Duncan v Berrcerra

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • delaware_export

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 10, 2018
    3,144
    Saw this article saying what I’ve thought about Scalias opinion in the DC heller case.

    His wording was so clever that is being used in direct opposition to previous thinking as pertains to “useful to the military”‘weapons. Wasn’t the case and reasoning in the Miller, that sawed off shotguns were not protected, because it wasn’t used that much in the military?

    And the reference to long standing did seem like he and the folks who signed the majority wanted to protect the Nfa and subsequent 68 and 86 laws.

    Just food for thought here.

    https://www.firearmsnews.com/editor...es-military-weapons-ownership-citizens/389220
     
    Last edited:

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Saw this article saying what I’ve thought about Scalias opinion in the DC heller case.

    His wording was so clever that is being used in direct opposition to previous thinking as pertains to “useful to the military”‘weapons. Wasn’t the case and reasoning in the Miller, that sawed off shotguns were not protected, because it wasn’t used that much in the military?

    And the reference to long standing did seem like he and the folks who signed the majority wanted to protect the Nfa and subsequent 68 and 86 laws.

    Just food for thought here.

    https://www.firearmsnews.com/editor...es-military-weapons-ownership-citizens/389220

    They struck down the DC handgun ban which dated from 1976, so the 68 and 86 laws can’t be considered longstanding.
    That aside, I don’t believe any law should be afforded protection because it’s been around for so many years. It’s either constitutional or it isn’t.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    They struck down the DC handgun ban which dated from 1976, so the 68 and 86 laws can’t be considered longstanding.
    That aside, I don’t believe any law should be afforded protection because it’s been around for so many years. It’s either constitutional or it isn’t.

    from the article....
    “No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people,” Rawle declared. “Such a flagitious (think “shameful,” “wicked,” “criminal,” “villainous”) attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”

    Speaking of shameful, wicked, and criminal villains, fast-forward to the present. There is a Democrat eye-rolling feeding frenzy to strip Americans of what Continental Congress Delegate Tench Coxe called “the birthright of an American,” which he specifically identified as “every other terrible implement of the soldier.”

    “[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people," Coxe continued.

    That’s the last thing a “monopoly of violence” wants. He knew this well, and the Coxe & Frazier merchant firm he formed after the War of the Rebellion ended dealt, among other commodities, in firearms. The firm, as the James Madison Research Library and Information Center notes, “made arms for private purchase … for state militias … and for local militia groups.”

    Coxe went on to play a “major role … in the Jefferson and Madison administrations by promoting an early version of American industrial policy … Among the articles that he promoted for domestic manufacture were gunpowder and ironworks.” While he opposed taking up arms in the Whiskey Rebellion because he believed a constitutionally imposed tax was “not grounds for a Second Amendment revolution to rescue the Constitution from tyranny,” he “would continue to support the right to arms as a mechanism allowing popular revolt as a last resort.”

    Also agree with Judge Lee ( what the AG and others see a Trump nomiated Judge, the "real issue")
    https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-08-14-Opinion.pdf

    I wonder if the 3 judge panel read https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...cus-Brief-of-John-Cutonilli-ISO-Appellees.pdf

    This right was “enshrined with the scope [it was] understood to have when the people adopted” it. Id., at 634. To determine that scope, we analyzed the original meaning of the Second Amendment’s text as well as the historical understanding of the right. We noted that “limitation” on the right may be supported by “historical tradition,”
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/18-824

    "Text, tradition and History" Shall Not Be Infringed.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    The Supplemental Opening Briefs have been filed by both sides.
     

    Attachments

    • Becerra Supplemental Brief.pdf
      459.5 KB · Views: 105
    • Duncan Supplemental Brief.pdf
      293.5 KB · Views: 106

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    The judges for the en banc have been posted.

    THOMAS, Chief Judge, and GRABER, PAEZ, BERZON, IKUTA, MURGUIA, WATFORD, HURWITZ, R. NELSON, BUMATAY, and VANDYKE
    Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, G W Bush, Obama, Obama, Obama, Trump, Trump, Trump.
     

    Decoy

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 2, 2007
    4,926
    Dystopia
    The judges for the en banc have been posted.

    THOMAS, Chief Judge, and GRABER, PAEZ, BERZON, IKUTA, MURGUIA, WATFORD, HURWITZ, R. NELSON, BUMATAY, and VANDYKE
    Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, G W Bush, Obama, Obama, Obama, Trump, Trump, Trump.

    aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand that will be a loss, on to the SCOTUS
     

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand that will be a loss, on to the SCOTUS

    So, question for the lawyers out there in MDS-Land: In a situation like this where the panel judgement is inevitable, and both sides concurring which way it's going to go, can both parties just concurrently motion for summary judgement, get that, and move on to filing for Certiorari? That way nobody wastes their time and money on going through the pointless effort of presenting arguments at a hearing. Or does the panel want to pretend it hasn't already made its decision before opening arguments are heard?
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    R. Nelson dissented from Young, joined by Ikuta. So hopefully he writes again.

    Bumatay and Vandyke dissented from denial of cert in Mai v US, a challenge to 922(g)4 after his 9 month commitment to a mental health facility.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,487
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom