The_Jerkman
New member
Already filed
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Federal appeals court overturns DC's "Good Reason" restriction
- Thread starter Mike Irwin
- Start date
armoredman
New member
Oh, they did get around to filing it? I didn't think they'd let that one slide.
Luger_carbine
New member
Does each Circuit have their own rules regarding time limits for how long it takes to accept or deny an en banc rehearing?
Like a lot of people, I'm trying to figure out how long we have to wait for the next step to be determined...
Like a lot of people, I'm trying to figure out how long we have to wait for the next step to be determined...
I got around to looking at the dissenting opinion from last month.
Wanted a look at what the eventual en banc opinion will look like.
The fundamental idea seems to be that, since the "core right" is "most acute" within the home per Heller, any "less acute" right that might exist outside the home must fall outside "the core."
But self-defense was announced as the core purpose of the right to keep and bear arms, not the "core right" itself. I think that purpose exists outside the home.
If it does not, then what purpose might the second amendment serve outside the home? She offered none.
Wanted a look at what the eventual en banc opinion will look like.
The fundamental idea seems to be that, since the "core right" is "most acute" within the home per Heller, any "less acute" right that might exist outside the home must fall outside "the core."
But self-defense was announced as the core purpose of the right to keep and bear arms, not the "core right" itself. I think that purpose exists outside the home.
If it does not, then what purpose might the second amendment serve outside the home? She offered none.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
It's just shameful when judges are so intent on their agenda that they overlook the clear language of the law itself. The words "in the home" and "self defense" do not appear anywhere in any version of the Second Amendment that I've seen (irrespective of meandering commas).
It's just shameful when judges are so intent on their agenda that they overlook the clear language of the law itself. The words "in the home" and "self defense" do not appear anywhere in any version of the Second Amendment that I've seen (irrespective of meandering commas).
Question, in the lower courts are we now adjudicating the original text of the second amendment or, as I suspect, the modified text of both the original text as it was clarified (or not clarified) by the USSC rulings since?
So in AB's statement above, does it matter anymore what the original text says? I can think of a million follow up questions that is the onion of the basic question of USSC rulings. Peel off one layer of skin and have a new onion to start all over with.
I rarely post in L&CR because I'm just not read well enough to truly understand all of the ins and outs of how the system really works. But I'm curious.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
It's just shameful when judges are so intent on their agenda that they overlook the clear language of the law itself.
As I said before from reading some books on higher level judicial decision making, the judges vote their politics and then mine the past decisions and literature to support their politics.
The idea of them 'following the law', 'intent', whatever isn't driving most decision processes. True on both sides of the fence.
Luger_carbine
New member
I got around to looking at the dissenting opinion from last month.
Wanted a look at what the eventual en banc opinion will look like.
The fundamental idea seems to be that, since the "core right" is "most acute" within the home per Heller, any "less acute" right that might exist outside the home must fall outside "the core."
But self-defense was announced as the core purpose of the right to keep and bear arms, not the "core right" itself. I think that purpose exists outside the home.
If it does not, then what purpose might the second amendment serve outside the home? She offered none.
- publius42 -
Well I hope the judges are persuaded by Judge Posner's opinion in Moore v Madigan
To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald this case, like Heller and McDonald is just about self-defense.
The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside.
What does it mean to bear arms if there's no right to carry arms in a public place?
You don't bear arms in your house, you don't march around with a gun over your shoulder right?
- Judge Richard Posner -
Aguila Blanca
Staff
It should matter what the original text said, because when any case comes before a court it's still the same text of the same law (in this case, the Second Amendment). As Glenn E. Meyer wrote in post #48, "... the judges vote their politics and then mine the past decisions and literature to support their politics." Which is how we get a bunch of circuit court decisions purportedly based on (and citing) Heller that say things like "the Second Amendment doesn't apply outside the home" or "the Second Amendment doesn't apply to scary looking guns copied after military-style weapons."johnm1 said:Question, in the lower courts are we now adjudicating the original text of the second amendment or, as I suspect, the modified text of both the original text as it was clarified (or not clarified) by the USSC rulings since?
So in AB's statement above, does it matter anymore what the original text says? I can think of a million follow up questions that is the onion of the basic question of USSC rulings. Peel off one layer of skin and have a new onion to start all over with.
The Heller decision did NOT in any way limit the right of self defense to inside the home. The case was specifically about the constitutionality of a Washington, DC, regulation which said that it was not legal to keep a functional firearm within the home. The question before the Supreme Court was: Is that regulation legal under the Constitution? And, despite the length of Justice Scalia's majority decision, that's really ALL the court ruled on in that case. Lower court justices who are using [dare I say "twisting"?] it to say or mean anything beyond that are not deciding the law, they are advancing their agenda(s).
Supreme Court decisions are binding as precedent, but only when the question in a new case has been addressed by a previous Supreme Court decision. Just about all the 2A cases since Heller that cite Heller have not been about the question of a law prohibting the keeping of a functional firearm in the home, so in the strictest sense Heller doesn't apply as precedent, only as guidance. And they are abusing the guidance shamefully.
Last edited:
Luger_carbine
New member
Does anyone know the durations associated with the en banc petition process for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit?
Like: "Judges have n number of days to either do nothing, 'stop the clock', ask the original panel if they will re-hear the case or call for an en banc vote" ?
