The ORIGINAL gathering place for a merry band of Three Percenters. (As denounced by Bill Clinton on CNN!)
It could succeed. ATF has backed itself into a corner and made the NFA House of Cards easily demolish-able.
I think the idea of filing cases in multiple federal circuits is a sound one. The more disagreement between cases decided in the various circuits the more pressure there will be for SCOTUS to grant certiorari. At the point where SCOTUS agrees to hear the case all bets are off. I can as easily imagine a 9-1 decision against with only Judge Thomas in the dissent as I can imagine a 5-4 either way. Anything with more than 5 votes in favor would really be a stretch. At any rate, one main reason Miller stood as long as it did was that no one staged any kind of determined assault on it like GOA is doing now against the Hughes Amendment of FOPA.One question I would like to have answered by someone with legal expertise is how "severability" applies here. Can SCOTUS rule the Hughes Amendment unconstitutional yet let the rest of FOPA stand? Note that FOPA is the law that forbids national registration of firearms or their owners. Given the push for "universal background checks" one might well see some strange bedfellows arise if and when any amicus curiae briefs are filed on this case by people who would sell Hughes down the river in order to register all (legal) firearms and owners.Of course Haynes v United States pretty much slammed the lid on any requirement that "prohibited persons" could be required to register their firearms. Something the "universal background check" folks tend to ignore.
First of all- it was "this court" that admitted the exact case made here - the second amendment is no different than the first amendment - and second I am surprised at you Mike. Negative Nelly much? Besides, Ginsburg is a short timer anyway. The right thing to do is throw suit after suit after suit at SCOTUS based on "The second Amendment is no different" to combat the bullshit "in common use" structure the NRA pussies are trying to cement forevermore. Now is the time to fight - not to beg. While there is this little tidbit of whether the military will claim short shotguns are not useful, we already HAVE the precedent of the court in our favor and the bans fall outside it. Endlessly we are conned into defending against semi bans proposed. This time we should get behind an offense type play - make them defend their ban on MANUFACTURING (when sound bites rule media, which politicians want to have their words in support of banning "manufacturing" in this country? The truth is this - suits like this one should be happening all over the nation. That's how we can make sure SCOTUS doesn't just try to duck it. Have faith and get behind this !
Simple. We do what they do: Every time we get a verdict we don't like, we bring a fresh lawsuit the year afterl
With the court as it is currently constituted, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of SCOTUS even hearing the case. No way Roberts is gonna let that come before the court.Two observations on the necessity of fully automatic (or even select-fire) weapons in the coming conflagration:The Afghan insurgents have fought coalition troops to a standstill using WWI era weapons despite being heavily out numbered and out gunned. It is not impossible to make do with somewhat inferior weapons.Fully automatic weapons WILL come into the possession of insurgents here. Whether is is by virtue of their original possessors no longer being in a condition to employ them or because the NOCIC of Guard armories accidentally misplace their keys or forget to secure the armory, I have no difficulty believing that the insurgents WILL acquire the armaments needed.
Unfortunately nothing the Supreme Court does has anything to do with law but it is interesting to note the the big case prior to Heller was U.S v. Miller, 1939. Careful reading reveals that the Government argues and the Court held only weapons suitable for the militia and war were protected by the 2nd Amendment. Therefore short barreled shotguns could be regulated. I guess the judges and the lawyers choose to ignore WW1 trench guns and J.E.B. Stuart's cavalry short barreled shotguns carried under their cloaks to keep their powder dry. U.S. v. Miller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._MillerMiller Revisted http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/miller.htm
I didn't think the Heller case would go our way either. Sometimes the SCOTUS surprises us.Regardless, Heller flies in the face of the 86 law, as well as the GCA and NFA. At some point, sometime, they will have to be reconciled. It can only be delayed for so long. Either Heller is the law and the 2nd is supreme, or any and all restrictions are supreme. It can't be both.
"I guess the judges and the lawyers choose to ignore WW1 trench guns and J.E.B. Stuart's cavalry short barreled shotguns carried under their cloaks to keep their powder dry."One of the key phrases in Miller is this: "In the absence of any evidence...."Keep in mind that (supposedly) SCOTUS is constrained to act upon the actions of lower courts and the evidence presented before it. Miller was dead, Layton had pled guilty. Their lawyer had not been paid and didn't bother to show up for oral arguments. Only the government was represented and obviously was not going to present any evidence against its own case. Hence, "absence of any evidence" gave SCOTUS the loophole they needed to avoid overturning an act of congress, something they still are very reluctant to do.The real embarrassment of Miller is that the American people let such an abortion of a decision stand as the primary case law on the right to keep and bear arms for so many years.
Anon 0852, Have you ever heard the facts of the Miller case? Miller was dead by the time the case was heard. His lawyer was somewhere in Texas because he couldn't afford trainfare to D.C., and he was working with one hand tied behind his back. He couldn't afford the cost of a trial transcript from which to brief the case.It should never have been heard, much less decided, and certainly should never have been THE case on which all subsequent cases were measured. If Miller's attorney had been able to be there, or if he'd even been able to access the transcript or military records, it might have gone the other way entirely.
Anonymous Otto Didact said...With the court as it is currently constituted, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of SCOTUS even hearing the case. No way Roberts is gonna let that come before the court.No single judge,(chief or not)sets the courts docket. Cases coming before this court are decided by majority consent (every judge gets his say before the others as to why they think a particular case should be reviewed or denied). They vote on it.
Post a Comment