longeyes
member
Dangerous precedent? I think you've just summed up the Bill of Rights. Indeed so. And dangerous to the usual suspects. Sic semper tyrannis.
Federal Court Upholds DC Hand Gun Ban
- Thread starter Beren
- Start date
- Status
Starpower
Member
CATO/MCPherson Etc
They may try to tell you that the National Guard is the States Militia, but that's a misnomer, all by itself, and don't fall for it. If these guys are signed up to protect the rights of the people and the states, against a potentially tyrannical Federal Government (you mean it's not already more than potentially tyrannical?) why are they controlled by the Federal Government, and what are all our guys doing in Iraq, right Now. Protecting their own individual states? How can they be controlled by the very Federal government they are supposed to be protecting us from? Kind of like sending a fox (or skunk) to guard the hen house. No way. These guys are feds, all the way through. The militia, made up of farmers and merchants and businessmen (and women) from all walks of life, with family problems and lives to lead, these are the militia, and these are the people the 2A addresses. All this other is deflection, and don't be misled! If the 2A is meant to protect our individual rights against a potentially tyrannical FEDERAL government, wouldn't it make sense that that very FEDERAL government would rather have you disarmed so that the undermining of these rights, which grants more POWER to them, would be first on their agenda? FOCUS, people. And this is one time I'm NOT being my usual wise cracking self. Quite literally, TO ARMS! TO ARMS! FOR THE ENEMY DOTH APPEAR AT THE GATE!
They may try to tell you that the National Guard is the States Militia, but that's a misnomer, all by itself, and don't fall for it. If these guys are signed up to protect the rights of the people and the states, against a potentially tyrannical Federal Government (you mean it's not already more than potentially tyrannical?) why are they controlled by the Federal Government, and what are all our guys doing in Iraq, right Now. Protecting their own individual states? How can they be controlled by the very Federal government they are supposed to be protecting us from? Kind of like sending a fox (or skunk) to guard the hen house. No way. These guys are feds, all the way through. The militia, made up of farmers and merchants and businessmen (and women) from all walks of life, with family problems and lives to lead, these are the militia, and these are the people the 2A addresses. All this other is deflection, and don't be misled! If the 2A is meant to protect our individual rights against a potentially tyrannical FEDERAL government, wouldn't it make sense that that very FEDERAL government would rather have you disarmed so that the undermining of these rights, which grants more POWER to them, would be first on their agenda? FOCUS, people. And this is one time I'm NOT being my usual wise cracking self. Quite literally, TO ARMS! TO ARMS! FOR THE ENEMY DOTH APPEAR AT THE GATE!
NorthernExtreme
Member
Something wicked this way comes I fear!
Seawolf
Member
To top off this lovely announcement, Bush appointed him too:
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/walton-bio.html
@#$%#@%#@~!
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/walton-bio.html
Partisan Ranger
Member
dc2wheel,
I suggest a move west, to Virginia.
Why any person who loves liberty would live in DC or MD is beyond me. What cesspools of idiotarian liberalism.
I suggest a move west, to Virginia.
Why any person who loves liberty would live in DC or MD is beyond me. What cesspools of idiotarian liberalism.
Smurfslayer
Member
Next venue?
What is the next venue, court of appeals, or SCOTUS?
IIRC, the US court of appeals for the district is next. There's next to zero chance they will overturn. These people are gotten from the same barrel of rotten apples. We knew (c'mon, who really thought the court was going to say 'ok, you're right'?) this would happen. The question is will the District Court of Appeals overturn it - 99% unlikely.
The really important question will come when it is appealed to the Scotus. If it is not granted cert. that will mean that any outright ban can stand anywhere in the US. If that happens, it's only a matter of years in the single digits, possibly months before the most anti states try for outright bans on civilian firearms ownership.
Acquiesence will embolden the enemy.
What is the next venue, court of appeals, or SCOTUS?
IIRC, the US court of appeals for the district is next. There's next to zero chance they will overturn. These people are gotten from the same barrel of rotten apples. We knew (c'mon, who really thought the court was going to say 'ok, you're right'?) this would happen. The question is will the District Court of Appeals overturn it - 99% unlikely.
The really important question will come when it is appealed to the Scotus. If it is not granted cert. that will mean that any outright ban can stand anywhere in the US. If that happens, it's only a matter of years in the single digits, possibly months before the most anti states try for outright bans on civilian firearms ownership.
Acquiesence will embolden the enemy.
Frohickey
Member
Trying to tell us what? That its time to start shooting the bastards?
Damn. I owe someone pushups and sit-ups with that comment.
Gordon Fink
Member
Oh, yes, but gun owners should support G. W. “I’ll sign the ‘assault-weapons’ ban†Bush because he will make the right judicial appointments.
~G. Fink
Frohickey
Member
Please use the correct name... it would save lots of web search.
