Jump to content

Euler

Members
  • Posts

    6,974
  • Joined

Everything posted by Euler

  1. The Bevis/Barnett precedent at CA7 is now that Friedman is good law under Bruen. That's what will matter.
  2. Oops? Harrel isn't Herrera. The Harrel topic is locked, though, since the case was consolidated with Barnett in the Southern District. Herrera is a Northern District case out of Cook County.
  3. If this is the click-through agreement, wherein you have to check a box or you can't continue, it used to say only that you give the state full access to all your medical records (i.e., you waive HIPAA, but without mentioning HIPAA). If so, they've changed the wording to extend beyond all your medical records. Welcome to the modern era, comrade. You can have your rights, but only after you trade something for them.
  4. Tying up loose ends ... On March 8, the judge granted the motion to stay.
  5. Courts classify challenges to a law's constitutionality into facial challenges (unconstitutional for everyone) and as-applied (unconstitutional for only the plaintiff/petitioner/appellant/whatever). A facial challenge seeks to invalidate the entire law. An as-applied challenge seeks to narrow its scope, generally because the law is vague or too broad. In this case, the court didn't find it unconstitutional to prohibit foreign nationals in general from possessing firearms, because "the people" in the Constitution is generally interpreted as people who participate in the politics of the US (typically voting or running for office, but certainly could include speaking in public) and are not actively trying to destroy US civilization (e.g., violent criminals or hostile foreign agents). Nevertheless, the 2A rights of documented permanent residents are protected, since they are not prohibited from acquiring and possessing firearms. Although Carbajal-Flores is not classified as a permanent resident under federal immigration law, he has resided in the US for many years and intends to stay. Throughout his time here, he has been employed and has obeyed all other laws. In 1791 (in fact up until the 20th century), that would have been sufficient. At the district level, the "as-applied" ruling really does apply to only Carbajal-Flores. If the federal government appeals it to CA7 and loses (i.e., CA7 affirms the district ruling), then it narrows the scope of GCA 1968 for all undocumented immigrants in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. It creates an interesting situation. Undocumented immigrants still aren't going to be able to purchase firearms legally, since they won't pass a NICS check, but they also wouldn't be able to be prosecuted federally for merely possessing a firearm. It leaves it on shakier grounds. If undocumented immigrants cannot be prosecuted for federal weapons charges, it doesn't mean they cannot be prosecuted for state weapons charges. But if any state can prosecute someone for constitutionally protected conduct, it points out that the state law is federally unconstitutional. IMO the more arguments we have against the FOID, the better.
  6. However you want to look at it, a (supposedly) random 3-judge panel (which may or may not include Easterbrook) of CA7 will rule on the Viramontes appeal. Whichever way the panel goes, it's a sure bet that there will be a petition for rehearing en banc. An en banc rehearing would definitely include Easterbrook, because en banc means everybody.
  7. On March 14, US filed a motion to stay the case pending a decision in US v Prince. On March 15, the court granted the stay.
  8. On March 15, FPC filed notice of its intent to appeal to CA7. I'll post a CA7 docket reference when I know it.
  9. The Supreme Court docket is now available for the GOA's petition. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1010.html
  10. If you mean US v Daniels, the cert petition is on hold. It hasn't been denied.
  11. Duplicate of Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion > Piasa v Kwame Raoul Lock or merge ?
  12. 50 caliber and larger, because mass shooters and other criminals use it so much to kill children.
  13. The state supreme court in each state is the governing body of the bar association in each state. The ARDC operates under the authority on the Illinois State Supreme Court. The ARDC reviews bar association disciplinary matters, but it only has the power to recommend disciplinary action. The Illinois State Supreme Court then decides, typically based on that recommendation, what action to take.
  14. Is the right to self-defense a uniquely American right that the government allows us to have?Or is it a right which everyone has naturally, but the Constitution affirms and protects?Choose one. Immigration is a federal law (first enacted in 1921, well after the founding era), passed by Congress and signed by the president. The Gun Control Act of 1968 (18 USC 922) is a federal law (enacted in 1968, well after the founding era), passed by Congress and signed by the president. Does federal law supersede the Constitution?YesNoChoose one.
