DC Fires Heller case lawyer
- Thread starter DonP
- Start date
- Status
Megistopoda
Member
A question please....and hoping for an answer just for the record:
Will this opening brief by DC (the one due tomorrow) be posted for the public record? Will we be able to view the brief, as we've been able to view other case documents?
Such as DCs Petition, Heller's Response, etc., as are posted here:
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/pleadings.html
Will this opening brief by DC (the one due tomorrow) be posted for the public record? Will we be able to view the brief, as we've been able to view other case documents?
Such as DCs Petition, Heller's Response, etc., as are posted here:
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/pleadings.html
Bubbles
Member
I would expect so, given that every other document has been made public.
Cosmoline
Member
Yes, the briefs are public as are the oral arguments.
madmike
Member
IL has a Naval Militia. I'd occasionally see some of their cooks at STARC, mixed in with the Army cooks. There were 3-4.
I'm not sure how big the unit was, but since STARC is in Springfield and the Lake is near Chicago...
I'm pretty sure we do in IN, too.
Army Guard will be bigger, obviously. Air Guard has the most firepower.
I'm not sure how big the unit was, but since STARC is in Springfield and the Lake is near Chicago...
I'm pretty sure we do in IN, too.
Army Guard will be bigger, obviously. Air Guard has the most firepower.
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
Now that it's being heard, they want to win.
Think: If SCOTUS decides it's an individual right, then there will more SCOTUS cases and plenty of state cases.
The NRA will be extremely busy.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
That denial of the bearing of the pickle: - Does it equate to "Passing the Buck?"
Maybe they are preparing to cast blame for when they lose.
Woody
Maybe they are preparing to cast blame for when they lose.
Woody
madmike
Member
If the court says "no right," you can bet every gun owner votes against the Dems.
If they say it's a right, the Dems will be in the position of having to appease the LLL by vowing to "fix" that problem.
The Dems' only hope is that the court slaps DC down, and then quietly plays the, "well, what can we do?" game.
It won't make a huge difference in votes, but look how close the elections are getting. It WILL be enough to swing.
This is the worst possible time for this, from the Dem POV.
And I'm all in favor of that
If they say it's a right, the Dems will be in the position of having to appease the LLL by vowing to "fix" that problem.
The Dems' only hope is that the court slaps DC down, and then quietly plays the, "well, what can we do?" game.
It won't make a huge difference in votes, but look how close the elections are getting. It WILL be enough to swing.
This is the worst possible time for this, from the Dem POV.
And I'm all in favor of that
Deavis
Member
The NRA, like anyone on this board, is loathe to take the big step and gamble all the marbles. Let's put it in terms that we can all understand. You own a house that has had rooms taken control of by legislators. They declared your master bedroom off limits. Next it was your upstairs bathroom, but soon it was the entire 2nd floor. Before you knew it, you were forced into your own basement and living next to a coal stove. You fought back and won battle after battle and now live on the first floor with an oil heater and air conditioner. It isn't as great as having your second floor back but it sure beats the basement.
Now, someone knocks at the door and says, hey I'm a miracle salesman, here is a long shot special, you may get your second story back but you might lose the whole house if it goes wrong AND it goes against your current strategy to reclaim your house. What do you think? You want to buy in on this great deal? How many of you would take that shot? Be realistic, and think about it. Most of you, if you are honest with yourself, would probably not risk all the hardwork you have on a longshot. Those of you with a gambling problem and empty pockets might, but for someone who has labored a long time to get out of the basement it is a lot to lose.
If Heller is a no, it is a huge blow and erases years of hard work. Sure the NRA has some egos in it and they want to save the day just like so many Internet Junkies who think they could lead the U.S. through a revolution and go on to be the next George Washington or whoever they fancy. The NRA had a plan, they were executing, and have done some good things for gun rights. To claim otherwise is pure idiocy and not worth giving any attention to. Would Wayne love to be the guy that nailed this decision, sure. How many of us on this board wouldn't love to be Levy or Gura right now?