Its Silviera vs Lockyer case... or Silviera case... or the Gary Gorski case...
Its NOT the Silva case!!!
NorthernExtreme
Member
Knock them out soldier! I'll do a few for GP.
Frohickey
Member
Anyone know where to get the DC circuit court's opinion on this case? I checked findlaw.com, and its not there.
NorthernExtreme
Member
Point made!
It's been a long night, and my brain is running low on the sleep thing.
Frohickey
Member
Graystar
Member
Told ya.
Jeez...another step back.
dc2wheel
Member
Partisan Ranger wrote:
-----------------------
dc2wheel,
I suggest a move west, to Virginia.
Why any person who loves liberty would live in DC or MD is beyond me.
What cesspools of idiotarian liberalism.
-------------------------
Well, I could move to Virginia...or I can stay here and try to change things.
DC got this way largely because good people left. Plus you should have
seen the look on the faces of the DC Police Officers when I went and
registered my Mossberg 590A1. Yes - it can be done. No - I probably
should not have attached the bayonet to it.
-----------------------
dc2wheel,
I suggest a move west, to Virginia.
Why any person who loves liberty would live in DC or MD is beyond me.
What cesspools of idiotarian liberalism.
-------------------------
Well, I could move to Virginia...or I can stay here and try to change things.
DC got this way largely because good people left. Plus you should have
seen the look on the faces of the DC Police Officers when I went and
registered my Mossberg 590A1. Yes - it can be done. No - I probably
should not have attached the bayonet to it.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Never—ever—under any circumstances—trust a R.I.N.O.
Some portions of these judgments are so blatantly faulty, even to a constitutional layman like myself, I have to wonder if he passed such a bad judgment on purpose, to try and force it's overturning?
Going to appeals with an extremely flawed decision against RKBA would technicaly put us in a better position than a lukewarm "win" which would give D.C. and the anti's the initiative to craft grounds for it's overturn. Now the anti's are forced to defend a flawed judgment in court, see?
I'm not usually prone to such tin-foil hattery, but...
Starpower
Member
Supreme Court upholds....
Hey Frohickey! I think it's Dave's grandma you owe the pushups to.
Hey Frohickey! I think it's Dave's grandma you owe the pushups to.
Dischord,
In the oral arguments when asked by the judge if the government could restrict the right to bear arms Halbrook replied, "YOUR HONOR, WE ARE HERE WANTING TO REGISTER HANDGUNS. WE ARE NOT HERE WANTING UNRESTRICTED ACCESS. WE'RE NOT HERE ASKING TO CARRY THEM, OTHER THAN IN THE HOME."
(sorry about the caps - that was the easiest way to find his words)
Here's a link to a transcript of the arguments. The annotations were done by the late Roy Lucas.
http://keepandbeararms.com/silveira/halbrook.asp
Now I suppose you could apply the same form of logic that justices all too frequently use to say the 2nd amendment protects state's but not individuals, but from here it does seem like Halbrook did say registration was okey dokey.
Jim March,
It is the NRA case Seegars v. Ashcroft.
& you are correct that it's not CATO but two lawyers who work with CATO acting independently. I try to make that distinction but it's so damn easy to slip "CATO" in when making references in a hurry.
I think it was posted already, but here's the link to the decision
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/03-834.pdf
what strikes me is that A: Halbrook was an idiot to name Ashcroft & thus bring his legal weight in on things; B: an argument against registration might have altered the view of standing that the justice took; C: Halbrook would have lost nothing but at least gained respect (as well as the NRA) if he'd have taken an absolutist stance in arguing this case & D: as part of a strict constructionist view it should have been argued that the 2nd amendment does not confer a Right, but rather is specific in its prohibition against Congress (& DC is under the jurisdiction of Congress) passing laws that interfere with the Right to Arms.
But I'm admittedly only halfway through the opinion & these are just things I'm thinking off the top of my head.
Also a good friend related that Halbrook also screwed up in oral arguments by blowing off a question about the militia. I'll have to re-read the oral arguments to pinpoint what exactly happened, but my friend if usually reliable on things of this nature.
The case involving those two CATO attorneys is Parker v. District of Columbia. Here's their complaint
http://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs/gunsuit.pdf
I believe Walton is the residing judge in the Parker case, but I could very well be mistaken. Unfortunately I haven't heard anything substantial about Parker since they were successful in keeping the NRA from joining its case with theirs. I know the transcript is out, but haven't been able to track it down as of yet.
In general I'd say that Walton is not our friend. I'd also say that for those of you speculating if pressure has been or is being applied to SCOTUS & other courts to not rule against the government in 2nd amendment cases, I'd remind you that BUSH asked SCOTUS to not hear two cases a while back. One of those cases was Haney, which involved a challenge to the NFA. The other was Emerson of which I'm sure y'all are familiar.
