Jump to content


Photo

Wrenn v. DC


  • Please log in to reply
162 replies to this topic

#91 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,735 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 07 January 2016 - 01:15 PM

In Haynes v. US, the Supreme Court effectively ruled that state gun registration schemes are unconstitutional as they violate the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause. Well, unless criminals are exempted from registration requirements. The reasoning is that criminals must register their illegally possessed firearms, which is an explicit acknowledgement of criminal acts. Requiring one to incriminate oneself to comply with the law in question is unconstitutional.

Sent from my VK700 using Tapatalk


I looked at the history of the ruling, and although it doesn't apply to the NFA anymore (due to legislative changes), it still applies at the state level. So why didn't the courts rules in favor of Powell in Powell v. Tompkins?
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#92 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,071 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 08 January 2016 - 05:01 PM

Why? I have no idea. One observation I've made is that I've never seen a brief filed in a state registration case citing the Supreme Court's holding in Haynes. The NFA issue is tangential to the state registration scheme issue. Real meat is in the Court's holding in re the constitutionality of state registration schemes creating subject classifications, criminal and law-abiding, where law-abiding citizens can be penalized for not registering but criminals cannot be prosecuted for the exact same offense. It's so clear-cut that I can't see how lawyers would simply ignore the case when it's the equivalent of a kill shot to the heart of any state registration scheme. States cannot argue that Haynes is not controlling simply because there are "other laws." The fact of the matter is that any state registration scheme creates classes and one class enjoys immunity from the law itself. "It's" not unconstitutional as applied. "It" is unconstitutional on its face because the law is black and white, there is no subjectivity as to whether a person has or has not violated the registration statute. Identical to the portions of the AUUW stricken by CA7. Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#93 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,071 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 02 March 2016 - 01:33 PM

This is gonna be a disaster. Gun hater, former Chief FISA Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has been assigned Wrenn. Clinton nominee. She green-lighted the NSA metadata crap. Her husband repped Bill's Secret Service Agents during his impeachment proceedings. Stated in the Redskins trademark case that there wasn't enough evidence to strip the trademark....but didn't comment on the pleadings that the name is racist (or not racist). Which leads me to believe she'd have stripped the organization of its trademark if she had enough to do it. She's in the Clinton's pocket. Judicial Watch has been trying to get her thrown off a bunch of FOIA cases involving Hillary due to conflict of interest and she refuses to recuse herself, dismisses their actions. Klayman even filed a complaint trying to get her censured. On the upside, Scullin's orders, all documents drafted by him, filed, will be persuasive. Extremely persuasive and it would be interesting to see her depart from the findings. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#94 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,071 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 21 March 2016 - 08:42 AM

As stated, Judge Kollar-Kotelly denied Plaintiffs' motion for a PI. Stated that, "assuming" that carrying a loaded firearm in public is protected by the Second Amendment, the good cause provision satisfies the "compelling government interest." "In sum, the Court has concluded that, on this record, Plaintiffs have not established a likelihood of success on the merits, that the equities tip in their favor, or that the issuance of an injunction would be in the public interest. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiffs have satisfied the irreparable injury factor as a result of their allegation of a Second Amendment violation alone, the Court concludes that the factors, taken together, favor denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not made the 'clear showing' that the 'extraordinary remedy' of a preliminary injunction is warranted in these circumstances. Winter, 555 U.S. at 22." Allow me to translate. "I've already judged this case prior to it being assigned to me. I'm grasping at straws to justify denying a preliminary injunction when the previous judge assigned to this case found the exact opposite. " Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#95 chislinger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,361 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 20 September 2016 - 12:27 PM

Today's oral arguments are posted here:

Haven't listened yet myself at work.
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#96 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,157 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 20 September 2016 - 01:01 PM

Judges are Henderson, Griffith, and Williams--all Republican appointees.  Any insights into prior decisions and how they might rule on this PI?


