Jump to content


Photo

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTED & SAF vs New Jersey & Los Angeles City

Defense Distributed Second Amendment Foundation

  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 kevinmcc

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,398 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 12

Posted 30 July 2018 - 06:04 PM

Attached is the complaint which I have not read yet.

Attached Files


Edited by kevinmcc, 30 July 2018 - 06:14 PM.

Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA
Life Member, Oath Keepers
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation

#2 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 921 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 30 July 2018 - 06:20 PM

PDF refuses to download.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.
- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.

#3 kevinmcc

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,398 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 12

Posted 30 July 2018 - 06:22 PM

PDF refuses to download.

Here is a direct link.

https://www.document...d-v-Grewal.html


Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA
Life Member, Oath Keepers
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation

#4 dumpnpump

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 314 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 13

Posted 31 July 2018 - 06:41 AM

People have been designing and building their own aircraft for years.  It provides a platform for research and experimentation.  It has been completely legal and allowed builders all kinds of latitude in the furtherance of knowledge.  And I might add, there is no Constitutional amendment providing protection to the home builder movement.  Why should there be in the firearms movement?


 


#5 Raw Power

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 846 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 16

Posted 31 July 2018 - 02:12 PM

It's a red herring. the anti-gun folks need to keep their flock motivated, so they'll keep pretending like the sky is falling, like Chicken Little.



#6 JTHunter

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,114 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 13

Posted 31 July 2018 - 03:19 PM

PDF refuses to download.

 

Opened in Firefox for me.  16 pages.


“We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.” - - Abraham Lincoln

“Small minds adhere to the letter of the law; great minds dispense Justice.” - - S. C. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Life member NAHC, Endowment member NRA

#7 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 921 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 31 July 2018 - 03:29 PM

PDF refuses to download.

 
Opened in Firefox for me.  16 pages.


Works for me now. It was broken last night, though.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.
- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.

#8 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,341 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 31 July 2018 - 04:52 PM

PDF refuses to download.

 Opened in Firefox for me.  16 pages.
Works for me now. It was broken last night, though.
Various file attachment formats via assorted browsers for uploads and downloads are one of those issues I hope to see the board upgrade fix
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
🇺🇸

#9 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,378 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 21 August 2018 - 02:18 PM

Also, just wondering, since there are States involved as parties, doesn't this according to the Constitution fall directly under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as per Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 . . .

 

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

 

http://press-pubs.uc...ocs/a3_2_2.html

 

So, this raises (not begs) the question, how could a judge other than a Supreme Court Justice be involved in this or issue an injunction, when by law it falls above his jurisdiction?


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

Gb1XExdm.jpg
 
 

 
 
 
 


#10 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,178 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 21 August 2018 - 04:37 PM

Also, just wondering, since there are States involved as parties, doesn't this according to the Constitution fall directly under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as per Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 . . .
 
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
 
http://press-pubs.uc...ocs/a3_2_2.html
 
So, this raises (not begs) the question, how could a judge other than a Supreme Court Justice be involved in this or issue an injunction, when by law it falls above his jurisdiction?

Basically in a long series of Supreme Court rulings the Court decided that they simply had no time or such cases, and deferred them back to district courts. They would literally have no time to conduct their role as the final appellate court if they had to hear every case with a state as a party.

Edited by chislinger, 21 August 2018 - 04:37 PM.

"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#11 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,378 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 21 August 2018 - 05:29 PM

 

Also, just wondering, since there are States involved as parties, doesn't this according to the Constitution fall directly under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as per Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 . . .
 
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
 
http://press-pubs.uc...ocs/a3_2_2.html
 
So, this raises (not begs) the question, how could a judge other than a Supreme Court Justice be involved in this or issue an injunction, when by law it falls above his jurisdiction?

Basically in a long series of Supreme Court rulings the Court decided that they simply had no time or such cases, and deferred them back to district courts. They would literally have no time to conduct their role as the final appellate court if they had to hear every case with a state as a party.

