Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/16/2001 3:08:06 PM EDT
Since we now if differing district court opinions of the of the 2nd amendment, the Attorney General can request a clarification from the SCOTUS. Since AG Ashcroft’s Justice Department holds that the 2nd applies to an individual right, his “friend of the court” brief would support the 5th district court. With the US JD, the 5th’s ruling, NRA, etc, we would stand a good chance of a positive ruling… Then we could start overturning the unconstitutional laws (AW ban, NFA, etc) What do you think??? Am I all wet?
Link Posted: 10/16/2001 3:23:01 PM EDT
The individual right rules, as stated in the courts ruling, really has little effect on the laws. Emerson needs to appeal this to the US Spreme Court and have them rule 100% in his favor. This ruling actually supports most of the laws that we view as unconstitutional, as they said they seen no problem with the Texas state law which can deny a person the right to keep and bear arms, even though no direct evidence has been shown. It states that the law meets the minimum requirements because it has a clauses stating someone must fear that they are in danger of being harmed and that the Appeals Court assumed the Congress would assume that all of the courts in Texas would not issue a restraining order, if there wasn't some fear of danger. So the bottom line is the Appeals court says it's perfectly OK for you to be stripped of all your gun rights if someone fears you will hurt them.
Link Posted: 10/16/2001 5:56:53 PM EDT
I disagree.
"There must be a likelihood that irreparable harm will occur. Speculative injury is not sufficient; there must be more than an unfounded fear on the part of the applicant. Thus, a preliminary injunction will not be issued simply to prevent the possibility of some remote future injury. A presently existing actual threat must be shown. However, the injury need not have been inflicted when application is made or be certain to occur; a strong threat of irreparable injury before trial is an adequate basis." 9 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2948.1 at 153-56 (footnotes omitted; emphasis added).
View Quote
Since Emerson did not contest the death threats made by him against his wife, the court ruled that "a strong threat of irreparable injury" existed. They felt this was enough to "infringe" on his constitutional rights (I don't agree). However, the farther reaching implications of this ruling are that the 2nd is an individual right. Now we need to use the shotgun approach to over turn the laws that infringe on our rights.
Link Posted: 10/16/2001 6:00:48 PM EDT
Yup, it's time to challenge all the gun laws in all 50 states simultaneously. We can now maybe to do the antis what they tried to do to the gun industry. A house divided upon itself cannot stand.
Link Posted: 10/16/2001 10:09:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By trickshot: Yup, it's time to challenge all the gun laws in all 50 states simultaneously. We can now maybe to do the antis what they tried to do to the gun industry. A house divided upon itself cannot stand.
View Quote
Yup, and I'd say there's no better time than right now.
Link Posted: 10/16/2001 10:20:56 PM EDT
Can we please start in California? [thinking]
Link Posted: 10/16/2001 11:30:32 PM EDT
Sounds like it will just be business as usual to me.
Top Top