Like: "Judges have n number of days to either do nothing, 'stop the clock', ask the original panel if they will re-hear the case or call for an en banc vote" ?
The short answer is that there is no time limit to decide whether a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be granted. For further info, continue reading.
A petition for rehearing en banc operates both as a request for the panel to re-hear the case and for en banc rehearing (often called a suggestion for rehearing en banc). Under Federal Rule of Appellate Practice 35, no response is allowed unless ordered by the court. In turn, D.C. Circuit Rule 35 says there will be no significant modification in the judgment/opinion unless the court orders a response to the petition for rehearing.
The D.C. Circuit's Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedure states explains that a vote sheet is sent first to see if any judge wants a rehearing en banc and, "If no judge asks for a vote within a specified time, and none requests more time to consider the matter, the Clerk will enter an order denying the petition." Ibid at 58 (emphasis added). I do not see any guidelines for what the "specified time" should be. I suspect this is variable depending upon the complexity of the case, court schedule, and other factors.
If a judge calls for a vote, the court will evidently sometimes order a response at this point, but not all of the time:
A petition for rehearing en banc operates both as a request for the panel to re-hear the case and for en banc rehearing (often called a suggestion for rehearing en banc). Under Federal Rule of Appellate Practice 35, no response is allowed unless ordered by the court. In turn, D.C. Circuit Rule 35 says there will be no significant modification in the judgment/opinion unless the court orders a response to the petition for rehearing.
The D.C. Circuit's Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedure states explains that a vote sheet is sent first to see if any judge wants a rehearing en banc and, "If no judge asks for a vote within a specified time, and none requests more time to consider the matter, the Clerk will enter an order denying the petition." Ibid at 58 (emphasis added). I do not see any guidelines for what the "specified time" should be. I suspect this is variable depending upon the complexity of the case, court schedule, and other factors.
If a judge calls for a vote, the court will evidently sometimes order a response at this point, but not all of the time:
Ibid.If a judge calls for a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc, the Clerk’s Office transmits electronically to the full Court a new vote sheet, along with any response to the petition ordered by the Court. The
question now is whether there should be a rehearing en banc.
Rule 35, FRAP:
(b) Petition for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc. A party may petition for a hearing or rehearing en banc.
(1) The petition must begin with a statement that either:
(A) the panel decision conflicts with a decision of the United States Supreme Court or of the court to which the petition is addressed (with citation to the conflicting case or cases) and consideration by the full court is therefore necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the court's decisions; or
(B) the proceeding involves one or more questions of exceptional importance, each of which must be concisely stated; for example, a petition may assert that a proceeding presents a question of exceptional importance if it involves an issue on which the panel decision conflicts with the authoritative decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals that have addressed the issue.
(b) Petition for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc. A party may petition for a hearing or rehearing en banc.
(1) The petition must begin with a statement that either:
(A) the panel decision conflicts with a decision of the United States Supreme Court or of the court to which the petition is addressed (with citation to the conflicting case or cases) and consideration by the full court is therefore necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the court's decisions; or
(B) the proceeding involves one or more questions of exceptional importance, each of which must be concisely stated; for example, a petition may assert that a proceeding presents a question of exceptional importance if it involves an issue on which the panel decision conflicts with the authoritative decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals that have addressed the issue.
An en banc rehearing will be granted, based on the highlighted section above.
I really hope we can get another originalist/textualist on the court in the near future. The Heller 5-4 has not really changed much with Gorsuch taking Scalia's seat. It's a VERY precarious position (which I'd bet is why we haven't seen much movement since McDonald).
...just wish some of the lower courts would have the guts to rule on the text and historical meaning, rather than personal opinions.
...just wish some of the lower courts would have the guts to rule on the text and historical meaning, rather than personal opinions.
I really hope we can get another originalist/textualist on the court in the near future. The Heller 5-4 has not really changed much with Gorsuch taking Scalia's seat. It's a VERY precarious position (which I'd bet is why we haven't seen much movement since McDonald).
...just wish some of the lower courts would have the guts to rule on the text and historical meaning, rather than personal opinions.
It's pretty bad when you have to wish the courts should generally function like they should...
It looks like the DC Circuit didn't waste a lot of time. Plaintiffs in both Grace and Wrenn have 15 days to file briefs.
Then a couple of hours later, Everytown filed an amicus brief.
Looks like the en banc is on (or the orders to file briefs wouldn't have gone out).
Then a couple of hours later, Everytown filed an amicus brief.
Looks like the en banc is on (or the orders to file briefs wouldn't have gone out).
Attachments
armoredman
New member
*sigh* Of course. DC Circuit is packed with antis, isn't it?
Armed_Chicagoan
New member
Now we'll get to see where Garland stands, won't we?
It looks like the DC Circuit didn't waste a lot of time. Plaintiffs in both Grace and Wrenn have 15 days to file briefs.
Then a couple of hours later, Everytown filed an amicus brief.
Looks like the en banc is on (or the orders to file briefs wouldn't have gone out).
Thanks. IE shall issue is dead for DC given the makeup of the full court, right?
Armed_Chicagoan
New member
En banc hearing denied, the decision stands!
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...ing-on-wrenn-a-key-win-for-saf-300528007.html
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...ing-on-wrenn-a-key-win-for-saf-300528007.html