Posted on 05/06/2003 6:47:44 PM PDT by Z-28
Focus Roscoe, do you ... or do you not, agree with the 9th Circuits Ruling.
Clarify your position please. Let's not dance around this for a full week again. Or are you too much of a craven coward to put your opinion online?
Did I ask about the "opinion"? I asked about YOUR opinion on the 9th Circuits Ruling upholding the California Assault Weapons Ban.
Myself, most of the other posters on this thread, four judges from an 11 judges panel on the 9th Circuit, severla judges on the 5th Circuit, several of the Founding Fathers, and most of history say that the ban is UnConstitutional for all the reasons mentioned.
What is YOUR opinion on the Ruling?
False naturally. Keep on begging the existence of that case or authority you've never been able to find.
Useful idiots presented the Ninth Circuit with a meritless case, and the Ninth gladly used the opportunity to fill its ruling with legal and historical falsehoods regarding the nature of the 2nd Amendment, knowing that its dicta was unnecessary to resolve the case and had no bearing on the judgment.
Got it. Thank you for clearing up your opinion.
False, as always.
As 5th Circuit Judge Robert M. Parker pointed out in his concurring opinion in United States v. Emerson, "The determination whether the rights bestowed by the Second Amendment are collective or individual is entirely unnecessary to resolve this case and has no bearing on the judgment we dictate by this opinion."
Your own utter failure to produce even a single case or authority holding that state or local regulation is violative of the 2nd Amendment demonstrates the poverty of your argument.
Or are you still having trouble with the words "supreme Law of the Land" and "shall not be infringed"? Here, go back and refamiliarize yourself...
Not even close, question beggar.
After you get over that hurdle, then you can explain to the rest of us how it doesn't mean what it say it means...
And the Second Amendment was written as a restriction on federal power, your question begging notwithstanding.
If you ever manage to find even one case or authority holding that state or local regulation of firearms is violative of the Second Amendment, please post it.
If you ever manage to find even one case or authority holding that state or local regulation of firearms is violative of the Second Amendment, please post it.
Uh... Roscoe... the plain text of the Constitution, not to mention the exhaustively re-posted quotes from the Founder who wrote, are pretty damn clear. Only agenda bearing liberals, like yourself, try to use the circular begging principle of "the court ruled it so it doesn't matter what the Constitution actually says".
What higher source do you require than the Constitution itself? A signed note from God?
This is what the 9th Circuit ruled as well.
Actually, presented with a meritless case, the Ninth took advantage of the opportunity presented to them to erroneously hold that there was no individual right secured by the Second Amendment.
[If you ever manage to find even one case or authority holding that state or local regulation of firearms is violative of the Second Amendment, please post it.]
Uh... Roscoe... the plain text of the Constitution
Don't beg and grovel.
This makes me very nervous. Gorski has done a fine job on this case, but he is a relatively inexperienced lawyer, and I fear he may be in over his head. Briefing and arguing a case in the US Supreme Court is not a walk in the park, and bravado is no substitute for strategic sense and meticulous preparation. There is potentially a great deal at stake in this case for all of us with an interest in Second Amendment issues.
What he now has to file is a brief called a "Petition for a Writ of Certiorari." He has 90 days in which to file it, and, if he is smart, he'll use every one of those ninety days. A well thought out and superbly written cert petition is essential. This is not a document you knock out "by the end of the week".
He has gotten some great support in those dissenting opinions. More important, however, in terms of whether the Supreme Court will take the case is the Fifth Circuit's decision in Emerson in which that court rejected a collectivist view of the Second Amendment and held that it grants an individual right to keep and bear arms. This creates what lawyers call a "split in the circuits" (5th Circuit finds an indivdual right; 9th Circuit finds only a collective right), and that is one of the situations that most frequently prompts the US Supreme Court to take a case. Bottom line -- Gorski's got a very good shot at getting the Supreme Court to take his case.
Others with an interest in RKBA issues need to think long and hard about this too. There is a good chance Gorski's case could go, and the NRA and others need to think seriously about that. The NRA has a reputation of being "gun shy" (OK, some pun intended) on cases headed toward the Supreme Court. Be critical of the NRA if you must, but it is important to all of us that the case that eventually gets to the Supreme Court be the strongest case possible.
The NRA tried to deep six Gorski's case in the Ninth Circuit on what is known as a "standing" issue (i.e., did the individual plaintiffs have a sufficient interest in the outcome of the case to warrant giving them the right to sue). It was and is a legitimate issue, but the court paid no attention to it. The Supreme Court may decide to focus on it and in fact could use it as a means to duck the case if it didn't want to take it. The NRA will have to decide whether it wants to continue to push the standing issue or whether it wants to get behind Gorski and fully support him. That is not an easy tactical question.
As many know, there is a pending Second Amendment case brought by lawyers affiliated with the Cato Institute (Washington-based Libertarian think tank) that challenges DC's de facto ban on handgun ownership and possession. There is a bit of a cat fight going on between the plaintiffs in that case and the NRA as well. Some think it is a cleaner Second Amendment challenge. It is before a good District Court judge, and there is a solid conservative wing on the DC Circuit, which will hear any appeal. However, that case is a long way from the Supreme Court at this point.
My personal view is that organizations with an interest in RKBA issues need to step up and get behind Gorski and his plaintiffs. Hire some good lawyers to write "friend of the court" briefs, and possibly even persuade Mr. Gorski to expand his team to include some seasoned Supreme Court veterans. I don't say that anyone should muscle him aside, but it is in everyone's interest to make sure he is as prepared as he can be. As FReepers are wont to say, "This is series."
Pinging the forum idiot adds nothing of value to a thread. In the future, please spare us.
Freegards...
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.