Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Texasgrillchef

  1. On 8/26/2022 at 1:04 AM, Bubbacs said:

    And this time only ten posts in.  Giving weapons to military types isn’t like (in most cases) giving them to those walking around the mall.

    The revolution and those 16 year olds were way ahead of “our society’s” guys!  By 16 most had already handled a weapon many  times.

    Work a farm, walking miles, most if not all trim n healthy.  Not too many smoking the Devils Lettuce every day either.

    As for expecting an 18 year old to act responsible, look around. 11 year olds are killing people, what will we be getting at 18?

    We could fight for our country and yes even dye if need be.  But we were still restricted to drinking “On Base”.

    And unless it’s changed since ‘78 we were not allowed to take them off base.  In theatre yes, but not around town.

    All for the ruling, great news for another gun issue in another state.  



    On 8/26/2022 at 7:04 AM, bmyers said:

    I'm glad to see this ruling. Yet, as others noted, I know of a few young men/women in that age group this aren't mature enough for such a responsibility. With that being said, I don't believe they are mature enough to vote or make 'adult' decisions.


    Yet, at whatever age we decide a person will be a legal adult, 18, 21, 31, etc. that person should be entitled to all the rights of an adult. In addition, the individual will be held accountable as an adult. 


    With great power comes great responsibility-Damocles

    The thing is, if you really think about it. Whatever age you choose to officially become a legal adult 16, 18, 21, 26, 35. There will ALWAYS be someone not responsible enough to handle those responsibilities of an adult. No different then we will always have criminals and idiots who will break the law and do bad things.


    My point is that we as a society “breed” responsibility and maturity. Those 16 year olds who can handle the responsibility of being an adult making adult decisions were TAUGHT and REQUIRED to do so for whatever the reason. 16yo’s in 3rd world countries are in general far more “mature” then 16yo’s is the western modern world. Hmmm I wonder why? (Sarcastic) Or even those 16yo’s during the revolution, or civil war.


    The point is, if we are going to make 18 as the age of consent, the age to vote, get drafted, join the military, be charged as adult IF you commit any type of crime and otherwise be a legal adult. Then the 2A applies to them as well at 18. If we are not comfortable with that. Then we raise the age for all of it to 21 or whatever.


    Some might say… well the drinking age is 21. I say true, but drinking and using alcohol is NOT a constitutional right either. Therefore totally different.



  2. On 8/26/2022 at 1:03 AM, Euler said:


    It's the job of any attorney to represent his client zealously. The Texas state attorney general's client is the state of Texas, which has a law prohibiting handgun carry by people under 21. So the Texas state attorney general's job is to defend the law, even if he disagrees with it.


    For example, Illinois has Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion > Powell v IL - Racial impact of gun violence, in which Kwame Raoul has to argue that Illinois doesn't need any more gun control than it already has. It can be a bizarre ride.

    I don’t disagree with you. But are you actually telling me, that these State AG’s always fight to the best of their abilities? I can promise you that many intentionally leave holes opened, to give the plantings opportunity. There are times a state AG will drop a case, or allow a case to be dismissed.


    Take a look at at Wrenn v D.C. Wrenn won the case, but D.C. was pressured by NY, CA, and NJ NOT to file an appeal with SCOTUS for fear SCOTUS would take the case and rule against them. Suffice it to say NY ended up being the Scapegoat there and lost it for everyone anyways. A win for us though.


    Texas AG isn’t required to file an appeal. However, anyone who realizes how things work, realize that the best thing to do for either side is an appeal. An appeal helps both sides. Even we don’t want this case to end at the district level. This is part of the problem with our court and Justice system. The best system in the world. Yet there isn’t really a satisfactory fix. This case will go to SCOTUS and at least get a petition for cert filed. SCOTUS may not grant (at least for this case) but it will get there.


    The only things that are not certain are the following. How the 3 judge panel will rule, if an En Banc hearing will be grants, if an En Banc hearing is granted how they will rule, and if SCOTUS will grant. I suspect that the 5th circuit won’t grant a En Banc hearing. If Texas is the one filing a petition for cert with SCOTUS I doubt it will be granted.


    I suspect if SCOTUS grants a petition for cert on the 18-20yo issue. It will be for a circuit that rules against 18-20yo. This is exactly why we need circuit split.


  3. On 8/25/2022 at 5:45 PM, Euler said:


    I'm not sure what happened to the link embed in the OP, but here's a version that works:



    The case was filed (and decided) in the Federal District Court of Northern Texas (docket), as such it only applies to Texas, but (as Molly says) it's a domino.



