TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Edited to delete my comments, since I'm supposed to keep my mouth shut!!

Chas.

PM them to those of us who will keep our mouths shut too.

There is an old saying among attorneys that handle appellate matters: Rarely can you win a case during oral arguments, but you can certainly lose one!

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Edited to delete my comments, since I'm supposed to keep my mouth shut!!

Chas.

No fair! I missed the post between flippin' back and forth between SCOTUSBLOG and all the other blogs! Dang, whadja say?

elb

If the 'individual right' view prevails, and a complete ban in DC (and perhaps Chicago & New York) is struck down, could this bode well for the complete ban in National Parks, too?

That be an interesing and yet unspoken benefit.

CWOOD wrote:If the 'individual right' view prevails, and a complete ban in DC (and perhaps Chicago & New York) is struck down, could this bode well for the complete ban in National Parks, too?

That be an interesing and yet unspoken benefit.

This seems the most likely realistic immediate benefit. If we win

if we win this one. I beileve it will open the door to closing lots of restrictions over time.

I listened to the whole 1 hour 37 minutes of that presentation and I cannot believe that in all of that, no one could articulate that it would be more reasonable to pass a mandatory death penalty for anyone that uses a handgun in the commission of a crime, than to disallow the owning and use of handguns for personal defense by law abiding citizens.

And with regard to the Justice that spoke of the high crime statistics as being a consideration in the ban, why did someone not let him know that it is unfair and unreasonable to restrict law abiding citizens rights to use pistols for self defense when the criminal element will/does not adhere to any law?

Remind me never to hire a lawyer named Dellinger.

As noted in another thread, if he's the best that DC could come up with, they never believed they could win this case and did it for the show.

I don't know about you guys, but I was not impressed at all with the way Gura presented himself and was confused by some of his arguments.

tomc wrote:I don't know about you guys, but I was not impressed at all with the way Gura presented himself and was confused by some of his arguments.

Dura got some criticism at some of the other legal/gun blogs, and I think he could have done better. But I am not going to run him down -- this was first at-bat at the Supreme Court, while the aforementioned Mr. Dellenger was supposed to be "an old hand," relatively speaking. One of the more encouraging analyses I read (can't recall where so can't put in a link) noted that the Justices actually seemed pretty much on top of this one, had months to prepare, know where they are going at least on the individual right question, and the oral arguments from either side aren't going to change much.

I say this is encouraging, because it appears that there is at least five votes for the individual right view, maybe six. That will be a great starting point for getting some progress on all the different facets of gun laws. If the vote comes out the other way (no individual right protected by the 2A), we will be so far in negative yardage that it will take decades, if ever, to get back to this point.

elb

Being his first time up, he did do pretty good, considering. I applauded Levy, et. al. for sticking with Gura when several others had suggested a more seasoned veteran, though. As Charles said, few can win a case during oral arguments, but can lose it, so lets hope for the best. I do agree that the Justices were well prepared for this from reading the transcript.

CWOOD wrote:If the 'individual right' view prevails, and a complete ban in DC (and perhaps Chicago & New York) is struck down, could this bode well for the complete ban in National Parks, too?

There is not a complete ban in National Parks; there is the kind of "reasonable restriction" (unloaded, broken down, locked away separately from ammo) that many of us worry might be allowed by SCOTUS.

KBCraig wrote:

CWOOD wrote:If the 'individual right' view prevails, and a complete ban in DC (and perhaps Chicago & New York) is struck down, could this bode well for the complete ban in National Parks, too?

There is not a complete ban in National Parks; there is the kind of "reasonable restriction" (unloaded, broken down, locked away separately from ammo) that many of us worry might be allowed by SCOTUS.

I am not so sure. Isn't the "ban" in National Parks similar, IN EFFECT, to the ban in DC? While it is "not a complete ban", is is effectively a complete ban should the need for it arise. The length of time it would take someone to retrieve and put into action a weapon which is unloaded and stored locked in a trunk, makes it EFFECTIVELY unavaiable...just like the DC ban.

CWOOD wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

CWOOD wrote:If the 'individual right' view prevails, and a complete ban in DC (and perhaps Chicago & New York) is struck down, could this bode well for the complete ban in National Parks, too?

There is not a complete ban in National Parks; there is the kind of "reasonable restriction" (unloaded, broken down, locked away separately from ammo) that many of us worry might be allowed by SCOTUS.

I am not so sure. Isn't the "ban" in National Parks similar, IN EFFECT, to the ban in DC? While it is "not a complete ban", is is effectively a complete ban should the need for it arise. The length of time it would take someone to retrieve and put into action a weapon which is unloaded and stored locked in a trunk, makes it EFFECTIVELY unavaiable...just like the DC ban.

Yes, it is similar. But the diffference is that the DC restrictions apply to the home, while the national park restrictions apply to one's person and/or vehicle.

In some states, (FL comes to mind) it is established in the law that one's vehicle is an extension of one's home. In many others, it is not. In still others, the status of a vehicle lies somewhere in between, sometimes depending on the type of vehicle (automobile, camper, motor home, etc.).

Of course in national parks, federal law applies. I do not know how vehicles are treated under federal law, but I am pretty sure that they do not have the full status of being part of the home as in FL.

I don't know that Heller would affect any of this directly. I think there is a much better chance that the current administration will change the rules to make national park possession and carrying subject to existing state law in whatever state the park happens to be in.

This is far from ideal, but as the antis sometimes like to say, it would be, "...a good first step."

And it's still another reason why we must do whatever we can to prevent a Leftist (Note: Not "liberal". I'm sick of that word, and it is not an accurate description of what so-called liberals stand for anyway. There is nothing "liberal" about supressing free speech, confiscating ever-larger amounts of our income, dictating more and more details of how we live (using global warming as an excuse), stepping on the 2A and most of the other elements of their agenda. These people are authoritarians. They are Leftists, and we should call them that.) takeover of the government. I doubt that anyone that Obama or Clinton would choose to run the Interior Dept. would be likely to change the rules in our favor.