 

 

So, essentially, the Supreme Court can trump the Constitution for their own convenience? I disagree!


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

Gb1XExdm.jpg
 
 

 
 
 
 


#12 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,178 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 21 August 2018 - 05:36 PM

So, essentially, the Supreme Court can trump the Constitution for their own convenience? I disagree!

Well we have 100 times the population we had then, and there can only be one Supreme Court. And society has become far more complex and litigious, something had to give. The reality is there's only about 80 cases the court can hear in any given year plus another 100 they resolve without hearing arguments.

Edited by chislinger, 21 August 2018 - 05:37 PM.

"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#13 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,378 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 21 August 2018 - 05:58 PM

 

So, essentially, the Supreme Court can trump the Constitution for their own convenience? I disagree!

Well we have 100 times the population we had then, and there can only be one Supreme Court. And society has become far more complex and litigious, something had to give. The reality is there's only about 80 cases the court can hear in any given year plus another 100 they resolve without hearing arguments.

 

 

Too bad. Convenience doesn't obviate the Constitution. Every law and ruling regarding the subject agrees.

 

Thus, logically and legally, the Supreme Court must take such cases.


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

Gb1XExdm.jpg
 
 

 
 
 
 


#14 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,178 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 21 August 2018 - 06:24 PM

Too bad. Convenience doesn't obviate the Constitution. Every law and ruling regarding the subject agrees.
 
Thus, logically and legally, the Supreme Court must take such cases.

Sure, we estimate your case will get heard in July 2076. See you then!
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#15 jake8267

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 13

Posted 22 August 2018 - 10:50 AM

 

Too bad. Convenience doesn't obviate the Constitution. Every law and ruling regarding the subject agrees.
 
Thus, logically and legally, the Supreme Court must take such cases.

Sure, we estimate your case will get heard in July 2076. See you then!

 

Or... we use the device designed into our system to deal with changes and Amend the Constitution.  Shortcuts, regardless of why, lead to a weakening of the entire structure.



#16 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,378 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 22 August 2018 - 10:53 AM

 

 

Too bad. Convenience doesn't obviate the Constitution. Every law and ruling regarding the subject agrees.
 
Thus, logically and legally, the Supreme Court must take such cases.

Sure, we estimate your case will get heard in July 2076. See you then!

 

Or... we use the device designed into our system to deal with changes and Amend the Constitution.  Shortcuts, regardless of why, lead to a weakening of the entire structure.

 

 

That is my point exactly. Since the Constitution isn't amended, the shortcut thus taken is unlawful.


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

Gb1XExdm.jpg
 
 

 
 
 
 


#17 Silhouette

  • Members
  • 26 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 13

Posted 22 August 2018 - 06:55 PM

Original jurisdiction means that they CAN take the case; it doesn't mean that they have to.  They also, clearly, have appellate jurisdiction to review a case from a lower court.  In this case, the case was not filed in the supreme court but in a lower court that also has jurisdiction.  The supreme court has exclusive original jurisdiction in a a few instances based on laws from 1789 or so.  There is nothing abnormal with how this case is proceeding.



#18 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,378 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 23 August 2018 - 02:39 PM

Original jurisdiction means that they CAN take the case; it doesn't mean that they have to.  They also, clearly, have appellate jurisdiction to review a case from a lower court.  In this case, the case was not filed in the supreme court but in a lower court that also has jurisdiction.  The supreme court has exclusive original jurisdiction in a a few instances based on laws from 1789 or so.  There is nothing abnormal with how this case is proceeding.

 

Where, exactly, does it say specifically that? In this case, "shall have" is like "shall issue" in that it means unless there is a disqualifying factor, that that, just like a shall issue CCL state must give a law-abiding citizen a CCL, the Supreme Court must take such cases and is the jurisdiction that such cases are required to be filed in.

