User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 4:40:31 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82:
FIFY. Predicting some votes on the USSC is akin to fortune telling. Some Justices you can presume will be on our side, some (Ginsburg especially) you can count on to be wrong consistently. Roberts and Kennedy... toss up. I'd like to think that they base their decisions on the arguments actually presented, but Roberts's Obungocare opinion throws a wrench into that line of thinking. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
I have not read them..I am sorry. No need to be sorry. Most people have not read it and yet they believe they know what it says. Read the opinion. Find out what it says about the " ... central component ..." of the Second Amendment. Then ask yourself the other questions. When you get the answers you'll be miles ahead of many people when it comes to answering the question of how he would may possibly vote if these cases ever reached the court. FIFY. Predicting some votes on the USSC is akin to fortune telling. Some Justices you can presume will be on our side, some (Ginsburg especially) you can count on to be wrong consistently. Roberts and Kennedy... toss up. I'd like to think that they base their decisions on the arguments actually presented, but Roberts's Obungocare opinion throws a wrench into that line of thinking. Precisely. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 7:17:08 PM EDT
[#2]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:44:22 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
The NFA is a tax statute which is why it is codified in Title 26. The Hughes amendment is not part of the NFA, which is why it is not codified in Title 26. It's impossible to take people seriously when they haven't even read the statutes on which they are giving opinions. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By GuardianAgent:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By GuardianAgent:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Read the Heller opinion carefully. The answer to your question is there. Read the Obamacare opinion carefully. NFA is all based on the Commerce Clause. Roberts has already stated his opinion on how Congress has utilized the Commerce Clause. 
The NFA is a tax statute. It is not based on the commerce clause. NFA, as amended, is both. The Hughes Amendment is not a tax. The NFA is a tax statute which is why it is codified in Title 26. The Hughes amendment is not part of the NFA, which is why it is not codified in Title 26. It's impossible to take people seriously when they haven't even read the statutes on which they are giving opinions. I've been quoted line and verse of many laws by Sovereign Citizens types. I rarely take them or their opinions seriously. What's your deal here man? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:46:03 PM EDT
[#4]
Nolo,
I'm looking at my lifetime NRA voting ballot right now...any advice on who to vote for or not vote for? Thanks Wes |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 9:02:03 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wangstang:
Nolo, I'm looking at my lifetime NRA voting ballot right now...any advice on who to vote for or not vote for? Thanks Wes Do NOT vote for John K. Brown. He is a backstabbing fuckstick that needs to be drummed out of gunownership. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 10:02:40 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
It will probably look almost exactly like the other one with some added verbiage about the confiscated MG. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
What is the response in PA like? Any previews? So where do we go from here? Is their a road map I can find that lays out the steps that case makes? Any reason this would end up with only the states in the distinct and those state only have legal post 86 MG? Would the 14th Amendment prevent this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 11:37:02 PM EDT
[#7]
Bump.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 11:38:30 PM EDT
[#8]
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 11:59:37 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryI am eating Panda Express as I looked at that...So much fucking win. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 12:20:08 AM EDT
[#10]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 12:21:32 AM EDT
[#11]
Reading now. When do you expect to get a hearing?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 12:36:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Saladman]
[#12]
Maybe I'm not used to BATFE legalese, but it sure seems like they keep saying, "yes these people have a case but you should throw it out because we said so." over and over, and over.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 12:38:41 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: https://www.scribd.com/doc/254246775/13-1-Brief-in-Opposition-to-Def-Motion-to-Dismiss i will say this Nolo, your the first person to actually get me interested in the technical side of law EVER. keep it going!! and i look forward to an explanation, mainly to confirm/clear my understanding  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 12:50:40 AM EDT
[#14]
It is quite clear that the purpose of the intended statutes was not a form of gun control, but rather to ensure that the militia was equipped with high quality firearms for the efficient defense of the nation. Surely if a militiaman had shown up for battle in the eighteenth century carrying a modern machine gun, his commander would not have invoked one of the cited statutes to berate the man! Furthermore, all of the quoted statutes merely require quality arms for militia service, and none prohibit the possession of any arms that would not meet the militia’s[span style='word-spacing: -1px;'] quality standards outside of militia service.[span style='font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;'] <o:p></o:p> Loved that one
 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 1:00:13 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By D_Man: Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By D_Man: It is quite clear that thepurpose of the intended statutes was not a form of gun control, but rather toensure that the militia was equipped with high quality firearms for the efficientdefense of the nation. Surely if a militiaman had shown up for battlein the eighteenth centurycarrying a modern machine gun, his commander would not have invoked one of thecited statutes to berate the man! Furthermore, all of the quoted statutes merelyrequire quality arms for militiaservice, and none prohibit the possession of any arms that would not meet the militia’s[span style='word-spacing: -1px;'] quality standards outside of militia service.[span style='font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;']<o:p></o:p> Loved that one  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 1:02:00 AM EDT
[#16]
I was hoping it would detail out the list of individuals who have approved post '86 machine guns. You hinted that was coming soon.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 1:27:21 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By medicmandan:
