Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-23-2021, 1:28 AM
pacrat pacrat is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,528
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default 4TH CIRCUIT FLIP FLOP

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fe...KUh?li=BBnb7Kz

Quote:
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that its previously ruling in July was now moot as the two plaintiffs in the case had recently turned 21, Reuters reported. Circuit Judge Julius Richardson said vacating the ruling he had previously authored would serve the public's interest as it would make way for further litigation in the future.
WHUTTHEHELL.

Asinine to moot settled law for the purpose of relitigating.

He got it right. Then Ch!t on his robe, and the constitution, because Biden asked him to.

Moot means it never happened and 18 to 20 yr olds are back to having their 2A rights stricken in Virginia.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-23-2021, 6:26 AM
AdamVIP AdamVIP is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 497
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

So I guess all they have to do is make each case last more than 2 years and then moot them.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-23-2021, 7:15 AM
Fyathyrio's Avatar
Fyathyrio Fyathyrio is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Free 'Murica
Posts: 946
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Link to a better source than MSN
__________________
"Everything I ever learned about leadership, I learned from a Chief Petty Officer." - John McCain
"Use your hammer, not your mouth, jackass!" - Mike Ditka
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Earl Jones
The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-25-2021, 10:01 AM
Mute's Avatar
Mute Mute is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Diamond Bar
Posts: 7,456
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

Who's surprised by this? Judges, regardless of their political leanings are all part of the ruling elite and seem to have attitudes that reflect that. Their decisions are what's best for everyone. What's the US Constitution got to do with it? That's just an excuse they use for appearance sake.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member
NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle & Refuse To Be A Victim Instructor

American Marksman Training Group
Visit our American Marksman Facebook Page
Diamond Bar CCW Facebook Page


NRA Memberships at Discounted fee
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-26-2021, 4:22 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,796
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This seems a complete weasel out by the court. Now perhaps in the literal letter of the law this was correct, but jeez plaintiffs got screwed because the court system is so ridiculously slow. And, even if plaintiffs mooted out I think the appeals court ruling should have stood at least.

But perhaps plaintiffs didn't do their due diligence and should have added additional (younger) plaintiffs to keep the case going. It's almost impossible to bring a novel case to SCOTUS from start to finish in under 3 years.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-26-2021, 8:29 AM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,118
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
He got it right. Then Ch!t on his robe, and the constitution, because Biden asked him to.
Really? That's the takeaway you get from this?
Let's quote from the mooting opinion here:
Quote:
To try to breathe new life into her claims after they became moot, Marshall alleged for the first time that she wishes to sell handguns to friends under 21. Those private sales would not typically be affected by the challenged laws and regulations. But Marshall seeks to bring those sales within this court’s purview by alleging that she wishes to use a federally licensed firearm dealer to facilitate the sales (by, for example, running background checks on her friends).
This newly alleged injury was raised for the first time on appeal, and only after the case became moot, so we refuse to consider it here.
...
A second effort to revive this case by adding new parties also fails. Surely recognizing the mootness concern, Plaintiff’s attorney moved in the district court on July 24—the day before Marshall turned 21—to join new parties that might keep the case alive. But the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant the motion. See Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 258 (4th Cir. 2014) (“[A]n effective notice of appeal divests a district court of jurisdiction to entertain an intervention motion.”). Plaintiff’s attorney only submitted a motion to our court on July 27, two days after Marshall turned 21. By that time, the case was moot. And we cannot grant a motion to join new parties that was filed after a case is moot.
So... let's get this straight... The lawyer representing the plaintiffs, one Elliot M. Harding, Esq., waited until the day before their last remaining party turned 21 to file to add more parties, and then filed in the wrong court. Elliot did what lawyers typically do: Wait and file at the last minute. Except Elliot here miscalculated. Probably should have filed earlier than the last day before the case is in danger of becoming moot, because it's not like mootness has been in the news recently for a notable Supreme Court gun case, right? .

This case has been going on for like 3 years; plaintiff's lawyers have have had plenty of time to go find more parties to add to the case so that it won't go moot.

Was there a particular gun rights org running this case or was it just the lone lawyer? I haven't been following this case closely.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-26-2021, 12:02 PM
bohoki's Avatar
bohoki bohoki is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 92688
Posts: 19,716
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamVIP View Post
So I guess all they have to do is make each case last more than 2 years and then moot them.
yea imagine if thats what they did to abortion cases
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-26-2021, 1:57 PM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,118
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bohoki View Post
yea imagine if thats what they did to abortion cases
Except they tried to moot abortion cases, when they tried to moot Roe v. Wade, and so more or less an exception was borne out of that, which is basically capable of repetition yet evading review, since not only do you have the short length of time in pregnancy, but that it can be done repeatedly (you can get pregnant multiple times). If one could turn 21 multiple times, then it would have been covered under that very exception for mootness.

Last edited by BeAuMaN; 09-26-2021 at 3:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-05-2021, 11:36 AM
AdamVIP AdamVIP is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 497
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN View Post
If one could turn 21 multiple times, then it would have been covered under that very exception for mootness.
My wife has turned 26 for the last 13 years.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:23 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical