now there is more here than meets the eye....Madigan wants to be the next Governor of IL and I am positive part of her decision regarding Moore will be based upon how it will impact her own opportunity to become Governor. She will surely sell out her personal anti-RKBA beliefs if it benefits HER! At this point, I am inclined to believe Madigan is obsessing over Kachalsky and if cert is denied she will NOT file for cert in Moore because that may possibly be the case SCOTUS really wants in lieu of Kachalsky. So why even provide SCOTUS the opportunity to hear Moore and accept the limited loss (Madigan perspective) in the 7th Circuit. Now God help us if this does in fact happen, arguably our two best "bear" cases would then NOT be heard by SCOTUS. |
#343
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
A great analysis. Which is why it frightens me so. The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom" WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85 |
#344
|
||||
|
||||
She's not going to do a damn thing. The IL Supreme Court ruled that they don't have to listen to the 7th.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#345
|
|||
|
|||
Humm..... I'm not seeing Posner lying down on that one. If any CA Judge has the balls to hold them (or Illinois) accountable, it would be him. Time will tell.. Get out the popcorn, This might turn into a real show if they continue to openly defy the 7th. This is one of the reasons why Kalchalsky is so important, IMO
__________________
Quote:
|
#346
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Still, our judicial system operates pretty well once the legal questions are settled and everybody gets on the same page. The lower courts' reluctance to rule in our favor is much more a reflection of the incomplete 2A framework than their desire to rewrite the law from the bottom up. After all, these are low level bureaucrats and innovation is to them a foreign concept.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#347
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
We also have all the precedents when legislators try to bypass civil rights they don't like (from segregation era) and when they try to bypass SCOTUS rulings they don't like and their constituents don't support (Roe v. Wade). So, all this polling in CA about what people want and legislators pretending that they are respecting 2A is very old news as far as obstructionism goes. The "technicalities" we are being attacked on are already addressed in Heller. They don't require much of new analysis or any paradigm shift to be addressed. Unlike the decades of research and hard work that went into defining 2A as an individual right, the cosmetics and taxes are really small potatoes in the big picture.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#348
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#349
|
||||
|
||||
kuku: I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#350
|
|||
|
|||
Unless that judge sends the marshals out, which I see as a very low probability event, why should the person ignoring them care?
|
#351
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT-- Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association Last edited by sholling; 04-05-2013 at 10:31 AM.. |
#352
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The trips to SCOTUS are required precisely in order to provide the required guidance. Remember, there was a recent court case where the appellate court stated something along the lines: "If the Supreme Court intended the right to arms to extend outside the home they should say so." Is it a cynical defiance, or a genuine call for guidance? Kachalsky should clarify that particular issue. Keep our fingers crossed.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#353
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You presume here that the lower courts are going to faithfully apply prior civil rights jurisprudence to 2nd Amendment cases. They won't. Instead, they will refuse to do so, just as the 2nd Circuit explicitly did. They will hand us loss after loss, insisting that if the Supreme Court means for such jurisprudence to apply, it will, in the words of the MD supreme court, "have to say so more plainly". Quote:
Honestly, you really aren't looking at this with the proper amount of skepticism.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#354
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
To refresh your memory: Quote:
That is a direct admission, by an appellate court judge no less, that the courts rule in whatever fashion they wish to. And the pattern of the court rulings to date should make it plain that this is precisely what they are doing. The 7th Circuit is the only appellate court to break from that pattern (Posner penned the 7th Circuit ruling against McDonald, and yet also penned their decision in Moore). Quote:
Quote:
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#355
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I agree, unlikely (please note that this is an understatement). More likely, would be referring any attorney who prosecuted such cases to the state bar or revoking the attorney's permission to practice law before federal courts in the 7th Circuit. In any event, these types of conflicts and lack of clarity are precisely why the existence of conflicting judicial interpretations is a useful predictor of whether the Supreme Court will hear an issue. Edited to add: Oh yeah, civil liability via a 1983 action. Last edited by Kukuforguns; 04-05-2013 at 12:05 PM.. |
#356
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Does that create personal liability? Public officials are notoriously lacking in scruples when they know the taxpayers will be paying the price for it. |
#357
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT-- Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association |
#358
|
||||
|
||||
I don't have to since you provide more than your fair share of skepticism...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#359
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
AG could run out of attorneys licensed to practice in Federal court if IL continues to enforce the law. I don't know what's going to happen, but it sure is interesting to watch. |
#360
|
||||
|
||||
I think everyone is overstating the issue of the state appellate court in Illinois saying that the Moore decision is not bound to them.
They are the judiciary of the state. They are not the executive enforcers (Law Enforcement Officers, agencies, AG and state prosecutors). The injunction will be against the enforcers. If the enforcers can't enforce, then the state judiciary cannot judge something that is not in front of them. Doing a helps no one. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|