Heller shows up on the scene (as a case not as a person), the NRA sees the huge risk it presents to their plan, they launch what they believe the correct plan is to save "their" house, and now they are relying on that door to door salesman who promises to clean out the infestation of legislators.
Besides, even if Heller is decided in the gun rights movement favor, there is still a ton of work to do to get back the 2nd floor. Heller just gets us access to the stairway. After it is a ll said and done, Wayne will be old and out. The NRA will change, just as it changed from its original roots into the entity we have today. The NRA will still need members to fight battles and possibly more to fight them at the state level. That is where gun control will go next, count on it.
madmike
Member
If Heller fails, nothing changes.
MILLER was a 2A decision specifying EXACTLY what was covered. "Weapons commonly used by the militia." It's been used against us.
The enemy ALREADY assumes we have no rights, proceeds accordingly, and has made headway.
We have more state-level rights WITH THE GUNS WE HAVE LEFT, but every year, we have less guns available to us, as far as technology goes. Entire classes have been prohibited before even being invented. Go buy a new Galil. Or an FNC. Or a Stg 90. Or a select fire P90.
If we lose, we just buy enough trillions of guns that no one can do anything about it, since they'd have to pay fair market value to seize them.
If we win, Brady, et al, officially become "anti-civil rights hate groups."
The case was VERY carefully chosen and planned.
The NRA tried to combine it with one of their LOSING cases, A VERY BADLY ARGUED losing case.
Then they tried, and failed, to get a law change to prevent this case from reaching SCOTUS.
To me, the NRA is a very big, very noisy distraction. "The powerful gun lobby" that gets blamed for everything from suicide to global warming. I keep them fed with donations to keep it that way.
Meanwhile, the real activists can work unnoticed by the yapping, bleating know-nothings in the press and the opposition.
The NRA had nothing to do with Indiana's lifetime carry, either. Nor Alaska's VT style. If they did all the things they're accused of, they'd be the greatest group in the world.
MILLER was a 2A decision specifying EXACTLY what was covered. "Weapons commonly used by the militia." It's been used against us.
The enemy ALREADY assumes we have no rights, proceeds accordingly, and has made headway.
We have more state-level rights WITH THE GUNS WE HAVE LEFT, but every year, we have less guns available to us, as far as technology goes. Entire classes have been prohibited before even being invented. Go buy a new Galil. Or an FNC. Or a Stg 90. Or a select fire P90.
If we lose, we just buy enough trillions of guns that no one can do anything about it, since they'd have to pay fair market value to seize them.
If we win, Brady, et al, officially become "anti-civil rights hate groups."
The case was VERY carefully chosen and planned.
The NRA tried to combine it with one of their LOSING cases, A VERY BADLY ARGUED losing case.
Then they tried, and failed, to get a law change to prevent this case from reaching SCOTUS.
To me, the NRA is a very big, very noisy distraction. "The powerful gun lobby" that gets blamed for everything from suicide to global warming. I keep them fed with donations to keep it that way.
Meanwhile, the real activists can work unnoticed by the yapping, bleating know-nothings in the press and the opposition.
The NRA had nothing to do with Indiana's lifetime carry, either. Nor Alaska's VT style. If they did all the things they're accused of, they'd be the greatest group in the world.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
My scentiment exactly.
Bubbles
Member
Short term a Heller win is good for the Republicans since the Democrats will come out full-bore trying to find a way to circumvent it, and that will fire up the gun-owner Republican base. Long term it's a win for the Democrats since once gun control versus gun rights is off the table as a political issue, all the single-issue gun rights voters will switch to some other issue that drives them to the polls. Some of those issues favor Democrats.
ctdonath
Member
There may be some way to bail out, but remember that both the DC Circuit and Supreme courts have both gone WAY out of their way to accommodate DC in appealing Heller, and more than judge has made this very clear to DC. Deadlines have been extended repeatedly, rulings have been long-term temporarily suspended, and rare private meetings with counsel granted to hammer out details. To bail now, for no particularly good reason, would likely peeve off some very important judges, who would proceed to give DC very little leeway on very important (to DC) cases for a very long time.