In any case the decision sucks. It's grounded in faulty logic & legally it doesn't seem to be well reasoned. Like I said I'm onlu halfway through & I could probably pick apart the arguments on standing & ripeness in my sleep.
& I do believe that a direct appeal to SCOTUS is possible, but I could be mistaken & any appeal would go to the district appellate court.
But the big question is how will this affect Parker if at all?
In the oral arguments when asked by the judge if the government could restrict the right to bear arms Halbrook replied, "YOUR HONOR, WE ARE HERE WANTING TO REGISTER HANDGUNS. WE ARE NOT HERE WANTING UNRESTRICTED ACCESS. WE'RE NOT HERE ASKING TO CARRY THEM, OTHER THAN IN THE HOME."
(sorry about the caps - that was the easiest way to find his words)
Here's a link to a transcript of the arguments. The annotations were done by the late Roy Lucas.
http://keepandbeararms.com/silveira/halbrook.asp
Now I suppose you could apply the same form of logic that justices all too frequently use to say the 2nd amendment protects state's but not individuals, but from here it does seem like Halbrook did say registration was okey dokey.
Jim March,
It is the NRA case Seegars v. Ashcroft.
& you are correct that it's not CATO but two lawyers who work with CATO acting independently. I try to make that distinction but it's so damn easy to slip "CATO" in when making references in a hurry.
I think it was posted already, but here's the link to the decision
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/03-834.pdf
what strikes me is that A: Halbrook was an idiot to name Ashcroft & thus bring his legal weight in on things; B: an argument against registration might have altered the view of standing that the justice took; C: Halbrook would have lost nothing but at least gained respect (as well as the NRA) if he'd have taken an absolutist stance in arguing this case & D: as part of a strict constructionist view it should have been argued that the 2nd amendment does not confer a Right, but rather is specific in its prohibition against Congress (& DC is under the jurisdiction of Congress) passing laws that interfere with the Right to Arms.
But I'm admittedly only halfway through the opinion & these are just things I'm thinking off the top of my head.
Also a good friend related that Halbrook also screwed up in oral arguments by blowing off a question about the militia. I'll have to re-read the oral arguments to pinpoint what exactly happened, but my friend if usually reliable on things of this nature.
The case involving those two CATO attorneys is Parker v. District of Columbia. Here's their complaint
http://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs/gunsuit.pdf
I believe Walton is the residing judge in the Parker case, but I could very well be mistaken. Unfortunately I haven't heard anything substantial about Parker since they were successful in keeping the NRA from joining its case with theirs. I know the transcript is out, but haven't been able to track it down as of yet.
In general I'd say that Walton is not our friend. I'd also say that for those of you speculating if pressure has been or is being applied to SCOTUS & other courts to not rule against the government in 2nd amendment cases, I'd remind you that BUSH asked SCOTUS to not hear two cases a while back. One of those cases was Haney, which involved a challenge to the NFA. The other was Emerson of which I'm sure y'all are familiar.
In any case the decision sucks. It's grounded in faulty logic & legally it doesn't seem to be well reasoned. Like I said I'm onlu halfway through & I could probably pick apart the arguments on standing & ripeness in my sleep.
& I do believe that a direct appeal to SCOTUS is possible, but I could be mistaken & any appeal would go to the district appellate court.
But the big question is how will this affect Parker if at all?
Cool Hand Luke 22:36
member
DC2wheel:
Off topic but the Federal District was created to give the central government and it's employees a home free from the political interference of any State, not their own political jurisdiction having full Congressional representation.
You can always move to Md or Va if you want your full voting rights.
Off topic but the Federal District was created to give the central government and it's employees a home free from the political interference of any State, not their own political jurisdiction having full Congressional representation.
You can always move to Md or Va if you want your full voting rights.
Publicola,
I'm very aware of that quotation, but it is necessary to take it out of context to suggest it means Halbrook supports registration.
It is not a statement of what he thinks is good or bad. It merely is an explanation of the parameters of this particular case. The context -- as I posted above -- is that Halbrook stated that he plans to later attack registration.
As I stated above, waiting to attack registration until later is not the same thing as thinking it is "okey dokey."
Good reads:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/bk-ufire.html
http://www.guncite.com/journals/burframe.html
http://www.guncite.com/journals/shalideo.html
These post-modern, legal deconstructionist judges are just plain evil! There is no honest attempt to construct law based on the original intent of the author(s) of the Second Amendment. They are merely playing with semantics in order to accomplish their political agenda.