"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#97 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,071 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 20 September 2016 - 03:58 PM

Don't count on Henderson. She doesn't even speak during Gura's presentation. She knows how she's going to vote in Wrenn and Grace. D.C. tries to say the good reason standard doesn't implicate the Second Amendment, which is odd since the core right is burdened by the good reason standard, therefore that standard implicates the Second Amendment. Gah. Headache already after the grilling of Gura on every possible hypothetical, however insane it may be. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#98 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 20 September 2016 - 04:11 PM

Don't count on Henderson. She doesn't even speak during Gura's presentation. She knows how she's going to vote in Wrenn and Grace. D.C. tries to say the good reason standard doesn't implicate the Second Amendment, which is odd since the core right is burdened by the good reason standard, therefore that standard implicates the Second Amendment. Gah. Headache already after the grilling of Gura on every possible hypothetical, however insane it may be. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

I was also pretty worried about Gura getting grilled by Griffith, who should have been a reliable ally. But he went off on DC's counsel way worse. No way I see him ruling against plaintiffs. Williams sounded positive although to be honest I had a lot of trouble hearing him.



#99 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,071 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 20 September 2016 - 04:16 PM

Griffith straight up laid into D.C.'s counsel. She's very angry. Very very angry, sounds like Griffith got under her skin with his hypothetical, her answer, and his calling that assertion "absurd." Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#100 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 20 September 2016 - 09:19 PM

Judge Griffith gave Alan Gura the opportunity to challenge the DC Open Carry ban but Gura slapped him down. These two appeals are concealed carry appeals which means these two appeals will lose. Why would Judge Griffith and Judge Williams knowingly create a circuit split with every Federal circuit and with every state high court which has interpreted the Second Amendment as not permitting concealed carry?
 
Here is my latest article which includes links to my website where you can download audios of the hearings where I boosted the questions by Judge Williams which were almost inaudible from those obtainable at the DC Circuit Court website.
 


#101 chislinger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,361 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 20 September 2016 - 10:29 PM

every Federal circuit and with every state high court which has interpreted the Second Amendment as not permitting concealed carry?

You can keep repeating that all you'd like, it doesn't make it so.
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#102 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 21 September 2016 - 04:44 AM

The line of questioning from the judges doesn't lead me to believe they'll simply rule against plaintiffs on the lack of open carry challenge. Indeed, that could have been the whole case right there and an easy out for them.



#103 lockman

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,498 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 21 September 2016 - 06:16 AM

Can this be the rock and a hard place issue for the courts. If the courts uphold may issue licensing systems, won't that make open carry less vulnerable to any restrictive regulation? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#104 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 21 September 2016 - 09:06 AM

Can this be the rock and a hard place issue for the courts. If the courts uphold may issue licensing systems, won't that make open carry less vulnerable to any restrictive regulation? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not necessarily, as was shown in the NJ and MD cases which didn't distinguish between open and concealed carry. It'll depend on if the court sees CC and OC as two sides of the same coin or separate entities.



#105 lockman

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,498 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 21 September 2016 - 11:23 AM

The only method of carry that should have strict regulation would be in hand at the ready form of open carry. There is never any public safety threat created by a loaded firearm in a proper holster.


"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#106 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,071 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 21 September 2016 - 12:45 PM

The only method of carry that should have strict regulation would be in hand at the ready form of open carry. There is never any public safety threat created by a loaded firearm in a proper holster.

Brandishing is strictly regulated through criminal law *grin*

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#107 fxdpntc

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 118 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 13

Posted 21 September 2016 - 01:56 PM

I liked it when he asked her how many states use the "good reason" standard.



#108 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,071 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 22 September 2016 - 08:16 AM

She had to use fuzzy math. "Oh....blah blah states but that represents 25% of the population...." and what about the other 75%, colloquially known as "the overwhelming majority." Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#109 chislinger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,361 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 22 September 2016 - 05:53 PM

I'd like to know why stop-and-frisk in high crime areas is unconstitutional even though it obviously saves lots of lives (see the dramatic rise in Chicago murders this year after CPD was forced to stop) but pure conjecture with no evidence at all is all that it takes for judges to rule that draconian carry restrictions are OK.
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#110 Smallbore

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,267 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 07

Posted 22 September 2016 - 08:30 PM

I'd like to know why stop-and-frisk in high crime areas is unconstitutional even though it obviously saves lots of lives (see the dramatic rise in Chicago murders this year after CPD was forced to stop) but pure conjecture with no evidence at all is all that it takes for judges to rule that draconian carry restrictions are OK.


