blackhalo Posted October 20, 2011 at 06:31 PM Posted October 20, 2011 at 06:31 PM http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/10/u-s-less-protection-for-gun-rights/ The Feds have filed an opposition brief, available here: http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/US-brief-in-opp-10-11212.pdf
lockman Posted October 20, 2011 at 08:21 PM Posted October 20, 2011 at 08:21 PM So now the Solicitor General is of the opinion that strict scrutiny applies only in the home. Since the reference in the Heller decision was an example, "such as in the home", then Mr. Solicitor please list all the other examples of places where strict scrutiny should apply? After all, "such as in the home" was only one such example. Or will he argue that in the home was the only place used as the example?
stm Posted October 20, 2011 at 09:23 PM Posted October 20, 2011 at 09:23 PM While it's not exactly what we want to hear, the Solicitor General's opinion could be used in our favor in Moore and Shepard. He seems to say that the circuit court tacitly agreed that the 2A applies outside the home, but that intermediate scrutiny applies. Illinois' complete ban outside the home cannot survive even intermediate scrutiny. I don't agree with him, but I think it could bolster our case.
colt-45 Posted October 20, 2011 at 09:35 PM Posted October 20, 2011 at 09:35 PM While it's not exactly what we want to hear, the Solicitor General's opinion could be used in our favor in Moore and Shepard. He seems to say that the circuit court tacitly agreed that the 2A applies outside the home, but that intermediate scrutiny applies. Illinois' complete ban outside the home cannot survive even intermediate scrutiny. I don't agree with him, but I think it could bolster our case.well you can see that this is what the judge in our case was waiting for. so our case is shot to heck. cause these idiots judges don't care about our right's so there you have it our ruling for Illinois.
snubjob Posted October 20, 2011 at 10:04 PM Posted October 20, 2011 at 10:04 PM While it's not exactly what we want to hear, the Solicitor General's opinion could be used in our favor in Moore and Shepard. He seems to say that the circuit court tacitly agreed that the 2A applies outside the home, but that intermediate scrutiny applies. Illinois' complete ban outside the home cannot survive even intermediate scrutiny. I don't agree with him, but I think it could bolster our case.well you can see that this is what the judge in our case was waiting for. so our case is shot to heck. cause these idiots judges don't care about our right's so there you have it our ruling for Illinois. Yep. Pretty big setback.
colt-45 Posted October 20, 2011 at 10:06 PM Posted October 20, 2011 at 10:06 PM While it's not exactly what we want to hear, the Solicitor General's opinion could be used in our favor in Moore and Shepard. He seems to say that the circuit court tacitly agreed that the 2A applies outside the home, but that intermediate scrutiny applies. Illinois' complete ban outside the home cannot survive even intermediate scrutiny. I don't agree with him, but I think it could bolster our case.well you can see that this is what the judge in our case was waiting for. so our case is shot to heck. cause these idiots judges don't care about our right's so there you have it our ruling for Illinois. Yep. Pretty big setback.and i don't think they will stop there either.
stm Posted October 20, 2011 at 10:14 PM Posted October 20, 2011 at 10:14 PM I don't think its going to impact our cases negatively at all. First, this is only the Solicitor General's opinion, he's just a government lawyer, not a judge. Secondly, he admits that there is a 2A right outside the home, which is our argument in the Moore and Shepard cases. Lastly, he says it is subject to intermediate scrutiny. SCOTUS said in Heller that a complete ban cannot survive *any* level of scrutiny. We'd rather have strict scrutiny, but even under intermediate scrutiny, we should win. At least that's what Gura and our other attorneys are arguing.
colt-45 Posted October 20, 2011 at 10:30 PM Posted October 20, 2011 at 10:30 PM I don't think its going to impact our cases negatively at all. First, this is only the Solicitor General's opinion, he's just a government lawyer, not a judge. Secondly, he admits that there is a 2A right outside the home, which is our argument in the Moore and Shepard cases. Lastly, he says it is subject to intermediate scrutiny. SCOTUS said in Heller that a complete ban cannot survive *any* level of scrutiny. We'd rather have strict scrutiny, but even under intermediate scrutiny, we should win. At least that's what Gura and our other attorneys are arguing.i hope it don't, that just didn't set with me right when you said it will bolster our case. so think i have my took your statement the wrong way than. sorry for the ramp than.