There were several drafts of the Second Amendment before they settled on a shorter version. Even a cursory reading of these drafts leave no doubt the original intent of the Second Amendment is to guard the individual's right to keep and bear arms. These liberal judges are intellectually dishonest, plain and simple. This kind of judicial behavior threatens the existence of our republic. The liberals know they don't have the power to actually change the Constitution, but they have the power to change the meaning of it. If the limitations of government can be reinterpreted by the government in order to usurp the rights of individuals, we are doomed to tyranny!
http://www.guncite.com/journals/bk-ufire.html
http://www.guncite.com/journals/burframe.html
http://www.guncite.com/journals/shalideo.html
These post-modern, legal deconstructionist judges are just plain evil! There is no honest attempt to construct law based on the original intent of the author(s) of the Second Amendment. They are merely playing with semantics in order to accomplish their political agenda.
There were several drafts of the Second Amendment before they settled on a shorter version. Even a cursory reading of these drafts leave no doubt the original intent of the Second Amendment is to guard the individual's right to keep and bear arms. These liberal judges are intellectually dishonest, plain and simple. This kind of judicial behavior threatens the existence of our republic. The liberals know they don't have the power to actually change the Constitution, but they have the power to change the meaning of it. If the limitations of government can be reinterpreted by the government in order to usurp the rights of individuals, we are doomed to tyranny!
Jim March
Member
Huh. It IS the NRA case.
OK, we knew both that and the "CATO case" (note the quotes, we all know what's really up) were going to get creamed at the trial court level. Looks like one of the defendants in the NRA case filed a summary judgement motion and won. Not surprising, Halbrook drew a REALLY bad judge.
Doesn't matter. Now they can appeal, and that was the whole point from day one regardless.
The CATO boys drew a better (somewhat, anyways) judge and just might win at the trial court level.
One of these cases should go all the way.
OK, we knew both that and the "CATO case" (note the quotes, we all know what's really up) were going to get creamed at the trial court level. Looks like one of the defendants in the NRA case filed a summary judgement motion and won. Not surprising, Halbrook drew a REALLY bad judge.
Doesn't matter. Now they can appeal, and that was the whole point from day one regardless.
The CATO boys drew a better (somewhat, anyways) judge and just might win at the trial court level.
One of these cases should go all the way.
Dischord,
It's not taken out of context. The judge asked a question. Halbrook answered.
In context Halbrook was saying that as far as he was concerned registration was okay. Outside the court he may have said antyhing else, but what was relevent to the court was his remarks in the oral argument.
Halbrook did not tell the judge that they weren't going to press registration at this time. He didn't mention that down the road they'd challenge it. He said registration was fine.
Now whether Halbrook supports registration outside the courtroom could be argued, but it's irrelevant.
What is relevant are the words he used in court that day which quite plainly said that registration was fine. they're in context & are not disputed. He said those words.
I don't care what Halbrook or the NRA plans to do in the next case, or in the next decade. That does not alter what they do now. It might cause people to think they've had a change of heart or idealogy, but the key word is change.
Once again, in context Halbrook argues that he is fine with registration. Outside the court he contradicted this, but where it counted he said registration was fine.
Now if you're cool with registration that's not a biggie. But the point is he did say that.
If a senator voted for the AWB & then said he'd vote against it if it came up again, would that alter his original vote at all?
If I told you I wanted to marry your daughter because she was wealthy, would it change things if I told her I wanted to marry her because I loved her?
So if you have faith in Halbrook's "strategy" that's one thing. I'll argue the merits of the alledged strategy with you if you wish. But his "strategy" simply does not alter what he said in court that day. It may well even be a part of the alledged strategy, but in context it clearly shows that at that point in time he did not have any problems he was willing to discuss concerning registration.
It's not taken out of context. The judge asked a question. Halbrook answered.
In context Halbrook was saying that as far as he was concerned registration was okay. Outside the court he may have said antyhing else, but what was relevent to the court was his remarks in the oral argument.
Halbrook did not tell the judge that they weren't going to press registration at this time. He didn't mention that down the road they'd challenge it. He said registration was fine.
Now whether Halbrook supports registration outside the courtroom could be argued, but it's irrelevant.
What is relevant are the words he used in court that day which quite plainly said that registration was fine. they're in context & are not disputed. He said those words.
I don't care what Halbrook or the NRA plans to do in the next case, or in the next decade. That does not alter what they do now. It might cause people to think they've had a change of heart or idealogy, but the key word is change.
Once again, in context Halbrook argues that he is fine with registration. Outside the court he contradicted this, but where it counted he said registration was fine.
Now if you're cool with registration that's not a biggie. But the point is he did say that.
If a senator voted for the AWB & then said he'd vote against it if it came up again, would that alter his original vote at all?
If I told you I wanted to marry your daughter because she was wealthy, would it change things if I told her I wanted to marry her because I loved her?
So if you have faith in Halbrook's "strategy" that's one thing. I'll argue the merits of the alledged strategy with you if you wish. But his "strategy" simply does not alter what he said in court that day. It may well even be a part of the alledged strategy, but in context it clearly shows that at that point in time he did not have any problems he was willing to discuss concerning registration.
- Status
