jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
Miller V Becerra
- Thread starter pcfixer
- Start date
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!
Member Benefits:
delaware_export
Ultimate Member
- Apr 10, 2018
- 3,202
Anyone listen?
i tried. Between hospital with sick friend and spotty signal, didn’t hear much.
the little bit I did hear …
They didn’t want to do anything until Duncan resolved
one of the lady judges maybe both seemed to go along with the states not protected argument
seems the jump from panel to en banc in Duncan is leading the resistance, it the result is anti 2a as speculated in Duncan
i tried. Between hospital with sick friend and spotty signal, didn’t hear much.
the little bit I did hear …
They didn’t want to do anything until Duncan resolved
one of the lady judges maybe both seemed to go along with the states not protected argument
seems the jump from panel to en banc in Duncan is leading the resistance, it the result is anti 2a as speculated in Duncan
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
They stayed the district court opinion based on Duncan. It is an issue that was raised when CA appealed the district court opinion.
krucam
Ultimate Member
Video of the Oral Arguments
krucam
Ultimate Member
The 3 judge panel clearly wants to overturn the win at District Court...
Apd09
Active Member
Our favorite YouTuber just posted his video.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Apd09
Active Member
Washington gun law has an interesting take on how they’re gonna screw them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Nov 11, 2009
- 30,897
Impartial? It is to laugh, Comrade!
I get the feeling that if they cannot process the fact that 24,000,000 rifles in the hands of citizens is not "in common use" they will be unwilling to process anything even more subtle.
Once again, bringing up arguments that have been shot down by SCOTUS, and hiding behind a pending en banc decision in order to avoid actually ruling on the case in front of them, pretty well establishes their partiality.
All the arguments that have been thrown at the Supremes in hope that something will stick have been rejected. They refuse to accept that, and are playing the only card left in their hand -- DELAY as long as possible. Maybe Clarence Thomas will be Scalia'd; maybe Biden or some other puppet of the Left will be able to shift the balance; maybe election fraud will save their bacon.
Kick the can down the road, until everyone who remembers the real America is dead, senile, or in prison for thoughtcrimes.
I get the feeling that if they cannot process the fact that 24,000,000 rifles in the hands of citizens is not "in common use" they will be unwilling to process anything even more subtle.
Once again, bringing up arguments that have been shot down by SCOTUS, and hiding behind a pending en banc decision in order to avoid actually ruling on the case in front of them, pretty well establishes their partiality.
All the arguments that have been thrown at the Supremes in hope that something will stick have been rejected. They refuse to accept that, and are playing the only card left in their hand -- DELAY as long as possible. Maybe Clarence Thomas will be Scalia'd; maybe Biden or some other puppet of the Left will be able to shift the balance; maybe election fraud will save their bacon.
Kick the can down the road, until everyone who remembers the real America is dead, senile, or in prison for thoughtcrimes.
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
It is official. They have held the case in abeyance pending the resolution of Duncan.
delaware_export
Ultimate Member
- Apr 10, 2018
- 3,202
Listening to parts of this again. The judge on the left has an attitude that clearly displays her contempt for the 2a. She’s in the FY column on any 2a case
J=judge on left
L=2a lawyer
J: so 2a protects common arms used for defense
L: no, it protects common arms used for all lawful purposes, including defense
J: oh. THEY like to look at them right (referring to the guns)
with such open contempt, is there a way to get the judge tossed? Recused?
I guess it would not be polite to note such contempt in the middle of the hearing … would it?
(half / half… sarcasm on one half, maybe well over half, but honest evaluation of the judges attitude)
J=judge on left
L=2a lawyer
J: so 2a protects common arms used for defense
L: no, it protects common arms used for all lawful purposes, including defense
J: oh. THEY like to look at them right (referring to the guns)
with such open contempt, is there a way to get the judge tossed? Recused?
I guess it would not be polite to note such contempt in the middle of the hearing … would it?
(half / half… sarcasm on one half, maybe well over half, but honest evaluation of the judges attitude)
I'm afraid I'd have a hard time biting my tongue. "Well, your honor, a lot of people also like to look at and collect finely made fountain pens that they can use to write down controversial thoughts that are protected by the amendment that sits right next the one we're discussing."
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
MD DNR Outdoor Recreation Survey -- Outdoorsman Responses Needed
- Started by Derwood
- Replies: 5