Jump to content


Photo

Bateman v Purdue


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
7 replies to this topic

#1 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,258 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 29 March 2012 - 12:37 PM

Another domino falls!

From Volokh.com

This is a US District Court win, so isn't binding.

This is Gura's suit against a North Carolina ban on transporting firearms during a state of emergency.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#2 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,258 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 29 March 2012 - 01:43 PM

The big quotes in this decision:

The ruling is significant in several ways. First, it recognizes that the right to arms is not limited to in-home possession. "Although considerable uncertainty exists regarding the scope of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, it undoubtedly is not limited to the confines of the home." Second it recognizes that when the core right -- possession in the home -- is involved, strict scrutiny applies. Third, it applies strict scrutiny here because of the statute's breadth and the fact that it indirectly impacts possession in the home.


The first quote should be scary to Carry banners.

That second and third should be scary to Chicago and Cook County with respect to AWBs.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#3 NakPPI

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,248 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 29 March 2012 - 03:53 PM

All I have to say is "wow" :console:


Sent from my tactical multicam SCH-I500.
Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.

#4 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,714 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 29 March 2012 - 05:04 PM

Fantastic! Congrats SAF and Alan Gura!

Any indication whether NC will appeal? I would kind of suspect not.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#5 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,301 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 29 March 2012 - 05:13 PM

The big quotes in this decision:

The ruling is significant in several ways. First, it recognizes that the right to arms is not limited to in-home possession. "Although considerable uncertainty exists regarding the scope of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, it undoubtedly is not limited to the confines of the home." Second it recognizes that when the core right -- possession in the home -- is involved, strict scrutiny applies. Third, it applies strict scrutiny here because of the statute's breadth and the fact that it indirectly impacts possession in the home.


The first quote should be scary to Carry banners.

That second and third should be scary to Chicago and Cook County with respect to AWBs.


They'll just say "he said possession, not bare".

#6 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,714 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 29 March 2012 - 05:59 PM

[quote name='Davey' date='29 March 2012 - 06:13 PM' timestamp='1333062826' post='320001
They'll just say "he said possession, not bare".
[/quote]

When they are demonstrably incorrect, who cares what they will say.

"Although considerable uncertainty exists regarding the scope of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, it undoubtedly is not limited to the confines of the home."

The subject of the sentence is the right to keep and bear arms. "It" (the subject of the sentence) is not limited to the confines of the home. He could not have been more clear.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#7 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 29 March 2012 - 09:28 PM

I would say that the most important thing that I read in this case is with regard to a complete ban on the possession, transportation of weapons outside the home and also the ban of the purchase of ammunition during a so called emergency....

This is powerful... In Illinois we also have a complete ban on the "public" carry of a defensive weapon, especially a firearm. This burdens a fundamental right... Illinois laws are definitely NOT narrowly tailored at criminals or defective people but at the law abiding as well... Here is what I think are some of the choice morsels are in this case....... Enjoy, Drd

In Heller, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment includes “the right to ‘protect[] [oneself] against both public and private violence,’ thus extending the right in some form to wherever a person could become exposed to public or private violence.” United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458, 467 (4th Cir. 2011) . . . . .

. . .

While the bans imposed pursuant to these statutes may be limited in duration, it cannot be overlooked that the statutes strip peaceable, law abiding citizens of the right to arm themselves in defense of hearth and home, striking at the very core of the Second Amendment. As such, these laws, much like those involved in Heller, are at the “far end of the spectrum of infringement on protected Second Amendment rights.” Marzzarella, 614 F. 3d at 97.

That being the case, the emergency declarations are presumed invalid, and defendants bear the burden of rebutting that presumption by showing that the laws are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. This, the defendants have failed to do.

. . .

The problem here is that the emergency declaration statutes, are not narrowly tailored to serve the government’s interest in public safety. They do not target dangerous individuals or dangerous conduct. Nor do they seek to impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions by, for example, imposing a curfew to allow the exercise of Second Amendment rights during circumscribed times. Rather, the statutes here excessively intrude upon plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights by effectively banning them (and the public at large) from engaging in conduct that is at the very core of the Second Amendment at a time when the need for self-defense may be at its very greatest. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2799 (“[A]mericans understood the ‘right of self-preservation’ as permitting a citizen to ‘repe[l] force by force’ when ‘ the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.’” (quoting 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries 145-146, n. 42 (1803)) . . . Consequently, the emergency declaration laws are invalid as applied to plaintiff.


Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#8 FAL

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 11

Posted 30 March 2012 - 11:42 AM

I think that, in addition to the above very important points that each person makes, what's important about this case is that the judge used 'strict scrutiny'. If this becomes a pattern where strict scrutiny is applied to firearms laws across the country, a lot of these laws won't pass the test and will fall.

This is a huge win.


“…the court finds that the statutes at issue here are subject to strict scrutiny…While the bans imposed pursuant to these statutes may be limited in duration, it cannot be overlooked that the statutes strip peaceable, law abiding citizens of the right to arm themselves in defense of hearth and home, striking at the very core of the Second Amendment.”
NRA Life Member / ISRA Member