Guns in court
7 Responses to “Guns in court”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
January 19th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Is there a delegated power to refuse to hear cases?
January 19th, 2012 at 12:23 pm
So, if I read that correctly, one victory for civil rights and one loss?
January 19th, 2012 at 1:00 pm
So, the next step in the People’s Republik of Kalifornia is to Ban Gun Ownership for those who receive a Parking Ticket?
January 19th, 2012 at 3:07 pm
I love that they get paid to basically say “What? Just because I’m a judge doesn’t mean I have to judge!”
January 19th, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Bear in mind even if they disagree with a decision they will often refuse “iffy” cases simply because the circumstances confuse the facts at issue.
That’s why SAF is so particular about the cases they bring, when it comes to setting precedent you want a “clean” defendent/petitioner and a clear set of facts on a single, limited issue for the Court to address.
If the Supremes “on our side” just took any case that came up they wouldn’t necessarily be able to get a majority ruling clearly in “our” favor. Which would lead to bad or weak precedent being enshrined at the highest level.
By allowing this case to stand they leave the door open for a better case to come out of another Circuit, either to be appealed up by “our side” losing or by creating a Circuit split with this case by “our side” winning.
Which is why it is so important Obama not win a second term and get a SC appointment that replaces one of the Heller 5. If we lose a “good” vote on the Supreme Court then this sort of bad decision will be grasped by the “anti” members of the Court to become law of the land.
January 19th, 2012 at 3:42 pm
For instance, contrast the messy facts of this case with SAF’s Schrader v. Holder currently being appealed in the DC Circuit (straight shot to the Supremes).
Clean defendent (his charge of battery is only considered disqualifying due to indeterminate sentence) who was denied via NICS check rather than caught in possession in violation of the law.
January 19th, 2012 at 6:21 pm
Reading the facts of the two cases, the SCOTUS was correct in refusing cert. In the misdemeanor case, the man was on probation for a battery conviction when he was caught with guns. We don’t do our side any favors by supporting armed, violent criminals.