I was hoping it would detail out the list of individuals who have approved post '86 machine guns. You hinted that was coming soon. I did. This brief does not. Texas will. Please bear with me. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 1:27:53 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By medicmandan:
Reading now. When do you expect to get a hearing? oral argument was not requested in PA. I will request it when I file in Texas. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 1:50:46 AM EDT
[#19]
I wonder if it would help to bring up the government's solicitation for "5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense" from a few years back. We aren't asking for evil baby killer machine guns. We are asking for personal defense weapons. The Government even said so: solicitation
|
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 2:27:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: kronus92]
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/254246775/13-1-Brief-in-Opposition-to-Def-Motion-to-Dismiss Love it. Sending what money I can. Edit: Well, I'll send money when you need some more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 2:31:18 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By D_Man:
Loved that one
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By D_Man:
It is quite clear that thepurpose of the intended statutes was not a form of gun control, but rather toensure that the militia was equipped with high quality firearms for the efficientdefense of the nation. Surely if a militiaman had shown up for battlein the eighteenth centurycarrying a modern machine gun, his commander would not have invoked one of thecited statutes to berate the man! Furthermore, all of the quoted statutes merelyrequire quality arms for militiaservice, and none prohibit the possession of any arms that would not meet the militia’s[span style='word-spacing: -1px;'] quality standards outside of militia service.[span style='font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;']<o:p></o:p>
Loved that one
Would these statutes apply in this case? (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 (under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps), under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are: (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. - US Code Title 10 Subtitle A Part 1 Chapter 13 Section 311: Militia: Composition and Classes (relevant language of section 313 of title 32 inserted) a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty: (1) The Vice President. (2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. (3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty. (4) Customhouse clerks. (5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail. (6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States. (7) Pilots on navigable waters. (8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States. (b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant. - US Code Title 10 Subtitle A Part 1 Chapter 13 Section 312: Militia Duty: Exemptions Unless these US Codes are no longer valid, but if they are, I think they would be good ammo for argument. Basically spells out who is in the militia and who isn't. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 2:43:33 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: I did. This brief does not. Texas will. Please bear with me. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: Originally Posted By medicmandan: I was hoping it would detail out the list of individuals who have approved post '86 machine guns. You hinted that was coming soon. I did. This brief does not. Texas will. Please bear with me. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 2:47:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: david05111]
[#23]
delete
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 2:53:07 AM EDT
[#24]
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 3:10:05 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Saladman:
Maybe I'm not used to BATFE legalese, but it sure seems like they keep saying, "yes these people have a case but you should throw it out because we said so." over and over, and over. That is the sum of it... |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 3:24:49 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
I did. This brief does not. Texas will. Please bear with me. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By medicmandan:
I was hoping it would detail out the list of individuals who have approved post '86 machine guns. You hinted that was coming soon. I did. This brief does not. Texas will. Please bear with me. So in other words...Soon? |
|
|
IL, USA
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 3:33:40 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/254246775/13-1-Brief-in-Opposition-to-Def-Motion-to-Dismiss Very nice! I'm enjoying this a lot!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 3:37:57 AM EDT
[#28]
When I try to donate it says:
Donations are Complete! The organizer has stopped donations. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 3:38:41 AM EDT
[#29]
lots of good reading
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 3:40:35 AM EDT
[#30]
Where do we make donations? Do we mail them directly to your firm? Online?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 3:44:15 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tankdawg0057:
Would these statutes apply in this case? (a) The [span style='font-weight: bold;']militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 (under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps), under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are: (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. - US Code Title 10 Subtitle A Part 1 Chapter 13 Section 311: Militia: Composition and Classes (relevant language of section 313 of title 32 inserted) a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty: (1) The Vice President. (2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. (3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty. (4) Customhouse clerks. (5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail. (6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States. (7) Pilots on navigable waters. (8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States. (b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant. - US Code Title 10 Subtitle A Part 1 Chapter 13 Section 312: Militia Duty: Exemptions Unless these US Codes are no longer valid, but if they are, I think they would be good ammo for argument. Basically spells out who is in the militia and who isn't. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tankdawg0057:
Originally Posted By D_Man:
It is quite clear that thepurpose of the intended statutes was not a form of gun control, but rather toensure that the militia was equipped with high quality firearms for the efficientdefense of the nation. Surely if a militiaman had shown up for battlein the eighteenth centurycarrying a modern machine gun, his commander would not have invoked one of thecited statutes to berate the man! Furthermore, all of the quoted statutes merelyrequire quality arms for militiaservice, and none prohibit the possession of any arms that would not meet the militia’s quality standards outside of militia service.[span style='font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;']<o:p></o:p>
Loved that one