    I think the judge is a victim of autocorrect. "Militate" means to bring into effect. I don't think he's trying to bring negative effects into being. He probably meant "mitigate."


    Yes if there were to stand unappealed, it would only be effective for Texas. However, it will be appealed. If the 3 judge panel upholds the district opinion and the En Banc panel does as well. It will then effect all the states in the 5th circuit.


    The point though is for it to go to SCOTUS to get a national ruling.


  4. On 8/25/2022 at 9:59 PM, soundguy said:

    … except that too many of the current crop of 18-20 year olds don’t seem to be able to handle the responsibility… at least without some sort of vetting. I’m sure you’re kids are OK. One of my nephews is not and should not ever be allowed to have guns, no matter how much I like him.


    I came to enjoy guns when I was older. There was no way I could afford one at 18 and I wasn’t interested. I had other more important stuff to spend my hard earned cash on. I honestly am not sure every 18 year old qualifies to own a gun, no matter what The Constrution says. Its possible there should be some hoops to jump through. 

    We give them guns in the army. Many go into the army with all sorts of issues, including legal ones. 

    The thing is… if you can die for your country at 18, if you can fight for your country at 18, then you should be able to have all the rights too.


    BTW. Our revolution was fought with many 16 year olds in the militia and the regular army. why is it a 16yo in 1776 was mature enough then, and one now isn’t? It’s how they were raised.


    If we don’t expect a 18 yo to act and be responsible they won’t. If we do they will.

    Thats on us as a society, not on them.

  5. Being from Texas, and having worked with several politicians on various laws in the state. This is what I can tell you is going on regarding strategy.


    1. multiple similar 18-20yr old cases have been filed around the Nation in many different Circuit courts. This is done for two reasons. Too either get all circuits to agree, or more likely to happen a circuit court split. SCOTUS is more likely to grant cert for a case where a circuit court split has happened. CA5 gives us our positive side. CA9 will probably give us our negative.


    2. while all the politicians including MCraw are very much Pro2A and actually support 18-20 years old carrying. In fact under certain circumstances they can be granted a LTC. They will appeal this case. why? Because one, unless a case is decided by SCOTUS it won’t become national law. Two, if we stop here. Texas LTC holders may loose reciprocity with some states over the fact we now would have to issue to 18-20 year olds. To stop that, we need it to go national.


    Therefore Texas will appeal. If Either side loses, an En Banc hearing will be requested. Granted or not. The losing side will still file for cert. Because again without a SCOTUS decision it won’t go nationwide.


    Texas also will NOT be “mooting” the case next year during our legislative session . Again because we all want it to go to SCOTUS so it forces the decision nationwide.


    Hopefully while it can’t be used as precedent. Hopefully this case will be used as reference for the other similar cases in the various federal district courts and courts of appeal.

  6. Well there are time limits for filing appeals, and filing for an En Banc hearing.


    However, as far as I can tell there are no time limits for a Justices issuing opinions. That being said though. They can’t indefinitely hold off an opinion without just cause. 
    Staying cases is also another tactic. Such as many cases here stayed and held in abeyance due to the NYSPRA v Bruen case. 

    I will do some research and see how long they can hold opinions before someone can take action.

  7. On 8/23/2022 at 4:18 PM, Euler said:


    There's a decade of precedent after Heller, though, which the Supreme Court declined to review, even when Scalia was still alive.


    All of that is now irrelevant since Bruen. 

    Justice Thomas clearly stated in his Bruen opinion a clear explanation of Heller and McDonald and went on to clarify many other issues. 


    Then next 10-15 cases in the next 1-3 years will start to define the new era of “gun control” and what laws will stand and those that will be enjoined and overturned.

  8. This isn’t as bad news as everyone thinks it is. 

    St Benitez isn’t going to change his ruling.


    The only thing this does is delay the inevitable. Ca will appeal this back to the 9th Circuit. Then on to the En Banc. Which if they don’t uphold Judge St. Benitez. They know SCOTUS will overturn their ruling. If it end up in front of SCOTUS with an improper ruling they will end giving the 9th circuit an opinion they won’t like.


    So all the 9th circuit is trying to do is delay it for as long as they can.

  9. On 8/4/2022 at 2:01 PM, Euler said:

    On July 7, Cook County requested, and was granted, an extension to update their case due to "rapidly-evolving circumstances" (i.e., Bruen). They intend to produce an expert on firearms history who will substantiate the historical context of the AWB. Previously Cook County had until July 15. Now it has until September 15.

