esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Thanks for the feedback on the orals panel, esqappellate. With your permission, I would like to post your thoughts over at the Firing Line.
Just read the circuits orders on transcripts and audio of orals. The transcript, at $2.90 per page, puts it out of my means. According to the circuits website, audio of the oral argument will be made available only after the proceedings are completely closed. Shame that they figure this is "serving" the public (just my biased observation).
Do you know of case law in other contexts as to failure to act on a petition being construed as a denial? It seems this would be a common issue. I've seen it explicit in some statues (inaction beyond some timeframe is considered a denial), but I'm sure there are plenty of other contexts with similar problems to 925(c).
Precluded by 9-0 SCT precedent as to 925(c). See United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71, 123 S.Ct. 584 (2002) (holding that actual denial of relief from firearms disabilities was prerequisite to judicial review).
That was before 2A was ruled to be an individual right.
How is this not Ex Post Facto where the penalty was not exclusionary when issued? They cannot go back and extend a sentence to the current mandatory minimum for a crime and sentence that occured years earlier.
So, with no clear maximum sentence for his crime in 1968, they simply decided to deny him his right to own a firearm?
Would this work both ways? What if pot was legalized tomorrow? Would anyone in jail for consuming pot be immediately released? (I'm assuming there might be someone in jail for using pot.)
I need a road map to this country that's been dropped on me.
Ah, no you would stay in jail cuz it as a crime when you did it.
Get the hell outta here! If you're in jail and the crime you're serving time for is made a crime no longer, they DON'T let you out?
No sarc here. I'm truly amazed.
So the panel is saying they should have made a facial challenge instead of an as-applied?