On top of that, bailing out now does DC absolutely no benefit. The whole point of appealing to SCOTUS is to undo a painful verdict from a lower court; abort the appeal, and they lose any chance of reducing the pain of that verdict. That the appeal may cause problems in other jurisdictions isn't DC's problem.
ctdonath
Member
The court HAS said there IS a right. They wrote the question being addressed, which is built on the premise that there IS an individual right - and explicitly excludes discussion of the "collective right" or "no right" theories.
madmike
Member
Exactly. But there is a SLIM chance they could say, "There is such a right, but local authority can decide which weapons are allowed."
Which would give DC what it wants, and give us a meaningless victory.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Eventually "Who Has the Pickle?" is likely to be succeeded by "Passing the Buck" but the two games are different.
"Who Has the Pickle?" is what two or more people play when they have been boasting to each other and everyone else about this marvelous magical pickle that will vanquish all who oppose them, and then the day arrives for the battle but it turns out that none of the players have the pickle.
The essential element in this game is that although none of the players on the team had the pickle in the first place, every player on the team acts as if he has it but never says he does. So every member of the team assumes that some other player has the pickle and speaks as if he knows it exists. They con themselves, each other, and the public.
And then the time comes to use the pickle but nobody has it.
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
Can someone definitively answer this?
Madmike and others who want to keep talking about the "pushing" of the DC Personal Protection Act as an attempt to derail the court proceedings, the NRA has been "pushing" this legislation for many years. It just never got too far prior to this lawsuit. Check this link:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynami...3Ah.r.03193:
As you will hopefully notice, this was introduced 9/25/2003, and if you look back you will find even earlier cases where the NRA had pushed for it. Bottom line is that the NRA had been fighting the DC laws for a long time before the Heller case, yet we still have people here who actually WANT to believe that this was done just to mess up Heller (as some would like you to believe).
My own opinion is that some in Congress saw this as a way to derail Heller and that is why it got so much attention just recently.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynami...3Ah.r.03193:
As you will hopefully notice, this was introduced 9/25/2003, and if you look back you will find even earlier cases where the NRA had pushed for it. Bottom line is that the NRA had been fighting the DC laws for a long time before the Heller case, yet we still have people here who actually WANT to believe that this was done just to mess up Heller (as some would like you to believe).
My own opinion is that some in Congress saw this as a way to derail Heller and that is why it got so much attention just recently.
Fisherman_48768
Member
Deavis: I would take on the fight for this reason. The 1st and 2nd floors have been taken over by the Gov't and I'm living in the basement. I might be living in the basement but you can be rest assured that I'm still paying the taxes on the other two floors. What do I really have to lose in this case?
publius
Member
Not completely. If you look at the question they intend to answer, the answer could be "No, because individuals who are not affiliated with any militia have no second amendment rights." That is most likely what the brief released today will say, but they'll take 15,000 words to say it. Let's hope the Court doesn't buy it, but keep in mind this is the same Court which recently said that homegrown cannabis plants and machine guns for personal use are interstate commerce, and that giving land to a developer is a public use.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Actually, it's a slightly different court. Two members have changed.
Only if the actual controversy was made moot. (DC repealed all three statutes and issued Heller a license.)
Very true. I've been saying this for years.
Very short term (through Nov. '08), the Dems can ignore it. It will have no actual repercussions beyond DC that soon. Your observation of the long term is interesting and probably correct, IMHO.
DonP
Member
"Can DC now withdraw its appeal?
Can someone definitively answer this?"
The short and direct answer is yes they can, parties scheduled to appear have the right to withdraw their appeal.
