Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 7/20/2003 11:12:53 PM EDT
Guys,
through a coincidental series of links I heard about this guy. He is in fed prison as the result of what seems to be the most unjust case I have ever heard of. I'm not kidding about that. Supposedly, he is going to have his case heard by the US Supreme Court at the end of Aug or something. This case, besides exposing the worst case of anti 2nd amendment hypocracy and injustice I have ever heard of, could also have HUGE ramifications for the existence of almost all federal and state firearms laws. I can give this link, < http://www.bradfordmetcalf.com/ > but I would like to know somemore information about this poor man and his case and soforth. If anyone else comes up with any information about this case, please provide some links and stuff. Thanks.
Link Posted: 7/21/2003 1:05:41 AM EDT
This looks more like a wrongful arrest case than a 2nd amendment case... He has the wrong spin on the 2nd amentment though, he isnt going after it logicaly like Silveria v Lockyer is. Brad is not really arguing an individual's right to bear arms, as his site states that he was in the militia and would use that to argue his point - which could be dangerous, as it might cause the court to decide that yes, indeed, only militia members have the right to bear arms. If I had to choose which of the two cases would go to the supreme court, I would push Silveria v Lockyer forward. Maybe I'm dazed and confused and dont have my facts straight, but it looks like SvL has a stronger argument actually [i]pertaining to the 2nd Amendment[/i] not wrongful arrest/prosecution charges. My $.02 -Lee
Link Posted: 7/21/2003 1:07:23 AM EDT
I am not familuar with this other case, do you have a link on it?
Link Posted: 7/21/2003 1:12:45 AM EDT
[url=http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/]Silveira v. Lockyer[/url]
Link Posted: 7/21/2003 1:12:46 AM EDT
I just received a PDF on the SvL case and haven’t started to read it yet. A few of my shooting buddies are always ranting about it. Do you know if or when it’ll get to the SC? Best Regards, J
Link Posted: 7/21/2003 1:14:00 AM EDT
[url]http://www.bradfordmetcalf.com/[/url]
Link Posted: 7/21/2003 5:57:45 AM EDT
Actually, just to clarify the misleading title, the case has been denied by he Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and can now be submitted to the Supreme Court as early as August. The Supreme Court has not yet agreed to hear it, and while IANAL, I don't think it very likely they are going to hear this case on Second Amendment grounds.
Link Posted: 7/21/2003 7:14:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts: Actually, just to clarify the misleading title, the case has been denied by he Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and can now be submitted to the Supreme Court as early as August. The Supreme Court has not yet agreed to hear it, and while IANAL, I don't think it very likely they are going to hear this case on Second Amendment grounds.
View Quote
What does IANAL mean?
Link Posted: 7/21/2003 7:33:59 PM EDT
Oh No Troy is gonna lock this for sure!
Link Posted: 7/21/2003 7:36:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/21/2003 7:38:34 PM EDT by PaDanby]
I Am Not A Lawyer Well I went to the Bradford Metcalf link above and it was worthless. Didn't say a thing about any actual case. Maybe I missed a link but it didn't do anything I could see except finally get around to asking to send a letter to the court. Which illustrates how much knowledge of how the court works they have. went back and this time some links appeared, but you have to run your cursor on the left side to get them to activate the first time and then they stay visible. Must be one of those MS browser things Netscape doesn't pick up.
Link Posted: 7/22/2003 6:19:04 AM EDT
Silveira v. Lockyer Thank God that there are still intellectually honest judges like Kozinski!
Link Posted: 7/22/2003 6:42:38 AM EDT
IAIFAL (I am in fact a lawyer) And I can't make heads or tails of the Metcalf case from his website.
Link Posted: 7/22/2003 12:13:51 PM EDT
This Supreme Court can argue in favor of racial discrimination. To them, a Amendment to the Constitution can be suspended/ignored for a popular reason (ie. affirmative action). Chief Justice O'Connor scares me as much as the thought of Mrs. Clinton becoming president. Do we want them to debate the 2nd?
Link Posted: 7/22/2003 12:17:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/22/2003 12:18:57 PM EDT by Master_Blaster]
Sylveira hits on several core 'pro' arguments. If the SC refuses to hear it, then it would seem obvious where the Justices want the 2nd to go. Oh yeah - almost 4got: IBTL!!!
Link Posted: 7/22/2003 12:41:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/22/2003 12:58:28 PM EDT by JohnTheTexican]
Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts: Actually, just to clarify the misleading title, the case has been denied by he Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and can now be submitted to the Supreme Court as early as August. The Supreme Court has not yet agreed to hear it, and while IANAL, I don't think it very likely they are going to hear this case on Second Amendment grounds.
View Quote
I am a lawyer, and I think you're absolutely right. If they decided to take the case, they'd decide it on Fifth Amendment due process grounds. The Second Amendment stuff is fund-raising hype, IMO. Edited to add: I see from the Motion to Vacate on his website that he's handling his case pro se. If he can't find a lawyer to make his arguments for him, his chances of interesting the SCOTUS in his case are something less than zero. The court isn't interested in spending its time on jailhouse lawyers with, shall we say, "idiosyncratic" interpretations of the law.
Link Posted: 7/22/2003 1:04:45 PM EDT
Top Top