    Wondering how they will do that. That have to keep it historical in context with the times of 1791 for the 2A. And 1868 for the 14th. He is going to be hard pressed to do that without sounding racist. 

    Until the AWB came along. There no class of firearms banned by our government.

    The had sensitive places maybe, such as whole towns. But let’s keep in mind that those whole towns were NOT in any area that was officially a state at the time, and were only in Territories of the USA. Big difference, and even Thomas has said so. 


    It’s one of the rains Thomas wrote the Bruen opinion like he did, and the other 5 justices voted with him on TTH being limited in Scope to 1791 and 1868. They knew very little gun laws existed at the time, and those that were, were very limited in scope.


    Also people didn’t challenge the constitutionality of a law to the same level we do today as well.


    They think they have an argument but they don’t.

  10. On 8/3/2022 at 6:46 PM, Euler said:


    Based on the law as written, she's guilty, but the county court has ruled twice that the law is unconstitutional. The second time that the county court ruled, it ruled despite the IL Supreme Court directing it simply to dismiss the case. It will be interesting to see what procedural twist the county court dreams up for round #3.

    One option is go to trial, and let the jury find her guilty. Then she can appeal. As long as the appeals court and IL Supreme Court uphold the conviction then she can take it to SCOTUS.


    However…. IL SC could still vacate and remand.


    It is a mess for sure. 

    At this point the DA should request dismissal, and the court should grant.


    This won’t be settled with Brown. Someone needs to file a cival suit. The ILSC refuses to rule one way or the other on the FOID.

  11. On 8/3/2022 at 11:47 AM, Euler said:


    The Illinois Supreme Court is the highest court in the state, which has indeed previously ruled on state arms prohibitions being unconstitutional. People v Webb (stun guns/tasers) comes to mind.


    The only place to go with this case after the Illinois Supreme Court is the US Supreme Court. Since the IL Supreme Court keeps remanding, it's not upholding a conviction, which means Brown has nothing to appeal to the US Supreme Court. In fact, it's quite the opposite. The IL Supreme Court keeps directing the county court to dismiss the charges, saying there are (unspecified) grounds to do so.

    Part of the problem, is that the state won’t give up and drop the charges against brown. They don’t want the case dismissed. In once instance their the ones that appealed one decision.


    The case would end and be over if the state dropped the charges. Their failure to do so is leaving the district court in a tough place


    The district court refuses to convict. The state AG refuses to drop the charges.

    I think there are only two ways for this (FOID act) someone to file a cival lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the FOID act. Or for the court to find Brown guilty and let brown appeal. So that the higher courts either have to uphold the conviction, or reverse based on constitutionality, thus backing the IL Supreme Court into a corner making them uphold the conviction or reverse it.


    The way it’s going now. The Supreme Court keeps remanding.


    One other thing is certain. Because this is an election year, they don’t want to rule on the constitutionality of the FOID act, or provide a means for it to go to SCOTUS.


    I am actually surprised the GOA or FPC or NRA hasn’t stepped up to support a lawsuit to overturn the FOID. 

  12. On 8/2/2022 at 7:21 PM, MrTriple said:

    A part of me wonders if any AWB case will make it to the Supreme Court without a lower court striking it down first. I would think that the GVR of Bianchi would be taken as a clear indication of the Court's thinking, and many judges won't want to issue a ruling they know SCOTUS would strike down on appeal.


    For judges who want to "minimize the damage caused by Bruen," the strategic thing to do is strike the law down and leave it at that. I guarantee that the gun control movement now wishes that the lower courts had struck New York's good cause requirement in the first instance.

    Well all good thoughts and logic but let’s take a step back here and look at a somewhat prior case.


    Wrenn v D.C. in which that lower court held in favor of wrenn against D.C. basically wha the Bruen decision did for carry outside the home. 

    D.C. was about to file a petition for cert with SCOTUS, but was pressured by states like NY and California not to purse it as to force the issue on the other May Issue states at the time.

    NY currently is the only state to give SCOTUS a big FU. With. The Gov. Calling the legislature back to pass a new law. No other state has done that yet. Hawaii Just has no started issuing permits yet. Soon maybe, just not yet. Ca is all dependent on where your at.


    That being said though….


    The courts in certain areas are granting extension of time to prolong the case. One strange exception is an Obama appointed judge in Colorado issuing a TRO.


    Bianchi v Frosh though is being set for oral argument but not at district court level. The 3 judge panel wants to rule on this one for some reason.


    Then again too… one has to consider the courts they are in, and who the judges are at what levels, and what procedures are available to be followed.


    When Judge St Bonitez rules the same way… Bonta can still appeal back to the 3 judge panel. Giving the 3 judge panel an additional opportunity to find another chance to reverse the district courts opinion. 9th circuit En Banc will deny En Banc. Then a petition for cert with SCOTUS will be filed. 

    SCOTUS is aware that there are over 8 different AWB cases still pending. So they will either hold Miller, or they will Grant. Which AWB will be the best to grant cert on is all a matter of opinion.


    Even though those who are fighting to keep the AWB know they will eventually LOSE, they still want to delay that outcome as much as possible, and cost us as many dollars as possible, even though they will have to pay it in the end.


    They aren’t playing to minimize damage… they are playing an ALL or NOTHING game. They are all in, playing for all the marbles.


    This was evident in NY. They could have MOOTED the case, like they did with NYC in 2020. They could have put the new law they have now back in 2021. They didn’t. They decided to wait till after to see what and how they could change to meet the new decision. They know the new Bruen or Hochul case if not both will end back up in front of SCOTUS. They know they will loose though too.


    However… one big thing that is driving all of the politicians, because this year is an election year. They have to show they are trying to fight, even if they loose later.

  13. Yes, he will rule the same way. If you read his original opinion closely he issued the opinion from two points of view. From the TTH single step approach and from the two step approach.


    He will of course, update his opinion to reflect more closely with the Bruen opinion. Making reference to multiple sections of Bruen, and to those of Heller and McDonald that Bruen pointed out. He will also make more mention and use of the actual lack of history or tradition for massacre firearm bans.


    The real trick, is will it have multiple hearings again, including discovery. Or will he just issue an opinion after both side issue their briefs and opposition briefs.


    However, I also think that the plaintiffs Miller, will ask And request a TRO &/or injunction which after the required hearings he will grant. This time they won’t be stayed.


    Suffice it to say, it all starts over from the beggining. Yet the outcome should be the same.


    What will also be interesting is WHICH AWB case will make it back to the Supreme Court first, and and if one will make it there before the end of the year. Sadly I don’t think one will make it back to SCOTUS before the end of this year, other then a shadow emergency docket for a TRO/Injunction.


    Even Bianchi v Frosh, have their hearings delayed and set for argument in December.

    An intentional delay by the appeals court.

  14. If you keep track of most of the firearms cases covering most all the topics across all districts and circuits. Reading BOTH sides of the case for and against motions for and oppositions. Covering all topics from AWB’s, Mag cap bans, ammo, ghost guns, carry, gun permitting etc…


    You will notice, that every government entity being sued, is asking for additional time in one form or another to do more historical Analysis. To combat the Bruen/Heller one step approach. They are scrambling.


    In at least one case. An AWB ban out of the Town of Superior Co. The federal district judge, an Obama appointee, yesterday Friday July 22nd, issued a TRO (Temp Restraining Order) against the town of Superior. 

    The judge clearing stating that their was no TTH to uphold the law.


    This is the first AWB to have a positive step in the right direction, other then the one out of Maryland. Bianchi v Frosh which was GVR’d by SCOTUS.


    Now the case out of Superior CO, has an Injunction hearing coming up on I believe August 5th. That will put another nail in the AWB coffin. Assuming of course that Town of Superior can’t come up with valid TTH. Which obviously they can’t.


    It will take some time but the gun control laws will start falling quickly.


    The one’s that have me the most concerned of not making much progress though. Are the challenge to the NFA, the GCA of 1968. And the 1986 machine gun act.


    We should be able to make some dents in the NFA, but I doubt we will enjoin the entire Act. Same goes with the GCA of 1968 or 1986.



  15. On 7/22/2022 at 5:50 PM, MrTriple said:

    I was actually thinking the exact opposite, that these judges won't want to bother trying to debate the issue and simply want these cases closed and done. The idea being that it's easier for them to simply strike the laws down and call it a day.

    I would like to think that too…


    While most are way to old to ever make it to a higher level in the federal court system. Some are not.


    They don’t want to kill their chances of being appointed to another possible office by their liberal democrats.


    Plus I am sure they are getting a lot of pressure to do what they can to hold things down as much as they can.


    I don’t see them giving up the ghost yet. Just like NY and some in Hawaii are fighting back as much as they can and not call it a “day”

  16. Wondering how long it will take them to actually start moving on this case.

    The 9th circuit got two cases vacated and remanded back to them from SCOTUS.


    This one and young v Hawaii.


    Even the other two courts with cases vacated and remanded haven’t had any movement yet.


