Jump to content

Euler

Members
  • Posts

    6,975
  • Joined

3 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Euler's Achievements

Member

Member (24/24)

  • Helpful Rare

Recent Badges

  1. The federal charges in this case were only about possession, not carry, since there's no such thing as federal carry laws.
  2. The Bevis/Barnett precedent at CA7 is now that Friedman is good law under Bruen. That's what will matter.
  3. Oops? Harrel isn't Herrera. The Harrel topic is locked, though, since the case was consolidated with Barnett in the Southern District. Herrera is a Northern District case out of Cook County.
  4. If this is the click-through agreement, wherein you have to check a box or you can't continue, it used to say only that you give the state full access to all your medical records (i.e., you waive HIPAA, but without mentioning HIPAA). If so, they've changed the wording to extend beyond all your medical records. Welcome to the modern era, comrade. You can have your rights, but only after you trade something for them.
  5. Tying up loose ends ... On March 8, the judge granted the motion to stay.
  6. Courts classify challenges to a law's constitutionality into facial challenges (unconstitutional for everyone) and as-applied (unconstitutional for only the plaintiff/petitioner/appellant/whatever). A facial challenge seeks to invalidate the entire law. An as-applied challenge seeks to narrow its scope, generally because the law is vague or too broad. In this case, the court didn't find it unconstitutional to prohibit foreign nationals in general from possessing firearms, because "the people" in the Constitution is generally interpreted as people who participate in the politics of the US (typically voting or running for office, but certainly could include speaking in public) and are not actively trying to destroy US civilization (e.g., violent criminals or hostile foreign agents). Nevertheless, the 2A rights of documented permanent residents are protected, since they are not prohibited from acquiring and possessing firearms. Although Carbajal-Flores is not classified as a permanent resident under federal immigration law, he has resided in the US for many years and intends to stay. Throughout his time here, he has been employed and has obeyed all other laws. In 1791 (in fact up until the 20th century), that would have been sufficient. At the district level, the "as-applied" ruling really does apply to only Carbajal-Flores. If the federal government appeals it to CA7 and loses (i.e., CA7 affirms the district ruling), then it narrows the scope of GCA 1968 for all undocumented immigrants in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. It creates an interesting situation. Undocumented immigrants still aren't going to be able to purchase firearms legally, since they won't pass a NICS check, but they also wouldn't be able to be prosecuted federally for merely possessing a firearm. It leaves it on shakier grounds. If undocumented immigrants cannot be prosecuted for federal weapons charges, it doesn't mean they cannot be prosecuted for state weapons charges. But if any state can prosecute someone for constitutionally protected conduct, it points out that the state law is federally unconstitutional. IMO the more arguments we have against the FOID, the better.
  7. However you want to look at it, a (supposedly) random 3-judge panel (which may or may not include Easterbrook) of CA7 will rule on the Viramontes appeal. Whichever way the panel goes, it's a sure bet that there will be a petition for rehearing en banc. An en banc rehearing would definitely include Easterbrook, because en banc means everybody.
  8. On March 14, US filed a motion to stay the case pending a decision in US v Prince. On March 15, the court granted the stay.
  9. On March 15, FPC filed notice of its intent to appeal to CA7. I'll post a CA7 docket reference when I know it.
  10. The Supreme Court docket is now available for the GOA's petition. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1010.html
  11. If you mean US v Daniels, the cert petition is on hold. It hasn't been denied.
  12. Duplicate of Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion > Piasa v Kwame Raoul Lock or merge ?
  13. 50 caliber and larger, because mass shooters and other criminals use it so much to kill children.
×
×
  • Create New...