 

Whether or not it's normal for such cases to be dealt with thus presently isn't the issue. That's not what the Constitution says, and what should happen is that the filer should insist, rightfully, that the case be heard by the appropriate court, i.e., SCOTUS. That would shove something cold and sharp up the outflows of those idiotic, overstepping, anti-Constitutional Rights AGs.


Edited by ChicagoRonin70, 23 August 2018 - 02:40 PM.

"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

Gb1XExdm.jpg
 
 

 
 
 
 


#19 Silhouette

  • Members
  • 26 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 13

Posted 24 August 2018 - 07:11 AM

Yes. The constitution says that they "shall have" jurisdiction.  Jurisdiction is authority not obligation.  Further, this issue was more clearly defined in 1789 (Judiciary Act) and then clarified by the Court itself numerous times but most relevant to this question in 1888 in Ames v. Kansas.  Put differently the constitution authorizes and allows the Supreme Court to hear this case, but it does not obligate it to do so. 
 
From Black's Law Dictionary: Jurisdiction: The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law, or to award the remedies provided by law, upon a state of facts, proved or admitted, referred to the tribunal for decision, and authorized by law to be the subject of investigation or action by that tribunal, and in favor of or against persons (or a res) who present themselves, or who are brought, before the court in some manner sanctioned by law as proper and sufficient. 



#20 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,378 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 24 August 2018 - 12:26 PM

Yes. The constitution says that they "shall have" jurisdiction.  Jurisdiction is authority not obligation.  Further, this issue was more clearly defined in 1789 (Judiciary Act) and then clarified by the Court itself numerous times but most relevant to this question in 1888 in Ames v. Kansas.  Put differently the constitution authorizes and allows the Supreme Court to hear this case, but it does not obligate it to do so. 
 
From Black's Law Dictionary: Jurisdiction: The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law, or to award the remedies provided by law, upon a state of facts, proved or admitted, referred to the tribunal for decision, and authorized by law to be the subject of investigation or action by that tribunal, and in favor of or against persons (or a res) who present themselves, or who are brought, before the court in some manner sanctioned by law as proper and sufficient. 

 

Right, the power and authority conferred upon the Supreme Court to be the ones who adjudicate . . .

 

In all Cases . . . in which a State shall be Party . . .

 

Nowhere does it say in the Constitution that anyone else has that power and authority, nor does it say that the Supreme Court can divest themselves or shirk that responsibility. It was put in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers for a very specific reason, exactly the same as they put ". . . the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" in the Constitution, because it means exactly what it says and was intended to be followed as the overriding and ultimate law of the land.


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

Gb1XExdm.jpg
 
 

 
 
 
 


#21 Silhouette

  • Members
  • 26 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 13

Posted 24 August 2018 - 01:14 PM

Yes, they have the power to adjudicate.  They simply aren't the only ones to have such power.  There is nothing exclusive about that power (though they have exclusive jurisdiction when the matter is between states - 28 USC 1251).  They also have the power to review decisions by any lower federal court, which flows from congress as authorized by the constitution.

 

Indeed, when the Court exercises this power form Original Jurisdiction (about once a year), they appoint a master to provide a recommendation and then the court reviews that finding.  Those rulings are not usually constructed to establish broad precedent.



#22 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 28 August 2018 - 11:54 AM

Well this is about to get interesting and I expect some liberal heads to explode.  After being barred him from putting the plans 'online' for free by the court, today Cody Wilson started 'selling' the plans to anyone that wants them, just order and name your price and he will send you the plans.

 

https://www.texastri...wilson-selling/


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#23 kevinmcc

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,398 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 12

Posted 01 September 2018 - 06:43 AM

Well this is about to get interesting and I expect some liberal heads to explode.  After being barred him from putting the plans 'online' for free by the court, today Cody Wilson started 'selling' the plans to anyone that wants them, just order and name your price and he will send you the plans.

 

https://www.texastri...wilson-selling/

This is what I love about this guy. He will use every loop hole to and shove them in the faces of the gun grabbers.


Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA
Life Member, Oath Keepers
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Defense Distributed, Second Amendment Foundation

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users