Would these statutes apply in this case? (a) The [span style='font-weight: bold;']militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 (under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps), under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are: (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. - US Code Title 10 Subtitle A Part 1 Chapter 13 Section 311: Militia: Composition and Classes (relevant language of section 313 of title 32 inserted) a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty: (1) The Vice President. (2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. (3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty. (4) Customhouse clerks. (5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail. (6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States. (7) Pilots on navigable waters. (8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States. (b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant. - US Code Title 10 Subtitle A Part 1 Chapter 13 Section 312: Militia Duty: Exemptions Unless these US Codes are no longer valid, but if they are, I think they would be good ammo for argument. Basically spells out who is in the militia and who isn't. Huh, well I just learned something new. When you sign up for a four year hitch they do mention an additional four years of IRR is part of it, but I never knew that you also obligated an additional 19 years in the unorganized militia (not that I would have let that 45 year limit stop me if shit was to the point of calling up the UM, but still there it is.) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 3:48:06 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Please bear with me. 
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 3:54:11 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
I did. This brief does not. Texas will. Please bear with me. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By medicmandan:
I was hoping it would detail out the list of individuals who have approved post '86 machine guns. You hinted that was coming soon. I did. This brief does not. Texas will. Please bear with me. Any ETA on that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 4:20:28 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SlayerofFudds: Any ETA on that? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SlayerofFudds: Originally Posted By NoloContendere: Originally Posted By medicmandan: I was hoping it would detail out the list of individuals who have approved post '86 machine guns. You hinted that was coming soon. I did. This brief does not. Texas will. Please bear with me. Any ETA on that?  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 4:49:19 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/254246775/13-1-Brief-in-Opposition-to-Def-Motion-to-Dismiss NOLO...did I help with 13-17? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 5:22:59 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By armstrong001:
I wonder if it would help to bring up the government's solicitation for "5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense" from a few years back. We aren't asking for evil baby killer machine guns. We are asking for personal defense weapons. The Government even said so: solicitation Good point! And Nolo - that brief is superb... really chewed up DoJ's lame arguments. Of course, I admit to a certain predisposition on the issues. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 5:29:27 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tankdawg0057:
Would these statutes apply in this case? (a) The [span style='font-weight: bold;']militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 (under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps), under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are: (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. - US Code Title 10 Subtitle A Part 1 Chapter 13 Section 311: Militia: Composition and Classes (relevant language of section 313 of title 32 inserted) a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty: (1) The Vice President. (2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. (3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty. (4) Customhouse clerks. (5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail. (6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States. (7) Pilots on navigable waters. (8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States. (b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant. - US Code Title 10 Subtitle A Part 1 Chapter 13 Section 312: Militia Duty: Exemptions Unless these US Codes are no longer valid, but if they are, I think they would be good ammo for argument. Basically spells out who is in the militia and who isn't. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tankdawg0057:
Originally Posted By D_Man:
It is quite clear that thepurpose of the intended statutes was not a form of gun control, but rather toensure that the militia was equipped with high quality firearms for the efficientdefense of the nation. Surely if a militiaman had shown up for battlein the eighteenth centurycarrying a modern machine gun, his commander would not have invoked one of thecited statutes to berate the man! Furthermore, all of the quoted statutes merelyrequire quality arms for militiaservice, and none prohibit the possession of any arms that would not meet the militia’s quality standards outside of militia service.[span style='font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;']<o:p></o:p>
Loved that one
Would these statutes apply in this case? (a) The [span style='font-weight: bold;']militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 (under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps), under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are: (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. - US Code Title 10 Subtitle A Part 1 Chapter 13 Section 311: Militia: Composition and Classes (relevant language of section 313 of title 32 inserted) a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty: (1) The Vice President. (2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. (3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty. (4) Customhouse clerks. (5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail. (6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States. (7) Pilots on navigable waters. (8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States. (b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant. - US Code Title 10 Subtitle A Part 1 Chapter 13 Section 312: Militia Duty: Exemptions Unless these US Codes are no longer valid, but if they are, I think they would be good ammo for argument. Basically spells out who is in the militia and who isn't. Better, I think, to go back to the writings of George Mason during the debates on ratification of the BoR. He defined the militia as "the whole of the people, except for a few Government officials." Those are also the words he used when writing the 2A analog in the Virginia Constitution, which remains to this day. You can't get more originalist than that. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 5:49:42 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/254246775/13-1-Brief-in-Opposition-to-Def-Motion-to-Dismiss 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 7:00:22 AM EDT
[#39]
Read it, and very fine document sir!