abolt243 Posted October 20, 2011 at 10:35 PM Posted October 20, 2011 at 10:35 PM I don't think its going to impact our cases negatively at all. First, this is only the Solicitor General's opinion, he's just a government lawyer, not a judge. Secondly, he admits that there is a 2A right outside the home, which is our argument in the Moore and Shepard cases. Lastly, he says it is subject to intermediate scrutiny. SCOTUS said in Heller that a complete ban cannot survive *any* level of scrutiny. We'd rather have strict scrutiny, but even under intermediate scrutiny, we should win. At least that's what Gura and our other attorneys are arguing.i hope it don't, that just didn't set with me right when you said it will bolster our case. so think i have my took your statement the wrong way than. sorry for the ramp than. "Bolster = to add to, support, or uphold (sometimes followed by up): They bolstered their morale by singing. He bolstered up his claim with new evidence." And, I assume you mean rant.
colt-45 Posted October 20, 2011 at 10:45 PM Posted October 20, 2011 at 10:45 PM I don't think its going to impact our cases negatively at all. First, this is only the Solicitor General's opinion, he's just a government lawyer, not a judge. Secondly, he admits that there is a 2A right outside the home, which is our argument in the Moore and Shepard cases. Lastly, he says it is subject to intermediate scrutiny. SCOTUS said in Heller that a complete ban cannot survive *any* level of scrutiny. We'd rather have strict scrutiny, but even under intermediate scrutiny, we should win. At least that's what Gura and our other attorneys are arguing.i hope it don't, that just didn't set with me right when you said it will bolster our case. so think i have my took your statement the wrong way than. sorry for the ramp than. "Bolster = to add to, support, or uphold (sometimes followed by up): They bolstered their morale by singing. He bolstered up his claim with new evidence." And, I assume you mean rant.i'm so mad i cant even type, but yea rant. i just need to wait before i comment on things now,so it can be more explain better. sorry guys
stm Posted October 21, 2011 at 01:41 AM Posted October 21, 2011 at 01:41 AM i'm so mad i cant even type, but yea rant. i just need to wait before i comment on things now,so it can be more explain better. sorry guysNot a problem, I understand how you feel sometimes.
Drylok Posted October 21, 2011 at 02:43 AM Posted October 21, 2011 at 02:43 AM Here's how I'm starting to handle these court cases. The OP was posted at 1:30 this afternoon and Todd, AB, Don or Molly have yet to comment so that means this is NBDD. Just relax
colt-45 Posted October 21, 2011 at 03:21 AM Posted October 21, 2011 at 03:21 AM Here's how I'm starting to handle these court cases. The OP was posted at 1:30 this afternoon and Todd, AB, Don or Molly have yet to comment so that means this is NBDD. Just relaxgood idea will do.Drylok
Molly B. Posted November 18, 2011 at 01:58 AM Posted November 18, 2011 at 01:58 AM Here's how I'm starting to handle these court cases. The OP was posted at 1:30 this afternoon and Todd, AB, Don or Molly have yet to comment so that means this is NBDD. Just relaxActually I think this one could be a pretty big deal. it will be very interesting to see if the Supreme court decides to hear this one.
blackhalo Posted November 18, 2011 at 11:21 AM Author Posted November 18, 2011 at 11:21 AM The case is docketed for conference on Nov. 22: SCOTUS Docket 10-11212
blackhalo Posted November 18, 2011 at 11:26 AM Author Posted November 18, 2011 at 11:26 AM "Generally, if a case is considered at a Conference, viewers can expect that the disposition of a case will be announced on an Orders List that will be released at 10:00 a.m. the following Monday." SCOTUS
stm Posted November 22, 2011 at 06:53 PM Posted November 22, 2011 at 06:53 PM The case is docketed for conference on Nov. 22: SCOTUS Docket 10-11212 I hope SCOTUS decides to hear this case. Waiting anxiously for good news on Monday.
blackhalo Posted November 28, 2011 at 03:20 PM Author Posted November 28, 2011 at 03:20 PM Cert Denied.
stm Posted November 28, 2011 at 03:24 PM Posted November 28, 2011 at 03:24 PM Cert denied. I guess SCOTUS is looking for a better RTC case?
JackTripper Posted November 28, 2011 at 08:53 PM Posted November 28, 2011 at 08:53 PM Cert denied. I guess SCOTUS is looking for a better RTC case? That would be my guess. The law which led to the initial arrest is no longer in place.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.