Flyboy
Member
Not true. DC would probably allow you to register an 1896 Mauser, seeing as how it has a fixed magazine.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Heller v. D.C - it's on AGAIN!
- Thread starter Cavalier Knight
- Start date
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
Flyboy
Member
I think you overdramatize. It didn't take military vehicles or a dramatic siege to integrate Little Rock Central High. A few troops--even Federal Marshals would do just fine, since it's just arresting one man--would make short work of the problem.Can you imagine seeing that on CNN? Military vehicles and troops rolling into the nation's capital. They declare martial law and remove the local gov't.
Can you even close your eyes and imagine seeing things on the news that you only ever saw go on it other countries far, far away? Things you saw when the wall fell, for example? Things that at the time you could never envision in your darkest dreams happening here?
When I close my eyes and imagine seeing such things, I get chills and my heart sinks to the pit or my stomach.
Gray Peterson
Member
You will have Circuit Courts doing the same thing. The 9th Circus won't willingly give up the ghost on the gun issue, IMHO, and when there's a disagreement between Circuits, the USSC will pretty much have to decide the issue.
I think you're wrong, Sam, at least when it comes to the "9th Circus".
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Nordyke_v._King
Read through the interlocutory appeal decision. Specifically:
The Ninth Circuit panel then turned to the merits of the Nordyke's First and Second Amendment claims. The panel held that on motion for permanent injunction, the Nordykes did not prevail in their first amendment claims. The court also rejected Nordyke's Second Amendment claims citing binding precedent from Hickman that only states have standing to bring Second Amendment claims. However, the panel strongly suggested (and Gould's concurrence stated plainly) that it did not believe that the previous Second Amendment rulings in Hickman and Silveira were good law.
The Judges in the panel, which are again getting this case, are Diarmud O'Scannlain, Ronald Gould, and Arhur Alarcon. O'Scannlain is from Oregon District, and Gould is from Western Washington district, two states with very strong RKBA provisions in their state constitutions, and strongly considered "progressive states with strong pro-gun leanings".
Mark my words, we will get incorporation in the 9th Circuit. The Heller ruling pretty much said that the two cases that held that Cruikshank and Presser decisions are bad case law on the level of the 19th century first amendment cases which declared the 1st amendment to not apply to the states.
What will happen when incorporation occurs in the 9th Circuit? This means that every CCW application, due to the fact that you can't open carry due to the presence of Penal Code 12031, has the possibility of being such a hot potato due to the whole "color of law" situation.
It *may* take a follow up lawsuit after wards, but after incorporation, any police officer who engages in "loaded gun" checks under PC12031, who abuses the 2nd amendment rights of citizens, will become PERSONALLY liable for civil rights violations, meaning we can file complaints with the US DOJ for civil rights violations, as well as sue them. Qualified immunity does NOT apply to civil rights violations, and we can hit these sheriff's offices and police chiefs where it hurts, their personal pocketbook.
California may not ever be as "free" as Oregon and Washington on gun issues, but I predict that 5 years after incorporation, California will have 1 to 2 million CCW holders versus 40,000 they currently have now. We may also have out of state licensees too (see Jim March's treatise on Ward v. Maryland), and I would encourage EVERY Arizonan, Nevadan, Oregonian, and Washingtonian to get a CCW in California once that happens.
We'd have to work VERY hard to make that happen, spread the word to our family members, have THEM apply for licenses and so on, but the more people who have licenses, the bigger the pool if the California Legislature ever tries to do anything stupid.
There's an old saying, that's repeated by the recent movie The Dark Knight. It's Always Darkest Before the Dawn, and that dawn was June 26th, 2008.
We need to stand by our brothers and sisters in California. I don't want to hear about any handwringing about "Kali" this and whining that the Supreme Court didn't go far enough. Never admit the faults of the opinions, just push that it's a basic fundamental right. Scalia gave us many weapons in our arsenal in this decision. Let's use it.
I also don't want to hear "Move out of California, it'll be better for you". All Californians need to stand and fight and quit running. Your liberation is at hand, us out of state folk are pulling for you, but the folks on the ground need to actively participate. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
-Lonnie Wilson
I think you're wrong, Sam, at least when it comes to the "9th Circus".