    I suspect the appropriate judges are looking for ways to get their original decision to stand in light of the Bruen case. Looking for ways that under the new way to review the laws that they can still uphold the laws as being consitutional.


    After reading many of the other briefs on many other similar cases in many other circuits. Many are trying to postpone to give them time to do research to discover history and tradition that they can use to uphold the laws.


    Sadly they won’t find them, I think they know that. But want to postpone the inevitable.


    Just like the democrats on the federal level are pushing the AWB with Mag Cap ban already. Even though it won’t stand up to SCOTUS.


    Sadly this is an election year, and it’s all about showboating. They want to show that they tried.


    interestingly enough, it’s funny they dropped the abortion bill to force states to allow abortions. But now are attempting to do a AWB.


    Go figure

  17. What happens in several other cases over AWB’s will have impact on this case far sooner.


    The biggest one is Bianchi v Frosh which was GVR’d at the SCOTUS level to Maryland and the 3rd circuit.


    Along with Miller v Bonta and Rupp V Bonta. We will probably get some word on Miller v Bonta long before the other two. Seems like the FPC is trying to rush through that one while Bonta is attempting to slow it down. We shall see though.


    None the less though… those cases will in some degree have an impact or influence the rest of the AWB lawsuits nationwide.


    If one of them makes it back to SCOTUS. Especially Bianchi v Frosh. It won’t make SCOTUS very happy. Which actually would be the best case scenario. They won’t be able to GVR it again without issuing a mandate along with it.


    There are many out there that are thinking now with Bruen things will start dropping like dominoes. Eventually they are… just don’t expect it to be soon or a fast process.


    Juat imagine watching dominoes fall in slow motion video. Lol

  18. I think at this point.


    Most of the police and prosecutors are being very careful on who they charge under the FOID act of various possession of firearms. Especially in the home. Even more especially after the Bruen case.


    Sure they will absolutely charge you if your flagrantly breaking the FOID act law, or your a criminal with more firearms charges that can be filed.


    But anything that is borderline, I think they are being a little extra cautious right now. Knowing that some with resources will gladly challenge it to the Supreme Court of IL or even the US.


    In addition. A truly good lawyer, would stay the case pending outcome of several other cases. Especially if your out on “BOND”


    The best thing though, is that everyone living in a household with firearms in the house that is old enough to get a FOID card, should get one. It’s the CYA rule.


    Even though I live in a constitutional Carry state, my wife and I have a LTC/CCL. Why? Again the CYA rule. Having a LTC will always provide you with better legal protections then not having one, even in CC states.


    One misnomer about CC states. In ever CC state, there are places you can go within that state that will require a permit even though your in a CC state. For example Maine. A CC state. Yet you are NOT allowed to carry in city, state, or national parks in Maine without a Maine LTC or one they recognize.

  19. The AHA and WV cases will have impact on the Bump Stock cases as it relates to the control that The ATF has. While neither case has eliminated Chevron Deference. It has in fact severely limited it’s use. It has done so through the use of the Major questions doctrine. 

    Now how does the Major Questions Doctrine affect our bump stock cases? That will take some study of course.


    It is interesting to see that Both Bump stock cases at SCOTUS level have yet to be denied or granted cert as of yet.


    Something will happen next term though in October. It is interesting to note, that while WV and AHA have been decided, they also did not make any decisions of granting or denying either bump stock case before the end of this term either.


    Neither case has raised any question of Constitutionality based on either the 2A or 14a. So while that maybe an issue latter down the road, it isn’t now.


    As far as the NFA goes, it’s being challenged by Texas now. While one point of the Texas lawsuit is all about Silencers, if they win the the Silencer case. With the way Texas is pursuing that case, it will knock down most of the rest of the NFA as well. Not all of it mind you, but most of it. however the Texas case, doesn’t have anything to do with the ATF rule making process.


    The issue at hand with Bump Stocks, Pistol Braces and “Ghost guns” is all about the rule making process. Does the ATF have that Authority when congress have left the question vague. Does Chevron deference apply? Does the Major questions doctrine apply? If so to what degree. Some of it was answered in WV and AHA. Some of it was not.


    None the less. We won’t get those questions answered by SCOTUS until next year. Right now everything is speculation. Educated or otherwise.


    There is a clear reason though, that none of the lawyers have even brought up to the courts anything to do with the 2A or 14A. We are saving that for another day.


    Right now the point of these cases is to stop the ATF from being able to make future more arbitrary rules in the future. (as well of course to allow bump stocks again)

  • Create New...