Because we are not a police state (yet), nor should we encourage it.

#111 chislinger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,361 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 22 September 2016 - 09:07 PM

I'd like to know why stop-and-frisk in high crime areas is unconstitutional even though it obviously saves lots of lives (see the dramatic rise in Chicago murders this year after CPD was forced to stop) but pure conjecture with no evidence at all is all that it takes for judges to rule that draconian carry restrictions are OK.


Because we are not a police state (yet), nor should we encourage it.

The comment was about the double standard, not that we need more stop and frisk.
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#112 GTX63

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,232 posts
  • Joined: 19-June 13

Posted 23 September 2016 - 05:01 AM

The former is viewed as racist, the latter is viewed as practical.

 

Ironically, judges aren't supposed to be viewers but impartial to outside influence.

Like I heard an attorney tell a couple battling over custody and division of assets during their divorce- "Come to terms between yourselves now, because no matter how much you dislike the result, you will like the judge's terms even less."



#113 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 23 September 2016 - 10:25 AM

 

every Federal circuit and with every state high court which has interpreted the Second Amendment as not permitting concealed carry?

You can keep repeating that all you'd like, it doesn't make it so.

 

So prove me wrong with a pinpoint citation to a case where a Federal circuit or state high court has interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting concealed carry.

 

And then send it to Alan Gura and the other so called gun-rights attorneys who have filed (and lost) concealed carry lawsuits because they have never cited such a case nor have they cited any historical authority which even suggests that concealed carry is a Second Amendment right.



#114 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,071 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 23 September 2016 - 02:50 PM

We can't seem to get away from this splitting of hairs, the "OC vs CC" manure. You are correct, no court has ruled on the manner of carry. Only on the right to do so. We're aware. That's the beauty of the 10th Amendment. States may do as they please, so long as it is within the boundaries of the Constitution. One chooses concealed, another says "Hey, we'd like open carry because (insert reason here)." As long as the right isn't completely destroyed, then who cares. Now, let's get back to the matter at hand. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#115 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,157 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 25 July 2017 - 10:13 AM

Tom Gresham tweeted that SAF just won a permanent injunction against D.C. Haven't found any details yet, but this is encouraging news.
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#116 Keith44

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 402 posts
  • Joined: 21-January 15

Posted 25 July 2017 - 10:21 AM

Tom Gresham tweeted that SAF just won a permanent injunction against D.C. Haven't found any details yet, but this is encouraging news.


http://www.thetrutha...rry-law-struck/

NRA Life Member
..., the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. - 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin


#117 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,168 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 25 July 2017 - 10:23 AM

Here is the decision.... reading it now:

https://www.cadc.usc...ile/16-7067.pdf
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#118 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,071 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 25 July 2017 - 10:25 AM

Attached is the opinion. I believe this says it all...

"The District’s good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. That’s enough to sink this law under Heller I."http://cloud.tapatal...437/16-7067.pdf

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#119 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,253 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 25 July 2017 - 10:26 AM

Nice!



#120 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,168 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 25 July 2017 - 10:58 AM

Takeaway:

Self defense in general is at the core of 2A
"Keep" and "bear" are co-equal functions of 2A
Core of 2A thus includes carry outside the home for self defense
Bans are evaluated on the basis of how they impact the "everyman" law abiding citizen
No standard of scrutiny needed, as in Heller this constituted a total ban
Dispensed with the open carry nonsense
Identified that the "good cause" requirement appeared to be specifically engineered to infringe upon rights
No fact finding required by lower courts and would be a waste of time, ordered lower courts to issue permanent injunctions

Edited by Gamma, 25 July 2017 - 11:00 AM.

Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users