Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 10/18/2001 7:20:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/18/2001 7:15:27 PM EST by USNvet]
Having read other opinions in the forum that left me with the feeling that all this waiting for Emerson was for naught, here's a guy who thinks we're headed for SCOTUS. Let's hope he's right: [url]http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2687[/url]
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 9:17:51 PM EST
I read the article. And although I agree with him on many points, I think his faith in a SCOTUS decision is misplaced. The 5th did go far to back-up their (and our) interpretation of the 2nd, but just because one circuit went for the individual rights theory, don't go throwing a party yet. Mr. Lankford seemd to believe the SCOTUS will hear the case, apply the individual rights theory, and reverse on the due process grounds. I think the dissent touched on a far more likely scenario. Namely, that the SCOTUS could hear the case and affirm the 5th Circuit ruling. In other words, adopting the individual rights theory, but affording that individual right such a low level of scrutiny almost any legislation would pass constitutional muster. Just because you have an individual right does not mean that right is whats known as a "fundamental right" and subject to strict (constitutional) scrutiny. The lowest level of constitutional scrutiny (rational basis) can be applied to an individual right under the right circumstances. Under this low level of scrutiny, almost any federal legislation can survive if it is rationally related to a legitimate gov't interest. So to bottom line it, the SCOTUS could easily say, "yes there is an individual right", but apply such low scrutiny as to make that individual right subject to any legislation that comes down the pike. The other problem is that whatever limited scope that individual right has, its still only good against the federal gov't. The second amendment still has not been incorporated to the states through the 14th amendment so the states are still free to legislate without consideration to the 2nd amendment. The thing about Emmerson, however, is that it may pave the way for the next big battle for incorporation of the 2nd amendment.
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 4:44:19 AM EST
here's a link to the case if anyone is interested: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331-cr0.htm
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 8:13:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/21/2001 8:07:56 AM EST by stator]
Someone asked whether the Emerson case was at least a field goal from a football analogy perspective. I said it wasn't. It is basically a first down early in a long drive to score (hopefully). Basically, Timothy Emerson does appear to be a guy with some judgement problems regarding guns and threats. He is not the guy any pro-2nd would want to represent us in SCOTUS. Even the fifth circuit judges who feel that the 2nd is an individual right felt that Timothy's conduct was severe enough not allow him to have a gun under a restraining order. To move forward, we need to have another case with defendants who have more morality than Timothy. This new case exploit this court's ruling and also be backed by angel investors like the NRA. It will probably take a half of million in costs to go before SCOTUS and argue. Because of these costs, we need an agressive group of lawyers like the ACLU but soley for gun rights. These types are nowhere to be found so far. The NRA hates lawsuits and commits money in very conservative amounts. Instead, they prefer commiting resources to legislative efforts. I just see many pro-gun organizations that put far to much effort in seeking donations but no real return for our money besides websites and alerts. Simply put, we are not just poorly organized but ineffectively organzied. So if you are looking for a score, this must be resolved IMO. Still a life member though.
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 9:13:56 AM EST
It will be a difficult task to find a defendant of high moral character. People of high moral character rarely run afoul of the law. It is not up to any of us to decide whether or not Emerson should appeal to the Supreme Court. That’s his decision. Should he do so, the current Supreme Court is the one he and we would rather have hearing the case. A new case would take years to make it to the top.
Link Posted: 10/22/2001 4:24:44 PM EST
Find one being difficult is not true. You've not been watching NRAlive nor the news about SKS buyback in PRK. There a many moral, upstanding citizens whose 2nd amendment and 5th amendment rights were violated. The problem with the NRA is they don't carry the legal case in as much as looking for PR and donations. Furthermore, Timothy Emerson is far too less of a moral character to represent us in SCOTUS. You need to read the court docs. Timothy was basically very unstable while going through the divorce. This is the main reason why Timothy was resoundingly defeated by two very pro-gun judges. Read that last sentence again and let it sink in. And, yes, I do agree that starting over again will take a long time. There is no other choice however.
Link Posted: 10/23/2001 12:34:23 AM EST
stator, Emerson isn't "representing" us. He, or rather his attorneys, are representing Emerson. Period. End of discussion. He makes the decisions, not some unknown collective group you call "us." Starting over isn't your choice to make either. What exactly are you planning to do if he does appeal?
Link Posted: 10/24/2001 12:05:42 AM EST
Originally Posted By stator: Because of these costs, we need an agressive group of lawyers like the ACLU but soley for gun rights. These types are nowhere to be found so far.
View Quote
This is what the Second Amendment Foundation is about.
Link Posted: 10/24/2001 4:45:23 PM EST
Originally Posted By Dave_G: People of high moral character rarely run afoul of the law.
View Quote
Somehow this sounds to me a bit like "Nazi's of high moral character rarely disobey their orders." Perhaps there comes a point where one's high moral character [i]requires[/i] one to run afoul of the law. (This is not to imply that [i]I[/i] have high moral character.)
Link Posted: 10/24/2001 5:52:47 PM EST
Hey Fuzz, It's simply a statement of fact. Your reputation remains...err...intact? [;)]
Top Top