Wilson v. Crook County Reply brief

[Tvandermyde]

here you go for your light reading pleasure.

 

Responce Brief tot he County's bullpucky

3204_001.pdf

[mstrat]

I imagine this is simply being trotted out due to the necessary procedure of responding to the county, but it irks me to see the plaintiffs talking about the lack of verifiable factual accuracy in statements like "military-style assault weapons" with "no legitimate sporting purpose."

 

Since I'm not familiar with legal procedures and can't speak to the wisdom of talking about this in these documents..... I'll take this opportunity, instead, to remind everyone:

 

DO NOT get sucked into a pointless argument/debate/conversation where you find yourself defending the "sporting purposes" of particular firearms.

 

It... doesn't... matter. The Second Amendment isn't about duck hunting.

[Tvandermyde]

They were making legal points, that just becuase the county says sometthing is so, doesn't make it so.

 

And they even questioned the term military style weapon.

 

They were rebutting, that there was no finding of fact or conclusion by the court.

 

They also took time to build on Heller. If the court takes the hint, it does a lot for us.

[Davey]

I tried to read the whole PDF but I just got angrier as I went along.

[mstrat]

Makes sense - which is why i refrained from commenting on the legal strategy

 

On a side-note "Plaintiffs allege that the banned rifles are in common use for protection, target shooting, and hunting" should have read

"Plaintiffs allege that the banned rifles are in common use for protection, target shooting, hunting, and maintaining a large and widespread armed citizenry to deter judges and legislators from encroaching on natural human rights."

[scough]

Speaking about cases, sure seems that Shepard is overdue for the judges decision.

[NakPPI]

The fact that the county attached documents to a 2-615 motion to dismiss is amusing. Defendants are not allowed to go beyond the 4 corners of the complaint under 2-615. The fact that they attached newspaper articles and such is an admission that the 2-615 motion is legally insufficient. This motion should have been brought under 2-619, supported by an affidavit... Oh the rules of civil procedure why does no one read you?

[lockman]

I read a bit at work, but for some reason the link does not appear on my iPhone version.

[howie]

Makes sense - which is why i refrained from commenting on the legal strategy

 

On a side-note "Plaintiffs allege that the banned rifles are in common use for protection, target shooting, and hunting" should have read

"Plaintiffs allege that the banned rifles are in common use for protection, target shooting, hunting, and maintaining a large and widespread armed citizenry to deter judges and legislators from encroaching on natural human rights."

I like it. I like it a lot.

[nocaster]

The fact that the county attached documents to a 2-615 motion to dismiss is amusing. Defendants are not allowed to go beyond the 4 corners of the complaint under 2-615. The fact that they attached newspaper articles and such is an admission that the 2-615 motion is legally insufficient. This motion should have been brought under 2-619, supported by an affidavit... Oh the rules of civil procedure why does no one read you?

 

Big deal. I had a judge tell me that my 615 motion didn't set forth enough evidence....... To be fair, it was a child support judge.

 

As to the article, I wonder if Anita is personally working on the brief.

[Sigma]

Can summarize for those who dont have the time to read or who wouldnt understand it anyway

[Tvandermyde]

you would understand it. you're plenty smart. Good reading when rocking the baby in the middle of the night.

[Howard Roark]

That brief was very unfocused. Why hammer on the right to bear arms when the entire point is that law abiding people have the right to keep firearms in common use and which are suitable for use by the militia (unorganized law-abiding adults). It's like Halbrook thinks this is a *bear* case, not a *keep* case. Color me disappointed. Or school me if you know better.

[bob]

That brief was very unfocused. Why hammer on the right to bear arms when the entire point is that law abiding people have the right to keep firearms in common use and which are suitable for use by the militia (unorganized law-abiding adults). It's like Halbrook thinks this is a *bear* case, not a *keep* case. Color me disappointed. Or school me if you know better.

 

 

The keep part has already been decided by SCOTUS. Now it is just about the scope of that part of the right. The reality is that ARs are the most commonly owned rifle by "the people". If they can be banned any firearm can be banned. My guess is despite delaying tactics it is just a matter of time on this one. We might even have won at the lower court level given the way Heller is worded.

 

I suspect an argument on magazine capacity is also going to lose, given that an AR is not especially functional without a magazine, and the most common magazines owned by "the people" are standard capacity 20 and 30 rounders.

[Sigma]

That brief was very unfocused. Why hammer on the right to bear arms when the entire point is that law abiding people have the right to keep firearms in common use and which are suitable for use by the militia (unorganized law-abiding adults). It's like Halbrook thinks this is a *bear* case, not a *keep* case. Color me disappointed. Or school me if you know better.

 

 

The keep part has already been decided by SCOTUS. Now it is just about the scope of that part of the right. The reality is that ARs are the most commonly owned rifle by "the people". If they can be banned any firearm can be banned. My guess is despite delaying tactics it is just a matter of time on this one. We might even have won at the lower court level given the way Heller is worded.

 

I suspect an argument on magazine capacity is also going to lose, given that an AR is not especially functional without a magazine, and the most common magazines owned by "the people" are standard capacity 20 and 30 rounders.

 

 

How are you so confident after reading Heller 2

[bob]

That brief was very unfocused. Why hammer on the right to bear arms when the entire point is that law abiding people have the right to keep firearms in common use and which are suitable for use by the militia (unorganized law-abiding adults). It's like Halbrook thinks this is a *bear* case, not a *keep* case. Color me disappointed. Or school me if you know better.

 

 

The keep part has already been decided by SCOTUS. Now it is just about the scope of that part of the right. The reality is that ARs are the most commonly owned rifle by "the people". If they can be banned any firearm can be banned. My guess is despite delaying tactics it is just a matter of time on this one. We might even have won at the lower court level given the way Heller is worded.

 

I suspect an argument on magazine capacity is also going to lose, given that an AR is not especially functional without a magazine, and the most common magazines owned by "the people" are standard capacity 20 and 30 rounders.

 

 

How are you so confident after reading Heller 2

 

 

Note the use of the words "guess" and "suspect". Nothing is for sure in court when dealing with areas of the law not previously litigated in any detail. Just about anything could happen in the long run.

 

OTOH, the ILSC actually has a fairly good history in its rulings on similar types of cases not involving firearms. But, we are a long way from anything conclusive in this case. Two or three years would be my guess. Might be as much as five years to get it resolved.