20 replies to this topic

[Tvandermyde]

On 7/2/12 the Cook SA once again asked for another extension making this their 6th.

There is also a motion for a group of anti-gun historoians wanting to popo the public carrying of guns.

Attached Files

•  aguilar-3.pdf   1.77MB   115 downloads
•  aguilar-2.pdf   366.53K   108 downloads
•  aguilar-1.pdf   277.68K   103 downloads

[citrix_guy]

Is it me or does her doc read like this:

I am very busy
We had to read lots of stuff
we also had these professors call us and we wanted to listen to them,
btw, did I mention I am busy?

Please give us more time.
Thanks.

[Danielm60660]

I'd like to know exactly what English law and history has to do with this. Didn't we fight a war so we didn't have to be bound by English law?

[pyre400]

Danielm60660, on 06 July 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

I'd like to know exactly what English law and history has to do with this. Didn't we fight a war so we didn't have to be bound by English law?

Its part of their plea to have the lower courts "Challenge/Revisit Heller/McD" strategy, that's been working wonderfully for them us.

[mrpapageorgio]

Danielm60660, on 06 July 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

I'd like to know exactly what English law and history has to do with this. Didn't we fight a war so we didn't have to be bound by English law?

That's what I was thinking when I read it; didn't we fight through a revolution to get away from their laws? Sure we copied some of the ones we liked from them, but what does English law have to do with U.S. law?

[Kipp Jones]

Todd,
What is their strategy with the delay?

[Mr. Fife]

My guess is they are putting off the inevitable as long as they can.

[bob]

A lot of our laws descended from English law so it is no that far fetched to use English law at the time of the BOR to try and frame a basis for much of the BOR. It is a lot easier to understand the BOR taken in context with what was going on in both the colonies and in England just before the revolution. Most of the BOR speaks directly to what the founding fathers saw as abuses of power by the English government.

Ironically, our own governments have instituted the same set of abuses against us over time (with the exception of the quartering of troops). It may be that is an inevitable part of the growth of government.

[Tvandermyde]

I think they are just incompentent

[Danielm60660]

bob, on 07 July 2012 - 04:34 AM, said:

A lot of our laws descended from English law so it is no that far fetched to use English law at the time of the BOR to try and frame a basis for much of the BOR. It is a lot easier to understand the BOR taken in context with what was going on in both the colonies and in England just before the revolution. Most of the BOR speaks directly to what the founding fathers saw as abuses of power by the English government.

Ironically, our own governments have instituted the same set of abuses against us over time (with the exception of the quartering of troops). It may be that is an inevitable part of the growth of government.

Bob, I think you raise a good point. These guys say, "The historical context supports gun control." They conveniently forget the part where we started our own country to get rid of gun control, among other things.

[frankw438]

Kipp Jones, on 06 July 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

Todd,
What is their strategy with the delay?

Their stategy in with the delay?

They are trying to delay, nothing more. Their strategy IS delay. Delaying the inevitable, in my opinion.

Or maybe they are hoping we will get discouraged and give up.

[miztic]

They have to fight to the bitter end, or they'll look like they don't really believe in "the cause" of gun control, and they'll look weak to their political supporters.

I just don't get how these historians can go on about not being allowed to carry a weapon in public with a straight face when you consider all the writings by the founding fathers at the time they were working on the constitution.

[Tvandermyde]

attached are the following:

1)   S.Ct. Order granting People's Mtn to File Brief in Excess (not to exceed 87 pages);
2)   S.Ct. Order denying Historians' Mtn to File Amicus in Support of Appellee (without prejudice to re-file after Appellee files its brief);
3)   Brady Center, et al Mtn to File Amicus in Support of Appellee; and
4)   Brady Center Amicus Brief.


no word yet onthe deadline extenstion

Attached Files

•  aguilar-11.pdf   26.42K   25 downloads
•  aguilar-21.pdf   24.38K   22 downloads
•  aguilar-brady-ctr-mtn1.pdf   188.89K   33 downloads
•  aguilar-brady-ctr-brief1.pdf   1.27MB   66 downloads

[Davey]

aguilar-brady-ctr-brief1.pdf

I'm impressed.  No mention of Trayvon Martin until the 17th page.

[ckm]

Davey, on 09 July 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

aguilar-brady-ctr-brief1.pdf

I'm impressed.  No mention of Trayvon Martin until the 17th page.

A fine example of Judicial Restraint!  

[colt-45]

ckm, on 09 July 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

Davey, on 09 July 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

aguilar-brady-ctr-brief1.pdf

I'm impressed.  No mention of Trayvon Martin until the 17th page.

A fine example of Judicial Restraint!  

what was this lawsuit over again? i forgot

[NakPPI]

colt-45, on 09 July 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

ckm, on 09 July 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

Davey, on 09 July 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

aguilar-brady-ctr-brief1.pdf

I'm impressed.  No mention of Trayvon Martin until the 17th page.

A fine example of Judicial Restraint!  

what was this lawsuit over again? i forgot

Aguilar, a juvenile, was caught with a handgun in his "friend's" backyard. He was found guilty of AgUUW. He was represented by Cook County Public defendant and Appellate Defender. In my opinion, the inexperienced appellate defender totally blew the oral arguments. The appellate court split 2-1 finding that the AgUUW was constitutional, because the second amendment did not extend beyond the home, among other things similar to the Moore decision. Judge Neville (dissenting) found that AgUUW was unconstitutional, however, the conviction should have been upheld under the provision prohibiting juveniles from possessing firearms, rather than the provision that prohibited ALL individuals from possessing firearms outside the home.

[colt-45]

can they appeal this to the 7th?

[GarandFan]

Brady Center's opening statement cites that New Jersey district opinion (Piszczatoski v. Filko).

Pay attention ...

The right to keep and bear arms recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554
U.S. 570 (2008), "is unique among all other constitutional rights to the individual because
it permits the user of a firearm to cause serious personal injury—including the ultimate
injury, death—to other individuals, rightly or wrongly." Piszczatoski v. Filko, --- F.
Supp. 2d ----, 2012 WL 104917, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 12, 2012).

That's right.  What that district court said is that the second amendment permits firearm users to rightly or wrongly cause serious personal injury or death!  Rightly or wrongly??

I didn't go to the opinion ... but it is hard to fathom that any federal court would state that the constitution permits people to wrongly injure or kill other people.  Unreal.  Unless taken out of context by the Bradys.

[GarandFan]

Here is the section of that NJ court case they cited:

At the outset, it is noted to any reader of this Opinion that this Court shall be
careful – most careful – to ascertain the reach of the Second Amendment right that
the plaintiffs advance. That privilege is unique among all other constitutional rights
to the individual because it permits the user of a firearm to cause serious personal
injury – including the ultimate injury, death – to other individuals, rightly or
wrongly. In the protection of oneself and one’s family in the home, it is a right use.
In the deliberate or inadvertent use under other circumstances, it may well be a
wrong use. A person wrongly killed cannot be compensated by resurrection.


It seems to me that the NJ court is probably arguing that the second amendment guarantee may facilitate the criminal misuse of firearms.  It would seem they are still stuck on the idea that "because guns can be used unlawfully, banning of them (eg. carry for self-defense) is justified."  However, we are now living in a post-Heller United States:

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this
country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the
many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun
ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the
District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that
problem, including some measures regulating handguns,
see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of
constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy
choices off the table.

[NakPPI]

colt-45, on 14 July 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

can they appeal this to the 7th?

Nope, this is an Illinois Supreme Court case now--state court.