Skip to comments.
DC Circuit strikes down DC gun law
How Appealing Blog ^
| 03/08/2007
| Howard Bashman
Posted on 03/09/2007 8:10:02 AM PST by cryptical
Edited on 03/09/2007 10:38:14 AM PST by Admin Moderator.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400, 401-420, 421-440 ... 1,221-1,238 next last
To: Congressman Billybob
Please don't get me wrong -- I am one of those who appreciate you putting your link there, because I forget to look for your articles, and like to read them.
I just should have made it clear I was commenting on that article, and not your post regarding the gun issue.
I was razzing you for your support of Rudy.
To: Dead Corpse
But "no man can be so far lost in the Shadow that he cannot be redeemed". I prefer the pessimists version. "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
But hope costs me nothing... ;-)
Other than moments from your life you'll never, ever get back.
Best of luck with the long shot, though.
This is a very good day my friend. Very good indeed.
L
402
posted on
03/09/2007 12:31:48 PM PST
by
Lurker
(Calling islam a religion is like calling a car a submarine.)
To: Dead Corpse
No, an appeal does not go to "en banc" first. Anyone who loses a case can request an "en banc" review, meaning all judges of that Circuit participate. However, more than 90% of the time a Circuit will refuse that review.
Parties and their counsel always have a right to request SC review. Those, however, are denied about 99.5% of the time.
John / Billybob
To: Congressman Billybob
404
posted on
03/09/2007 12:33:22 PM PST
by
patton
(Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
To: GovernmentShrinker; domenad
would strongly suggest that you READ the Supreme Court's U.S. v. Miller decision,i have a copy of the Miller decision on my website that includes most of the court documents surrounding the case.
Gun-grabbers are fond of citing this case as supporting their claims, but in fact it does just the opposite.
You are absolutely right about that.
405
posted on
03/09/2007 12:33:48 PM PST
by
zeugma
(MS Vista has detected your mouse has moved, Cancel or Allow?)
To: Tarpon
"Is there really any difference on how you would behave if you had a full auto assault rifle as opposed to a revolver?"Me, or some whack job who made the news because he showed how he would behave?
To: GovernmentShrinker
lol!
With Republicans like this, who needs Democrats?
Reagan and Bush I had 12 years and did a miserable job with the judiciary.
Long after he is gone, Bush II's legacy, despite a few setbacks, will be reigning in the activist courts.
407
posted on
03/09/2007 12:35:10 PM PST
by
zendari
To: robertpaulsen
While you're correct that this won't have any effect on state gun laws, the DC Circuit is much more than the equivalent of a state supreme court. Its rulings have an effect on DC obviously, but it also decides many cases arising out of federal agencies and their huge power. Because the federal agencies and government have power throughout the land, it is considered the most important Circuit Court in the nation. Decisons made there often do impact the entire country.
408
posted on
03/09/2007 12:36:12 PM PST
by
NinoFan
(Rudy Lovers: The Rosie O'Donnell Wing of the Republican Party)
To: robertpaulsen
Me, or some whack job ... There's a difference?
L
409
posted on
03/09/2007 12:36:23 PM PST
by
Lurker
(Calling islam a religion is like calling a car a submarine.)
To: Congressman Billybob
the SC should have taken the Emerson case a year ago, to eliminate the conflict among the Circuit Courts
My understanding is that the individual rights part of Emerson was dicta, because it was not needed to uphold Emerson's conviction, as the holding did. That made is easy for the SC to duck. Harder in this case when individual rights was a key essential element of the holding.
410
posted on
03/09/2007 12:36:31 PM PST
by
Atlas Sneezed
(Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
To: Congressman Billybob
Anyone who loses a case can request an "en banc" review, meaning all judges of that Circuit participate.I was under the impression that the judges who ruled on the appeal do not sit en banc. Is that incorrect?
To: Congressman Billybob
"Parties and their counsel always have a right to request SC review. Those, however, are denied about 99.5% of the time."
A bit of an understatement. ;)
412
posted on
03/09/2007 12:38:31 PM PST
by
NinoFan
(Rudy Lovers: The Rosie O'Donnell Wing of the Republican Party)
To: CharlesWayneCT
Razzing cheerfully accepted. I might be right, or wrong. Events will prove out. Either way, we'll know the results early since 63% of the nation will have voted in Presidential Preference Elections by 5 February, 2008.
John / Billybob
To: Congressman Billybob
Parties and their counsel always have a right to request SC review. Those, however, are denied about 99.5% of the time.Do you think there would be a better chance of this particular appeal making it to the SC?
414
posted on
03/09/2007 12:39:10 PM PST
by
jmc813
(Rudy Giuliani as the Republican nominee is like Martin Luther being Pope.)
To: Steel Wolf
Now, does that mean that Thomas Jefferson wanted individual citizens to own cruise missiles? Tanks? Grenade launchers? It's hard to say, exactly, since they weren't around at the time. Certainly private citizens owned ships and cannon, which were clearly military grade of the time. A letter of marque serves no purpose if there aren't heavily armed citizens to employ. One could infer that the Founding Fathers wanted the citizens to have pretty much anything that the government could. There was a distinctino between arms (guns, swords), and ordinance (cannons).
'Arms' seems to entail (as a loose definition) anything that can be carried in 2 arms.
415
posted on
03/09/2007 12:39:30 PM PST
by
zendari
To: cryptical
At least the gun grabbers will have green beer to cry in next week.
416
posted on
03/09/2007 12:39:33 PM PST
by
Ken H
To: coloradan
Heh. Gotta love it when the Admin Moderator edits your post by ADDING EMPHASIS!I'm a modest guy, nice to make it to the breaking panel :)
417
posted on
03/09/2007 12:39:48 PM PST
by
cryptical
(Wretched excess is just barely enough.)
To: cryptical
WOOOOOHOOOOO!!!
I hope that there are many more desicions like this!
To: Lurker; robertpaulsen
There's a difference?SIZ-NAP!
419
posted on
03/09/2007 12:41:50 PM PST
by
jmc813
(Rudy Giuliani as the Republican nominee is like Martin Luther being Pope.)
To: Steel Wolf
It seems to me that under what appeared to be their intent, they'd be more open for the banning of handguns (as they are more useful in crime than in warfare)
So why are troops issued pistols?
420
posted on
03/09/2007 12:42:27 PM PST
by
Atlas Sneezed
(Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400, 401-420, 421-440 ... 1,221-1,238 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson