Posted on 10/17/2001 7:48:24 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
Hi Folks,
Busy day, so quick update.
The more I read the Emerson decision, the more I believe that there are appealable issues for Dr. Emerson.
Spoke briefly with Dr. Emerson today, and he seems to be fairing well, considering everyone else won but him.
Told him to hang in there, don't talk to the media, and work through/with his attorney(s). I also offered assistance to Dr. Emerson, his attorneys, and hope to be of some positive help if needed.
The good news is that clearly, the Miller collective myth was properly destroyed. And much of the SAF and CCRKBA amicus briefs, particularly David Young's fine work, was in Garwood's decision. And the Brady crowd is whining and the Washington Post seems stunned!
But now the bad news is that Dr. Emerson may be forced to go to trial for a long-since removed restraining order issued in a civil divorce court proceeding (it ended with the finalization of the divorce). Folks, this was not a domestic violence restraining order, even though the media and anti-gunners claim it was. Despite what the ruling said, these orders are boilerplate and issued without credible findings some of the time.
Bottom line is that Dr. Emerson and his possible trial is now the focus, and I might not be able to discuss as freely what is happening until after it has already happened. The case is moving again, instead of resting.
I have posted some Emerson media coverage here:
http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/news/EmersonAppealNews.htm
A couple of releases are posted here:
http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/news/EmersonFix.htm
A new update is not expected until next week. But Bellesiles continues to take hits among other things.
Thanks for sticking with this list. Let me know if you are no longer interested in the updates now that the decision is in.
Yes, that is the problem with 922. It is bootstrapping from boilerplate.
BUT, while defendant Emerson has a right to do whatever is in his best interests, there may be good reason for the rest of us to hope to wait for 'better facts' to take to the Supremes -- and to wait until we have a couple more reliable conservatives there to hear a 2nd Amendment case.
Thus, while I do think the 5th was wrong about deferring to the restraining order and the 'presumption' of Congress' belief in a 'credible' basis for the order, I think the disarming (pun intended) of Miller is much more important.
Good point---this same U.S. Supreme Court, in 1995, ruled that the federal "guns in school zone law" was unconstituional--that law was also based on interstate commerce (the Emerson law is based on the gun having been in interstate commerce).
I have to disagree. - - There will never be a case to compare to Emerson. - The defendant is truly "one of us" in all of the important ways, and all of the important issues are presented. - - Let's not get faint-hearted !!
at the same time, he has helped us all win a very major battle. if he needs a legal fund, i am sure many of us benefactors would be happy to help. (or does he already have one?)
Perhaps I don't know enough about him. My comment was based on the Court's summary that he represented himself in the restraining order hearing and did not cross-examine his ex-wife's comment that he hadn't threatened her but had threatened the life of a friend.
Two things trouble me about that. One, most of these bootstrapping restraining orders are entered in CA on declaration only with no confrontation or cross-examination. That is what makes them 'boilerplate.' Emerson's was (apparently) not so. He was there and (very foolishly) tried to defend himself.
Second, by not contradicting his wife's comment (or even attempting to cross-examine her), he allowed an appellate court to give full weight to the trial court's findings and arguably gave the trial court a 'credible' basis for the order.
Moreover, I don't want to see a 2nd Amendment case go to the Supremes (after so long a time)which gives the liberals the chance to dodge on a side issue (such as the credible basis for the order argument).
Finally, I read on the threads here (but not in the opinion) that Emerson had pulled a gun on his ex-wife at some point. If true, he gives us 'bad facts' to take to the High Court on that point as well.
I think for example that the Jets' safety who had a legal (in some states) weapon properly stowed in his vehicle is a much cleaner case. That's my only point.
There IS a case, if only the defendant can be motivated to run with it. Robinson (a football player for the Jets) was caught with an AR-15 in his car trunk in NJ when bringing his family to the game. It's the perfect post-Emerson case: no "guilty mind", discrete exercising RKBA for family security in public place, military arm, discovered by police dog, lots of money for defense, decision inconsistent with Emerson would force SCOTUS review, equal protection issue of personal possessions across state lines. There's nothing "wrong" with the case in any sense of the word.
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.