CA4 Issues Stay, Expedites Appeal

[mk10]

It seemed like the panel had their minds made up and the decision was already written, with the ink still drying, even as Fader and Gura were speaking. Since the questioning was just a matter of formality, they simply went through the motions and exerted very little effort in the preparatory process.

 

[Stevie Boy]

I don't think I'm reading too much. I'm applying the law to the constitution. Maryland passed a law saying you can transport your gun to the range or gunsmith. By saying this they recognize the right extends beyond the home. Imagine if Maryland said you can own a gun for defense in the home, but you can never take the gun outside the home. Ok, how do I get the gun from the place of purchase to my home. If it needs repair, how do I get it to a gunsmith. I don't manufacture guns in my home, nor do I repair them in my home. Therefore, the right exists outside the home.

Maryland is saying you can transport the gun outside the home, but you can't use the gun for protection outside the home unless we permit you to under our strict pleasure. ( buzzer..,) wrong! Under the 14thA I have the same right to self defense as those who Maryland permits to carry outside the home. I for one am glad Maryland now has to answer for this and I can't see us common folk losing at any level of the courts now thanks to SAF, Gura, and Wollard.

I disagree with the point your trying to make that I highlight above. By passing a law to transport, MD is NOT recognizing a right, they are granting a privilege (at least in their eyes). You do not need permission (or a law) to exercise a right.

 

[damionkarp]

I disagree with the point your trying to make that I highlight above. By passing a law to transport, MD is NOT recognizing a right, they are granting a privilege (at least in their eyes). You do not need permission (or a law) to exercise a right.

But their hubris says you do, and that is the point I'm trying to make. They can pass all the unconstitutional laws they want to pass. It's not a problem until they are challenged on it, which Wollard has. It reminds me of the old saying. It's not cheating unless you are caught. Maryland got caught and now has to answer for it.

 

[Merlin]

Sorry, I dont have rose colored glasses on. I listened to the Audio and unless the Judges Physical Mannerisms showed contrary to the Audio, there was nothing positive about that hearing for the 2A side.

Elections have consequences.

clandestine,

Delete some of your PM's. I want to send you something.

 

[Bohlieve410]

I just hope it gets to SCOTUS before Obama has a chance to appoint some commie judge if someone retires.

 

[Tenhoff]

crossing my fingers on this case but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[ccmc]

I don't find the the name of the appointing president to be very useful as a predictor on this issue. But, we have a better indicator, the actual argument. I listened to the tapes of both arguments (they are on the National 2A forum). I expect a win in the 7th on whether the right exists at all outside the home (which is the only question presented). 2nd was an excellent argument on the NY carry statute and we may get a favorable result there, but that is a closer call. Those judges were better prepared and more disposed to us from the argument tape.

Sometimes the party affiliation of the appointing president is a pretty good indicator like in the Heller and McDonald SCOTUS decisions where all five majority opinion justices were appointed by republican presidents and all four dissenting opinion justices were appointed by democrat presidents.

 

[Al Norris]

Sometimes the party affiliation of the appointing president is a pretty good indicator like in the Heller and McDonald SCOTUS decisions where all five majority opinion justices were appointed by republican presidents and all four dissenting opinion justices were appointed by democrat presidents.

"Sometimes" is not any kind of reliable indicator.

If you think it is, then kindly explain the vote in Gonzales v. Raich, (2005). This was a 6-3 decision where Justice Kennedy sided with the four liberals and Justice Scalia wrote a separate concurring opinion (abandoning all pretense of originalism). This case expanded the bounds of the Commerce Clause beyond recognition.

Or Kelo v. New London, (2005). A 5-4 decision where Justice Kennedy again joined the ranks of the four liberal Justices. Justice O'Connor wrote the dissenting opinion (joined by C.J. Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas), but Justice Thomas wrote a separate originalist dissent. This case blurred (some would say, erased) the lines between public and private use in the Takings Clause.

 

[ccmc]

"Sometimes" is not any kind of reliable indicator.

If you think it is, then kindly explain the vote in Gonzales v. Raich, (2005). This was a 6-3 decision where Justice Kennedy sided with the four liberals and Justice Scalia wrote a separate concurring opinion (abandoning all pretense of originalism). This case expanded the bounds of the Commerce Clause beyond recognition.

Or Kelo v. New London, (2005). A 5-4 decision where Justice Kennedy again joined the ranks of the four liberal Justices. Justice O'Connor wrote the dissenting opinion (joined by C.J. Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas), but Justice Thomas wrote a separate originalist dissent. This case blurred (some would say, erased) the lines between public and private use in the Takings Clause.

Sometimes does not equal always - just saying that's how the last two major RKBA cases that SCOTUS heard broke down. I wonder if people might feel more sanguine about this case if the C4 judges were Bush appointees rather than Clinton/Obama appointees. And yes, judges and justices do sometimes change and/or modify their views over time. Former klansman Hugo Black was a good example of that. And Sotomayor certainly changed her views on RKBA from her Senate confirmation testimony to her vote on McDonald, a rather quick transformation.

 

[esqappellate]

Sometimes does not equal always - just saying that's how the last two major RKBA cases that SCOTUS heard broke down. I wonder if people might feel more sanguine about this case if the C4 judges were Bush appointees rather than Clinton/Obama appointees. And yes, judges and justices do sometimes change and/or modify their views over time. Former klansman Hugo Black was a good example of that. And Sotomayor certainly changed her views on RKBA from her Senate confirmation testimony to her vote on McDonald, a rather quick transformation.

And Judge Wilkinson was appointed by Reagan as was Judge Posner. Both are on record as hating Heller. Yet, I think Posner will hold for us in Moore (time will tell). You just can't always (or nearly always) tell. Most appellate federal judges will apply SCT precedent (even 5/4 precedent) honestly, regardless of whether they like it. Not all, certainly, but most. Right now, all I care about is how Heller is applied in the courts of appeals. The SCT is solid right now with a 5/4 majority on the 2A.

 

[jmcgonig]

Finally got to listen to the oral arguments. That was depressing from so many angles. Some of the judges didn't even sound intelligent with some of the things they said.

 

[Stevie Boy]

But their hubris says you do, and that is the point I'm trying to make. They can pass all the unconstitutional laws they want to pass. It's not a problem until they are challenged on it, which Wollard has. It reminds me of the old saying. It's not cheating unless you are caught. Maryland got caught and now has to answer for it.

Maybe we're saying the same thing in different ways. My point is that by making a law to grant you the privilege, they are taking the position that they do NOT recognize it as a right.

I think we're on the same side here. I'm probably just being argumentative. Keep up the good work.

 

[Slick17]

Just listened to the orals. Seems like it could be a swing vote depending how you listen to it.

 

[cad68m_m]

Probably not a bit. They had plenty of time to get prepared. I mean, jeez, they had months and the briefs are not *that* large. It was quite the contrast with the 2nd Circuit panel which conducted a 90 minute argument (extraordinary!) and set the case for last on the docket that day for that very purpose. Pretty impressive. It is rather sad that the 4th Circuit panel was not up to that standard.

What if any recourse does the common man have when he feels that a 4th circuit judge is performing that poorly?

 

[Mooseman]

What if any recourse does the common man have when he feels that a 4th circuit judge is performing that poorly?

None.

 

[Mr H]

What if any recourse does the common man have when he feels that a 4th circuit judge is performing that poorly?

I'm no Constitutional Scholar, but I thought there was a provision for Impeachment for Federal judges??

If so, then petitioning your Congress-critters would be the first step.

ETA: It looks like this was done successfully, as recently as 2010...

 

[dfens42]

None.

Move to Canada.

 

[TxAggie]

You've probaby already seen and heard about this, but just one more example of how CC at least had the potential to keep this guy out of the hospital. Not sure of all of the facts (who ever is) but 2 blocks off the inner harbor in daylight does not give me the warm fuzzies.

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/11/06/witness-to-brutal-attack-speaks-with-wjz/

I'm sure he will feel much better when he leaves the hospital that the city will sell him a video of the attack.

 

[Speaker2Wolves]

None.

Only if your definition of "common" is a synonym with "apathetic."

 

[swinokur]

I'm no Constitutional Scholar, but I thought there was a provision for Impeachment for Federal judges??

If so, then petitioning your Congress-critters would be the first step.

ETA: It looks like this was done successfully, as recently as 2010...

But isn't the actual trial in the Senate?

If it is, seems a waste of time.