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Nordyke_v._King
Read through the interlocutory appeal decision. Specifically:
The Ninth Circuit panel then turned to the merits of the Nordyke's First and Second Amendment claims. The panel held that on motion for permanent injunction, the Nordykes did not prevail in their first amendment claims. The court also rejected Nordyke's Second Amendment claims citing binding precedent from Hickman that only states have standing to bring Second Amendment claims. However, the panel strongly suggested (and Gould's concurrence stated plainly) that it did not believe that the previous Second Amendment rulings in Hickman and Silveira were good law.
The Judges in the panel, which are again getting this case, are Diarmud O'Scannlain, Ronald Gould, and Arhur Alarcon. O'Scannlain is from Oregon District, and Gould is from Western Washington district, two states with very strong RKBA provisions in their state constitutions, and strongly considered "progressive states with strong pro-gun leanings".
Mark my words, we will get incorporation in the 9th Circuit. The Heller ruling pretty much said that the two cases that held that Cruikshank and Presser decisions are bad case law on the level of the 19th century first amendment cases which declared the 1st amendment to not apply to the states.
What will happen when incorporation occurs in the 9th Circuit? This means that every CCW application, due to the fact that you can't open carry due to the presence of Penal Code 12031, has the possibility of being such a hot potato due to the whole "color of law" situation.
It *may* take a follow up lawsuit after wards, but after incorporation, any police officer who engages in "loaded gun" checks under PC12031, who abuses the 2nd amendment rights of citizens, will become PERSONALLY liable for civil rights violations, meaning we can file complaints with the US DOJ for civil rights violations, as well as sue them. Qualified immunity does NOT apply to civil rights violations, and we can hit these sheriff's offices and police chiefs where it hurts, their personal pocketbook.
California may not ever be as "free" as Oregon and Washington on gun issues, but I predict that 5 years after incorporation, California will have 1 to 2 million CCW holders versus 40,000 they currently have now. We may also have out of state licensees too (see Jim March's treatise on Ward v. Maryland), and I would encourage EVERY Arizonan, Nevadan, Oregonian, and Washingtonian to get a CCW in California once that happens.
We'd have to work VERY hard to make that happen, spread the word to our family members, have THEM apply for licenses and so on, but the more people who have licenses, the bigger the pool if the California Legislature ever tries to do anything stupid.
There's an old saying, that's repeated by the recent movie The Dark Knight. It's Always Darkest Before the Dawn, and that dawn was June 26th, 2008.
We need to stand by our brothers and sisters in California. I don't want to hear about any handwringing about "Kali" this and whining that the Supreme Court didn't go far enough. Never admit the faults of the opinions, just push that it's a basic fundamental right. Scalia gave us many weapons in our arsenal in this decision. Let's use it.
I also don't want to hear "Move out of California, it'll be better for you". All Californians need to stand and fight and quit running. Your liberation is at hand, us out of state folk are pulling for you, but the folks on the ground need to actively participate. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
-Lonnie Wilson
Last edited:
I don't know if anyone noticed
But this guy...
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/urbina-bio.html
...was assigned to the new Heller suit. A '94 Clinton appointee who taught at Howard University. UUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! Most likely a liberal gun grabber.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/new-second-amendment-case-in-dc/
But this guy...
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/urbina-bio.html
...was assigned to the new Heller suit. A '94 Clinton appointee who taught at Howard University. UUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! Most likely a liberal gun grabber.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/new-second-amendment-case-in-dc/
Sam Adams
Member
Mark my words, we will get incorporation in the 9th Circuit.
Though I don't live there, I'd be tickled pink to be wrong. It'd actually restore some of my faith in judges - specifically, that they actually have above a 3rd grade level of reading comprehension, and that case law might even mean something to them for the 2nd Amendment. Let it be so.
Does it really matter? No matter what the does this will be appealed and there will be an appeals court ruling and there is a possibility that it will be appealed to and be heard by SCOTUS.
For the trial judge worst case is he ignores the Heller precedents and Heller appeals. So it matters little what he does in the long run. But he and the appeals court ARE bound by Heller and much of what the plaintives are asking for is covered by Heller even though some of it is new territory (registration and registration fees being fresh ground at least with respect to the 2nd amendment).
