Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Update on Emerson (Appeals)
SAF email ^ | 5-10 | Dave LaCourse

Posted on 05/10/2002 8:00:23 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-58 next last
SAF is IMO one of the best out there, right up there with the NRA and MCRGO. They took the lead on this case and in Ohio's CCW.

My hat's off to Alan Gottlieb, Joe Tataro(sp), and Dave LaCourse and all the rest for their hard work.

1 posted on 05/10/2002 8:00:25 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bang_list
boom
2 posted on 05/10/2002 8:02:35 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
"... Without Emerson's appeal to the Supreme Court [...] it is unlikely that the Justice Department would have bothered with the meaning of the Second Amendment in the Haney case...

...if the Supreme Court doesn't take a Second Amendment case, then a future Administration could change the interpretation of the Second Amendment again."

That's all some of us were trying to say when other Freepers shouted at us 'Marxists' for not getting down on our hands and knees and thanking our Lord John Ashcroft of Nazareth for 'throwing us a bone'.

3 posted on 05/10/2002 8:08:53 PM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Dan, looking at it from the point of view of a Second Amendment activist, what is your opininion of the chances that the SCOTUS will call up Emerson on a Writ?

This year? Next?

Be Seeing You,

Chris

4 posted on 05/10/2002 8:10:35 PM PDT by section9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: section9
I have no idea. This court is so erratic right now, ANYTHING can happen.
5 posted on 05/10/2002 8:13:16 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Not only does the SAF do great work, but because they are organized as an educational foundation, Contributions to the Second Amendment Foundation are Tax-Deductible!
6 posted on 05/10/2002 8:25:29 PM PDT by the
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
For those who don't like PDF, the briefs are available in HTML here.
7 posted on 05/10/2002 8:46:33 PM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Thanks Dan. I was going to post this an hour ago but I got a little tied up with my daughter. Darn kids always wanting attention! When she turns 4 this summer she's getting a whole list of chores so she can keep busy and let me sit around more.
8 posted on 05/10/2002 8:55:55 PM PDT by TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
But if the Supreme Court doesn't take a Second Amendment case, then a future Administration could change the interpretation of the Second Amendment again

I agree, but the question should be...Who the hell does the "admimistration" think they are?...the founders?

9 posted on 05/10/2002 10:25:43 PM PDT by alphadog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Why wouldn't Ashcroft want a strong 2A case to get to the Supreme Court, and get a concrete ruling? He's pro-gun isn't he?

But if the Supreme Court doesn't take a Second Amendment case, then a future Administration could change the interpretation of the Second Amendment again.

Or the same Administration. If they can flop one way, they can flop back.

I don't see the activities governmentward being too positive. I keep thinking about the JPFO article about the coming collapse of the ss/welfare system, and the desparate need of the government to disarm the citizens before that happens.

10 posted on 05/10/2002 10:47:03 PM PDT by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
"Or the same Administration. If they can flop one way, they can flop back."

Doubt that. Dubya may be too dumb to know - but, if he is, his advisers aren't. Given both the famous Red-vs.-Blue county-by-county voting map of 2000 and his margins in many states he won, he cannot afford to lose even one county in 2004. That means he cannot afford to alienate even a few of us into just not voting. (It also means that the GOP is totally dependent on us for the 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008 congressional elections - just as the Democreeps are on the NEA.)

Scandals of antigun politicians - coast to coast

11 posted on 05/10/2002 11:29:07 PM PDT by glc1173@aol.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
We still need the question answered. (It boils down to this: Are we still America?)
12 posted on 05/11/2002 4:34:42 AM PDT by Maelstrom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: big ern
When she turns 4 this summer she's getting a whole list of chores so she can keep busy and let me sit around more.

LOL!!!!! Children. My #1 for havin' 'em!!!

13 posted on 05/11/2002 5:05:39 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: big ern
When she turns 4 this summer she's getting a whole list of chores so she can keep busy and let me sit around more.

*snicker snicker snicker*... Good luck! $;-)

No honestly, I sincerely mean it. *snicker*


14 posted on 05/11/2002 5:21:19 AM PDT by Joe Brower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
bttt
15 posted on 05/11/2002 6:20:53 AM PDT by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Dan, you do good work. Can I help a little? Here are your links, as links:

Read News and Editorial Coverage of this Justice Department change here:
http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/news/EmersonAppealNews.htm

Read about the Emerson Defense Fund here:
http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/EmersonDefenseFund.htm

Thanks for posting this -- hope you don't mind my reformatting -- I think it will make more Freepers go look at these sites, is all. Oh yeah, the contribute link does not work -- not sure why. You can get to the page from a link on the "Read about the fund" page, though. If I put the exact same html here it chokes and I don't have time to troubleshoot it -- sorry.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

16 posted on 05/11/2002 8:38:07 AM PDT by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan; SUSSA
Thank you for the update, and for the links to the briefs. There is a strong possibility that I will get to file a brief in the Emerson case, if the Supreme Court accepts it.

Interestingly, the Solicitor General's brief filed in the Court increases the chances that it will take the case, even though it urges the Court NOT to accept the case. Sounds like a paradox, but it isn't. And maybe SG Olson intended that very paradox.

Here'e the logic: The Supreme Court has been largely ducking 2nd Amendment cases, Its last pronouncement was in 1939 when it adopted the view that the Amendment refers to military units, not individuals. But it did not entirely slam the door on the latter interpretation.

Both the legal analysis of the Circuit Court in Dr. Emerson's case, and the position taken by the SG, conflict with the last pronouncement of the Court, and with similar conclusions reached by other Circuit Courts. So, the position taken by SG Olson may compel the Court to take this case, even though Olson suggested that they should not take the case.

I hope that is the outcome, since the "Rule of Four" applies. Only if at least four Justices believe that the case is worthy of review, does the Court accept any case. So, if they accept Emerson, there is at least a reasonable chance that the Court will move to an honest and accurate reading of the 2nd Amendment.

Congressman Billybob

Click here to fight Campaign Finance "Reform" - CFR

Click here for latest: "President John Edwards -- Think About It."

17 posted on 05/11/2002 9:13:26 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Problem is, right now, do we have the five votes needed to win the case?

Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer will vote for the "collective" interpretation. Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas will definitely go individual. Kennedy leans individual. That leaves, as always, O'Connor. She's backed Garwood before in U.S. v. Lopez, but for this case, the stakes are VERY high. A loss here, and we are screwed big time.

18 posted on 05/11/2002 9:50:09 AM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Interestingly, the Solicitor General's brief filed in the Court increases the chances that it will take the case, even though it urges the Court NOT to accept the case.

That was also my impression. The Justice Department has to at least nominally act like they are defending the statute in question, so that the case has two sides. But the overwhelmingly important facet of the Solicitor General's brief is that he concedes the assertion that the plaintiff in general has a 2nd Amendment individual Constitutional right to keep and bear arms (the Washington Post is very upset about this). So if the Supreme Court takes the case, both of the principals in the matter are agreeing on that issue.

It used to be that the anti-gunners would taunt the NRA and other pro-gun groups for being unwilling to push a 2nd Amendment challenge of any gun-control law all the way to the Supreme Court, for fear of the outcome. And that was true. Now the anti-gunners are terrified that the Supreme Court might take the Emerson case, and in so doing validate the individual rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. That sort of says it all.

19 posted on 05/11/2002 10:07:50 AM PDT by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dpwiener;Congressman Billybob
Yes, yes, but there are some liberal professors such as Laurence Tribe and Sanford Levinson who while conceding that the individual interpretation is indeed correct, quickly add that does not mean ipso facto that reasonable restrictions cannot be applied in certain defined circumstances.

The definitions, however, of these circumstances may be variously interpreted, and therein forever lies the rub. Then it's back to no right is totally absolute, that e.g., re 1st amendment, laws are created and penalties can be imposed for yelling "Fire!" as a joke in a crowded theater, for slander, etc...

The tug of war will continue on and on (that's life!), although it would be refreshing to fight from high ground for a change.

20 posted on 05/11/2002 11:28:14 AM PDT by my trusty sig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson