The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting American Big Game Hunting dc appealscourtGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| dc appealscourt | Login/Join |
| One of Us |
the dc appeals court has refused to rehear the case which leaves their former ruling stand, next step will be supreme court, if they will hear it | ||
|
one of us |
It will only be heard by the Supremes if the District appeals the decision to them. Frank "I don't know what there is about buffalo that frightens me so.....He looks like he hates you personally. He looks like you owe him money." - Robert Ruark, Horn of the Hunter, 1953 NRA Life, SAF Life, CRPA Life, DRSS lite | |||
|
| One of Us |
yes the district must appeal to get to the highest level, and that might be questionable. as it stands now the only place the appeals court judgement holds in in DC. if the supreme court would hear it and agree, then it would become the law of the land. who knows?? we can hope  | |||
|
| one of us |
OK, I'll bite--What law suit? | |||
|
| One of Us |
dc was sued that their antigun laws violated the constitution and the appeals court said that they did, and in doing so their decision essentially said that almost all the antigun laws are indeed unconstitutional | |||
|
| one of us |
Parker versus the District of Columbia Parker and others sued the District of Columbia saying that the law requiring them to obtain a pistol permit to own a handgun in their home (that is never granted to ordinary citizens) was unconstitutional. They also sued the District on the requirement that all long guns be stored disassembled and locked up. The 1st US District court (three judge panel) ruled the laws of DC were unconstitutional and most importantly that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right. The entire First District court just recently refused to hear DC's appeal of the three judges decision so the decision stands in the first district. If the District of Columbia appeals this decision it would have to go to the US Supreme Court and set up the battle over the Second Amendment. This is because the 9th District Court of Appeals (San Fancisco) had previously ruled that the Second Amendment was a collective right, not an individual right. I'm doing this from memory so any lawyers on here feel free to correct it if I messed it up. Frank "I don't know what there is about buffalo that frightens me so.....He looks like he hates you personally. He looks like you owe him money." - Robert Ruark, Horn of the Hunter, 1953 NRA Life, SAF Life, CRPA Life, DRSS lite | |||
|
| One of Us |
Actually if I remember my constitutional law and supreme court proceedures correctly the case being HEARD by the Supreme court is optional, BUT ruling on it is NOT optional. Two circuits in opposition MUST be ruled on. They can Refuse to hear the case AND uphold the 1st circuit ruling OR they can "hear" the case and listen to arguements... If they uphold the ruling and refuse to hear arguments about it the issue is just as dead, and just as FOREVER as if they hear arguements and rule on it. But they can't refuse to rule with two diametrically opposite circuit court rulings. This is the "poster child" situation for the entire exisistance of the supreme court. and with the current makup of the court there is little doubt of the outcome of the courts ruling. AllanD If I provoke you into thinking then I've done my good deed for the day! Those who manage to provoke themselves into other activities have only themselves to blame. *We Band of 45-70er's* 35 year Life Member of the NRA NRA Life Member since 1984 | |||
|
| One of Us |
Well, sort of. If DC appeals, and I haven't followed the news there closely enough to know whether that is in the offing, the next question is whether the Supremes agree to hear the case (that is, consider the appeal.) This is called "granting certiorari." If they do not, the ruling stands and will have binding precedential value only in the Federal First Circuit (the District of Columbia) and may be cited by other Federal Circuits and state courts for advisory precedent (ie: it is valued for being a Federal appellate court ruling on a Constitutional question, but does not bind the courts in other jurisdictions in their decision-making.) If the Supremes grant certiorari and decide on the legal issues brought in the suit, they ought (because of appellate rules of decion-making) to decide the issues on the narrowest grounds possible. In other words, while the case could produce the first significant interpretation of the Second Amendment in over seventy years, it probably won't. On the other hand (for lawyers there's always another hand) whichever justice is assigned the opinion might like to take the opportunity to grant a sweeping, earth-shattering opinion that gives folks something to talk about. Scalia did that in the Crawford decision a couple years ago and upended decades of very settled law on what is and is not admissible hearsay evidence. So, who knows? | |||
|
One of Us |
When did the 9th circuit rule it was a collective right? Mike Legistine actu quod scripsi? Never under estimate the internet community's ability to reply to your post with their personal rant about their tangentially related, single occurrence issue.  What I have learned on AR, since 2001: 1. The proper answer to: Where is the best place in town to get a steak dinner? is…You should go to Mel's Diner and get the fried chicken. 2. Big game animals can tell the difference between .015 of an inch in diameter, 15 grains of bullet weight, and 150 fps. 3. There is a difference in the performance of two identical projectiles launched at the same velocity if they came from different cartridges. 4. While a double rifle is the perfect DGR, every 375HH bolt gun needs to be modified to carry at least 5 down. 5. While a floor plate and detachable box magazine both use a mechanical latch, only the floor plate latch is reliable. Disregard the fact that every modern military rifle uses a detachable box magazine. 6. The Remington 700 is unreliable regardless of the fact it is the basis of the USMC M40 sniper rifle for 40+ years with no changes to the receiver or extractor and is the choice of more military and law enforcement sniper units than any other rifle. 7. PF actions are not suitable for a DGR and it is irrelevant that the M1, M14, M16, & AK47 which were designed for hunting men that can shoot back are all PF actions. 8. 95 deg F in Africa is different than 95 deg F in TX or CA and that is why you must worry about ammunition temperature in Africa (even though most safaris take place in winter) but not in TX or in CA. 9. The size of a ding in a gun's finish doesn't matter, what matters is whether it’s a safe ding or not. 10. 1 in a row is a trend, 2 in a row is statistically significant, and 3 in a row is an irrefutable fact. 11. Never buy a WSM or RCM cartridge for a safari rifle or your go to rifle in the USA because if they lose your ammo you can't find replacement ammo but don't worry 280 Rem, 338-06, 35 Whelen, and all Weatherby cartridges abound in Africa and back country stores. 12. A well hit animal can run 75 yds. in the open and suddenly drop with no initial blood trail, but the one I shot from 200 yds. away that ran 10 yds. and disappeared into a thicket and was not found was lost because the bullet penciled thru. I am 100% certain of this even though I have no physical evidence. 13. A 300 Win Mag is a 500 yard elk cartridge but a 308 Win is not a 300 yard elk cartridge even though the same bullet is travelling at the same velocity at those respective distances. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I'm not familiar with the reference, Mike. (I do criminal law for a living, not civil liberties-- except where the two overlap.) Certainly one theory of interpretation of the Second Amendment is that the public as a whole has the right to ownership of firearms ("a well-regulated militia.") The theory of protection of individual ownership of firearms is, in my view anyway, based more on historical context in the drafting of the amendment and commonly-accepted interpretation over the years. I think most people now would really prefer that the Second Amendment were drafted a little more clearly (ie: "Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed in such a way as to inhibit the private ownership of firearms.") But if there were no ambiguity in the law, a lot of lawyers would have to go find honest work! | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia