User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/21/2003 1:05:41 AM EDT
[#1]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2003 1:07:23 AM EDT
[#2]
I am not familuar with this other case, do you have a link on it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2003 1:12:45 AM EDT
[#3]
[url=http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/]Silveira v. Lockyer[/url]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2003 1:12:46 AM EDT
[#4]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2003 1:14:00 AM EDT
[#5]
[url]http://www.bradfordmetcalf.com/[/url]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2003 5:57:45 AM EDT
[#6]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2003 7:14:39 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: 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. What does IANAL mean? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2003 7:33:59 PM EDT
[#8]
Oh No
Troy is gonna lock this for sure! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2003 7:36:15 PM EDT
[#9]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2003 6:19:04 AM EDT
[#10]
Silveira v. Lockyer
Thank God that there are still intellectually honest judges like Kozinski! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2003 6:42:38 AM EDT
[#11]
IAIFAL (I am in fact a lawyer)
And I can't make heads or tails of the Metcalf case from his website. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2003 12:13:51 PM EDT
[#12]
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?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2003 12:17:49 PM EDT
[#13]
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!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2003 12:41:43 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: 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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2003 1:04:45 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Oh No Troy is gonna lock this for sure! Yes, I am. Not because it isn't a valid topic for discussion, but because IT IS OFF-TOPIC IN THIS FORUM. -Troy |
|
|
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.