You must be a damn fine attorney, I can't see from that brief how they even have a leg to stand on! If I ever get in trouble I know who I'm calling. Lol |
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 7:26:28 AM EDT
[#40]
Excellent read. I only hope this takes things so far as to remove the 1986 ban, and not just end up with amnesty for the 2 that were approved.
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 8:20:26 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82:
FIFY. Predicting some votes on the USSC is akin to fortune telling. Some Justices you can presume will be on our side, some (Ginsburg especially) you can count on to be wrong consistently. Roberts and Kennedy... toss up. I'd like to think that they base their decisions on the arguments actually presented, but Roberts's Obungocare opinion throws a wrench into that line of thinking. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
I have not read them..I am sorry. No need to be sorry. Most people have not read it and yet they believe they know what it says. Read the opinion. Find out what it says about the " ... central component ..." of the Second Amendment. Then ask yourself the other questions. When you get the answers you'll be miles ahead of many people when it comes to answering the question of how he would may possibly vote if these cases ever reached the court. FIFY. Predicting some votes on the USSC is akin to fortune telling. Some Justices you can presume will be on our side, some (Ginsburg especially) you can count on to be wrong consistently. Roberts and Kennedy... toss up. I'd like to think that they base their decisions on the arguments actually presented, but Roberts's Obungocare opinion throws a wrench into that line of thinking. Perhaps you would like to tell us why the language making self-defense the " ... central component ... " of the Second Amendment is in the opinion. It certainly doesn't have to be there. All that was required was a statement that self-defense was ONE of the reasons for codifying the right (or A "central component" of the right in order to find that the D.C. ordinance violated the Constitution. Instead, the opinion recognizes a new basis for the RKBA - self-defense and then makes it the most important reason for the right. That is no accident. Of course, if the CJ did not approve of that language he could have reassigned the case.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 9:38:03 AM EDT
[#42]
Judging by what I just read almost every facet of argument the atf had was proved wrong. They have no legs to stand on great read and awesome response.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 10:21:16 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By poorman:
When I try to donate it says: Donations are Complete! The organizer has stopped donations. Nolo halted donations for now. They have enough funds to proceed at this level. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 10:28:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: wmjlar15]
[#44]
Any news about that "SOON" list of post 86 mg? Also again I've got to hand it to you NOLO that is an excellent brief/response.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 10:33:10 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/slow_clap_citizen_kane.gif Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/254246775/13-1-Brief-in-Opposition-to-Def-Motion-to-Dismiss http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/slow_clap_citizen_kane.gif This. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 10:47:39 AM EDT
[#46]
When these cases are WON will it have any effect on denied machine guns on FORM 1's up until the day it's ruled in NOLO's favor, kind of a grandfather thing in case congress critters slip something into law real fast when they LOSE. Basically I'm asking I was denied in Sept and Aug '14 and I'm sure there are others, if these cases are WON is there any type of law that would force the ATF to approve the denied applications regardless of state in which they were filed? I also was trying to figure out if submitting another FORM 1 MG would hurt right now?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 11:11:49 AM EDT
[#47]
The entire time I was reading that, all I could see was Captain America looking at Nolo and saying, "Nolo, smash."
Although I have to ask - how much of that was Nolo, and how much was David R. Scott?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 11:16:14 AM EDT
[#48]
Mr Scott esq. is one hell of an writer. I hope this goes well.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 11:17:53 AM EDT
[#49]
I want action NOW.
 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 11:26:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: FlyingGorilla]
[#50]
I said when this started that ATF had given our side the tools to dismantle Hughes and possibly the NFA. It certainly looks like our side is using those tools most proficiently.
I look forward to seeing the Texas filing. With a list of post '86 approvals that one should be some very entertaining reading. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
