MrTriple Posted January 7, 2016 at 07:15 PM Share Posted January 7, 2016 at 07:15 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 TapatalkI 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted January 8, 2016 at 11:01 PM Share Posted January 8, 2016 at 11:01 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted March 2, 2016 at 07:33 PM Share Posted March 2, 2016 at 07:33 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted March 21, 2016 at 02:42 PM Share Posted March 21, 2016 at 02:42 PM 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted September 20, 2016 at 06:27 PM Share Posted September 20, 2016 at 06:27 PM Today's oral arguments are posted here: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/recordings2017.nsf/A8BA0B90AE5BFC5585258034005B1E72/$file/16-7025.mp3 Haven't listened yet myself at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted September 20, 2016 at 07:01 PM Share Posted September 20, 2016 at 07:01 PM Judges are Henderson, Griffith, and Williams--all Republican appointees. Any insights into prior decisions and how they might rule on this PI? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted September 20, 2016 at 09:58 PM Share Posted September 20, 2016 at 09:58 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted September 20, 2016 at 10:11 PM Share Posted September 20, 2016 at 10:11 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 TapatalkI 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted September 20, 2016 at 10:16 PM Share Posted September 20, 2016 at 10:16 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Nichols Posted September 21, 2016 at 03:19 AM Share Posted September 21, 2016 at 03:19 AM 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. http://newsblaze.com/business/legal/two-concealed-carry-cases-fire-blanks-in-u-s-court-of-appeals-for-the-district-of-columbia-circuit_64817/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted September 21, 2016 at 04:29 AM Share Posted September 21, 2016 at 04:29 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted September 21, 2016 at 10:44 AM Share Posted September 21, 2016 at 10:44 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted September 21, 2016 at 12:16 PM Share Posted September 21, 2016 at 12:16 PM 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted September 21, 2016 at 03:06 PM Share Posted September 21, 2016 at 03:06 PM 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 TapatalkNot 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted September 21, 2016 at 05:23 PM Share Posted September 21, 2016 at 05:23 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted September 21, 2016 at 06:45 PM Share Posted September 21, 2016 at 06:45 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxdpntc Posted September 21, 2016 at 07:56 PM Share Posted September 21, 2016 at 07:56 PM I liked it when he asked her how many states use the "good reason" standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted September 22, 2016 at 02:16 PM Share Posted September 22, 2016 at 02:16 PM 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted September 22, 2016 at 11:53 PM Share Posted September 22, 2016 at 11:53 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallbore Posted September 23, 2016 at 02:30 AM Share Posted September 23, 2016 at 02:30 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted September 23, 2016 at 03:07 AM Share Posted September 23, 2016 at 03:07 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTX63 Posted September 23, 2016 at 11:01 AM Share Posted September 23, 2016 at 11:01 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Nichols Posted September 23, 2016 at 04:25 PM Share Posted September 23, 2016 at 04:25 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted September 23, 2016 at 08:50 PM Share Posted September 23, 2016 at 08:50 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted July 25, 2017 at 04:13 PM Share Posted July 25, 2017 at 04:13 PM Tom Gresham tweeted that SAF just won a permanent injunction against D.C. Haven't found any details yet, but this is encouraging news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith44 Posted July 25, 2017 at 04:21 PM Share Posted July 25, 2017 at 04:21 PM 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.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/07/johannes-paulsen/breaking-district-columbias-may-issue-carry-law-struck/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted July 25, 2017 at 04:23 PM Share Posted July 25, 2017 at 04:23 PM Here is the decision.... reading it now: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/E2F5AEE1CAB3A06C85258168004F3EE5/$file/16-7067.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted July 25, 2017 at 04:25 PM Share Posted July 25, 2017 at 04:25 PM 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.tapatalk.com/s/597770aec6437/16-7067.pdf Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmagloo Posted July 25, 2017 at 04:26 PM Share Posted July 25, 2017 at 04:26 PM Nice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted July 25, 2017 at 04:58 PM Share Posted July 25, 2017 at 04:58 PM 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.