Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 2/11/2006 7:40:26 PM EDT
glenn_r and FMD, have either of you read this? NRA brief State v. Fisher

Anyone else?

Does anyone think it will help Fisher? Open for debate.
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 8:18:21 PM EDT
A quick reading shows it makes two basic arguments: the right to bear arms must be construed broadly, and Fisher had no reasonable alternative to concealment.

It sounds compelling, but that's the job of such briefs. It would be interesting to read the brief of HCI. It probably sounds just as compelling.

It'll be interesting to see whether the court decides this on the merits, or gets involved in some sort of convuluted reasoning to justify no loaded guns in vehicles. I fear it'll be the latter.
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 8:22:01 PM EDT
FMD, is this the time to argue about Fisher?
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 4:58:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/12/2006 5:15:56 AM EDT by photoman]

Originally Posted By glenn_r:
A quick reading shows it makes two basic arguments: the right to bear arms must be construed broadly, and Fisher had no reasonable alternative to concealment.

It sounds compelling, but that's the job of such briefs. It would be interesting to read the brief of HCI. It probably sounds just as compelling.

It'll be interesting to see whether the court decides this on the merits, or gets involved in some sort of convuluted reasoning to justify no loaded guns in vehicles. I fear it'll be the latter.



I hate to say it, but I think yer right......

Very interesting brief.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 9:09:36 AM EDT
Why my interests in going armed with a concealed weapon ALWAYS outweigh the states intrests in keeping m form going armed with a concelaed and dangerous weapon.





Maryland V.South- United States Supreme Court decided in 1856.

Davidson v. City of Westminister (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975).

Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968).

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989).

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. (901 F.2d 696 9th Cir. 1990)

Susman v. City of Los Angeles, et al (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 803, 75 Cal.Rptr. 240

Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)

Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 7:38:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By glenn_r:
A quick reading shows it makes two basic arguments: the right to bear arms must be construed broadly, and Fisher had no reasonable alternative to concealment.

It sounds compelling, but that's the job of such briefs. It would be interesting to read the brief of HCI. It probably sounds just as compelling.

It'll be interesting to see whether the court decides this on the merits, or gets involved in some sort of convuluted reasoning to justify no loaded guns in vehicles. I fear it'll be the latter.



I fear the same thing. They may come up with some "public safety issues" reasoning. An unreasonable reason to our reasonable rational

I was hoping FMD would weigh in on this but his three typing fingers must still be numb from the last debate
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 4:18:42 AM EDT
Give him time, I'd like to hear his opinion.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 5:26:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MGLouie:
glenn_r and FMD, have either of you read this? NRA brief State v. Fisher...

I was hoping FMD would weigh in on this but his three typing fingers must still be numb from the last debate




Originally Posted By glenn_r:
Give him time, I'd like to hear his opinion.



Dammit, can't a man spend the weekend shooting?

Sorry gents, I was at BulletcatchR's place all weekend. We had the SF "Arctic Shakedown", but that was primarily limited to just BC, None and me freezing our asses off, spending the AMs shooting, and the PMs analyzing the video (one word: u-g-l-y!).

I'll read the NRA Brief, see if I can find the HCI/VPC Brief, and weigh in with my thoughts when I can. It might be a few days, as I'm still warming up and have work to catch up on.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 1:08:49 PM EDT
Tag for FMD's response
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 2:37:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MGLouie:
Tag for FMD's response



It's gonna have to wait till next week. We had a death in the extended family and are going to be a bit busy on the East coast for a few days.

As a matter of fact, it'll probably have to wait until after orals (next week). I'll be better able respond, especially after hearing what Q's the SC has for Fisher's attorney.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 6:16:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 6:18:05 PM EDT by glenn_r]

Originally Posted By FMD:
I'll be better able respond, especially after hearing what Q's the SC has for Fisher's attorney.



Oh, so that's how we're going to do this, eh?





But seriously, I'm sorry to hear about your loss. My condolences.
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 6:04:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/16/2006 6:08:27 AM EDT by FMD]

Originally Posted By glenn_r:

Originally Posted By FMD:
I'll be better able respond, especially after hearing what Q's the SC has for Fisher's attorney.



Oh, so that's how we're going to do this, eh?



All right, all right. FMD's Cliff's notes version:

The NRA brief brings logical points to the table, but their take is even more idealistic than mine. A 5th grade civics first year pre-law student could have written the brief in about an hour.

No mention of the loaded gun in the car prohibition (Fisher's original offence) which is where the real focus of State v. Fisher should be.

Remember folks, this is MHO, IANAL, yada yada, Holiday Inn Express.

I'll have more after orals.


But seriously, I'm sorry to hear about your loss. My condolences.


We appreciate it. A beloved uncle; unfortunate but not unexpected (we said "goodbye" in October with the full realization that we wouldn't see him again in this life).

GTG, talk to y'all next week.

Edit: Rather than piss off everyone with a fifth grader, I decided to piss on lawyers. Change in bold face above.
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 6:49:09 AM EDT
FMD
My condolences to you and your entire family on your loss.

We'll chat about State v. Fisher at the orals on Thursday.
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 10:49:17 AM EDT
When/where will the orals happen? The 23rd? What time & where? I might be able to attend--it'd be interesting.
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 11:23:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By glenn_r:
When/where will the orals happen? The 23rd? What time & where? I might be able to attend--it'd be interesting.



State Supreme court in Madtown. Not sure of the time. I'll be going as well.

Maybe have to start a thread or something to see who's up for going.
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 1:43:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/16/2006 1:48:03 PM EDT by glenn_r]
Photoman's attendance thread


originally posted by FMD:
No mention of the loaded gun in the car prohibition (Fisher's original offence) which is where the real focus of State v. Fisher should be.



I disagree. (Actually, even if I didn't disagree, I'd have to say I did just to keep the debate going, wouldn't I?? )

I think the real focus of Fisher is going to be the weight the WSC assigns to "state's interest" versus personal interest in carrying concealed weapon. The "no loaded guns in cars" thing is only a forfeiture, not a misdemeanor, whereas CCW is a class A misdemeanor. The issue here isn't the forfeiture offense--that is superceded by the misdemeanor.

All that is predicated on the assumption I understood your take on this

Anyway, we'll know more soon.
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 4:02:50 PM EDT

Originally posted by FMD:
No mention of the loaded gun in the car prohibition (Fisher's original offence) which is where the real focus of State v. Fisher should be.

Originally Posted By glenn_r:
I think the real focus of Fisher is going to be the weight the WSC assigns to "state's interest" versus personal interest in carrying concealed weapon. The "no loaded guns in cars" thing is only a forfeiture, not a misdemeanor, whereas CCW is a class A misdemeanor. The issue here isn't the forfeiture offense--that is superceded by the misdemeanor.



At first, when this case came out, I didn't think it would be used as a definitive 941.23 ruling. Now, I'm having a more positive outlook on it unless the SC narrows the tests set up in Hamdon.

The state will likely try to disprove the personal intrest part of the test on the grounds that Fisher was not making a deposit at the time, there for no need for security.



Anyway, we'll know more soon.


Yes we will. This will be a good indicator of what the current WSC's judicial philosophy is

Top Top