For the trial judge worst case is he ignores the Heller precedents and Heller appeals. So it matters little what he does in the long run. But he and the appeals court ARE bound by Heller and much of what the plaintives are asking for is covered by Heller even though some of it is new territory (registration and registration fees being fresh ground at least with respect to the 2nd amendment).
I think you're wrong, Sam, at least when it comes to the "9th Circus".
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...ordyke_v._King
Read through the interlocutory appeal decision. Specifically:
There are a significant number of judges in the 9th circuit who favor an individual rights reading of the 2nd amendment. It is not enough to be assured that they will prevail in any and all cases but remember that Heller is binding and these lower courts must follow it. If the Nordyke v. King panel rules that the 2nd amendment is incorporated then this ruling is binding on the 9th circuit and thus the final word in all subsequent cases in the 9th circuit until an en blanc panel or SCOTUS rules otherwise.
wacki
Member
Lonnie Wilson said:I think you're wrong, Sam, at least when it comes to the "9th Circus".
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...ordyke_v._King
Read through the interlocutory appeal decision. Specifically:
The Ninth Circuit panel then turned to the merits of the Nordyke's First and Second Amendment claims. The panel held that on motion for permanent injunction, the Nordykes did not prevail in their first amendment claims. The court also rejected Nordyke's Second Amendment claims citing binding precedent from Hickman that only states have standing to bring Second Amendment claims. However, the panel strongly suggested (and Gould's concurrence stated plainly) that it did not believe that the previous Second Amendment rulings in Hickman and Silveira were good law.
The Judges in the panel, which are again getting this case, are Diarmud O'Scannlain, Ronald Gould, and Arhur Alarcon. O'Scannlain is from Oregon District, and Gould is from Western Washington district, two states with very strong RKBA provisions in their state constitutions, and strongly considered "progressive states with strong pro-gun leanings".
Mark my words, we will get incorporation in the 9th Circuit. The Heller ruling pretty much said that the two cases that held that Cruikshank and Presser decisions are bad case law on the level of the 19th century first amendment cases which declared the 1st amendment to not apply to the states.
What will happen when incorporation occurs in the 9th Circuit? This means that every CCW application, due to the fact that you can't open carry due to the presence of Penal Code 12031, has the possibility of being such a hot potato due to the whole "color of law" situation.
It *may* take a follow up lawsuit after wards, but after incorporation, any police officer who engages in "loaded gun" checks under PC12031, who abuses the 2nd amendment rights of citizens, will become PERSONALLY liable for civil rights violations, meaning we can file complaints with the US DOJ for civil rights violations, as well as sue them. Qualified immunity does NOT apply to civil rights violations, and we can hit these sheriff's offices and police chiefs where it hurts, their personal pocketbook.
California may not ever be as "free" as Oregon and Washington on gun issues, but I predict that 5 years after incorporation, California will have 1 to 2 million CCW holders versus 40,000 they currently have now. We may also have out of state licensees too (see Jim March's treatise on Ward v. Maryland), and I would encourage EVERY Arizonan, Nevadan, Oregonian, and Washingtonian to get a CCW in California once that happens.
We'd have to work VERY hard to make that happen, spread the word to our family members, have THEM apply for licenses and so on, but the more people who have licenses, the bigger the pool if the California Legislature ever tries to do anything stupid.
There's an old saying, that's repeated by the recent movie The Dark Knight. It's Always Darkest Before the Dawn, and that dawn was June 26th, 2008.
We need to stand by our brothers and sisters in California. I don't want to hear about any handwringing about "Kali" this and whining that the Supreme Court didn't go far enough. Never admit the faults of the opinions, just push that it's a basic fundamental right. Scalia gave us many weapons in our arsenal in this decision. Let's use it.
I also don't want to hear "Move out of California, it'll be better for you". All Californians need to stand and fight and quit running. Your liberation is at hand, us out of state folk are pulling for you, but the folks on the ground need to actively participate. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
-Lonnie Wilson
Awesome post
Can you imagine seeing that on CNN? Military vehicles and troops rolling into the nation's capital.
It's happened before... When Herbert Hoover ordered troops, including tanks, into D.C to eject vets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army.
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 1K
- Locked
- Replies
- 25
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 599