  15. For some reason, I have not received confirmation emails. I'm listed in the tracking, though.
  16. Case # 2023LA001129 Piasa Armory v Kwame Raoul Judge Ronald J Foster Madison County does not make court documents available online, at least not to the general public, but the dockets are. 03/04/2024Order Defts motion to transfer is denied. Plntf cross motion for SJ on Count V is granted. See order (13 pages) for full details (copies mailed to attys of record) S/Foster The law in dispute is:
  17. Criminal charges filed in the Federal District of Northern Illinois in 2020 (docket) As a reminder, 18 USC 922 is the Gun Control Act of 1968. On March 8, the court dismissed the charge of possession of a firearm as unconstitutional as applied to the defendant. The analogy of undocumented immigrants to British loyalists is interesting. If a law-abiding, former enemy of the state could possess a firearm, an undocumented, but otherwise law-abiding, immigrant seems less extreme in comparison. Bonus points for the Summer of Floyd reference. There's enough in this order for heads on both sides of the spectrum to explode.
  18. Just so everyone understands the words, "means-end" means that the end justifies the means, i.e., utilitarianism. The ethical value of an action is determined by the ethical value of the result. Examples:The world would be better if there were no bad people, so it's good to round up all the bad people and kill them.Guilty people should be convicted, so it's good to provide false testimony that insures a conviction.And of course, everyone needs money, so it's good to take it from people who have it and to redistribute it to people who don't. The argument against warning shots is that they are dangerous to innocent people. A defender's right to self-defense does not extend to a right to injure (or kill) an innocent person in order to scare off an attacker. That isn't utilitarian. The opposite argument isn't necessarily utilitarian, either. It would be based simply on the premise that the death of the attacker isn't required to stop the attack. If incapacitating the attacker would be enough, then killing him would be murder, and murder is always wrong. The error of that argument is that, even if the death of the attacker is not required, it's the attacker that chose to make the attack deadly. The defender is not culpable if the attacker is the one who dies as a direct consequence of the deadly situation he created. It may be a fine point, but the court didn't really rule that warning shots are justified as self-defense (despite the article title). It only ruled that warning shots do not preclude a claim of self-defense. Because he was denied the opportunity to provide a self-defense argument (by his own counsel, no less), Wilson was convicted of felonious assault on his attacker. IMO he was innocent of that charge, but guilty of reckless discharge of a firearm, although he wasn't even charged with reckless discharge. In any case, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that Wilson gets another trial where a jury can consider self-defense, assuming the prosecutor wants to try him again.
  19. Firing a "warning shot" means discharging a weapon without having a target. Since a firearm is a deadly weapon, not knowing where the bullet is going to go is engaging in a deadly activity without regard for the safety of others, i.e., recklessness. Firing an aimed shot and missing can be the same. That's why it's important to know your backstop. "Know your target and what's beyond it." You're responsible for every bullet that leaves your muzzle, whether you hit your target or not. This case is pretty much just parsing the words of Ohio statutes, concluding the that intent to harm the attacker is not a required element to justify the use of lethal force in self-defense, since that was the basis of his (allegedly) ineffective counsel's decision to drop the argument for self-defense. Personally, I think it's a dangerous precedent. It provides an argument to anti-2A advocates that "just shoot him in the leg" is all anyone needs, except it goes even farther. It makes Uncle Brandon's "shoot both barrels in the air and watch them scatter" sound like good sense.
  20. Paywall, but easily overcome. EDIT: According to heyjackass, self-defenders have killed 3 and wounded 5 so far this year. 2023's totals were 8 and 15 for the whole year. At the current rate, we might make it there by June or July this year.
  21. Ejection drag will become a feature instead of a bug. They'll have to pass a law that prohibits altering a firearm to exhibit it.
×
×
  • Create New...