If you read SCOTUSBLOG (can be very dull and technical stuff), you'll find examples of cases that have been accepted and then the parties have either reached an a agreement and withdrawn the plea, or ask for a continuance in light of major new evidence or issues arising that are directly relevant to the case.
However, if DC withdraws the case then the standing injunctions are immediately swept away and the lower courts decision automatically becomes black letter law for DC and they must allow citizens to own and have working firearmns in their homes.
They may ask for a continuance, but SCOTUS has a much, much higher standard than other courts on this issue. They are much more likely to deny the request, especially when the city already had competent counsel and they made an arbitrary decision to change horses in mid-case.
Can someone definitively answer this?"
The short and direct answer is yes they can, parties scheduled to appear have the right to withdraw their appeal.
If you read SCOTUSBLOG (can be very dull and technical stuff), you'll find examples of cases that have been accepted and then the parties have either reached an a agreement and withdrawn the plea, or ask for a continuance in light of major new evidence or issues arising that are directly relevant to the case.
However, if DC withdraws the case then the standing injunctions are immediately swept away and the lower courts decision automatically becomes black letter law for DC and they must allow citizens to own and have working firearmns in their homes.
They may ask for a continuance, but SCOTUS has a much, much higher standard than other courts on this issue. They are much more likely to deny the request, especially when the city already had competent counsel and they made an arbitrary decision to change horses in mid-case.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
madmike:
But what's the fair market value of something that has been seized because it's illegal? When guns in private hands become illegal there is no fair market for them, thus no fair market value. There can't be a willing seller and a willing buyer who agree on a fair price in that situation, or do I misunderstand sophisticated economic principles?
I don't think that the federal government paid illegal distillers for whisky or beer destroyed during Prohibition or that any law enforcement agency pays users of illegal narcotics for their seized dope.
I'm probably not as well informed as you about the subject but I hadn't heard that BATFE pays fair market value for alcohol, tobacco, firearms, or explosives that it seizes. Does it?
Perhaps a more likely scenario is that when firearms are made illegal anyone who possesses them will be subject to forfeiture penalties too: forfeiture of real and personal property such as homes and cars in which the firearms are found. Bury Old Betsy in your backyard and you lose both the gun and the real property that includes the backyard.
I don't have any private information about how "the real activists can work unnoticed by the yapping, bleating know-nothings in the press and the opposition." How do they do that on the federal level? Do they work through personal contacts with senators like Tom Coburn, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Pelosi for example?
I have the feeling that I'm watching a game of "Who Has the Pickle?" in midplay and that it will culiminate in the usual endgame of "I thought you had the pickle" if the NRA is weakened sufficiently to be futile.
You do have the pickle, right?
But what's the fair market value of something that has been seized because it's illegal? When guns in private hands become illegal there is no fair market for them, thus no fair market value. There can't be a willing seller and a willing buyer who agree on a fair price in that situation, or do I misunderstand sophisticated economic principles?
I don't think that the federal government paid illegal distillers for whisky or beer destroyed during Prohibition or that any law enforcement agency pays users of illegal narcotics for their seized dope.
I'm probably not as well informed as you about the subject but I hadn't heard that BATFE pays fair market value for alcohol, tobacco, firearms, or explosives that it seizes. Does it?
Perhaps a more likely scenario is that when firearms are made illegal anyone who possesses them will be subject to forfeiture penalties too: forfeiture of real and personal property such as homes and cars in which the firearms are found. Bury Old Betsy in your backyard and you lose both the gun and the real property that includes the backyard.
I don't have any private information about how "the real activists can work unnoticed by the yapping, bleating know-nothings in the press and the opposition." How do they do that on the federal level? Do they work through personal contacts with senators like Tom Coburn, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Pelosi for example?
I have the feeling that I'm watching a game of "Who Has the Pickle?" in midplay and that it will culiminate in the usual endgame of "I thought you had the pickle" if the NRA is weakened sufficiently to be futile.
You do have the pickle, right?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked