Emerson Case Being Appealed to the Supreme Court!!!

Second Ammendment Foundation (email alert) ^ | Thu, 6 Dec 2001 | David LaCourse

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

I did a search and couldn't find this on the bang_list or otherwise anywhere on the FR radar screen.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

FYI

[Inspector Harry Callahan]

.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

Thanks harry, look at the first reply. You really are quick on the draw, or is that considered a double tap?!

[Fixit]

Tax-Free 2A Supporting Donations Bump!

I wonder if my employer will match????

[AStack75]

A victory for the individual interpretation would be especially helpful for those people living in places like California, New York, New Jersey, Washington, D.C. and Chicago.

Don't forget Massachusetts.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

Maybe, do you work for HCI?LOL

[Inspector Harry Callahan]

hehehe.. Thanks for the bump. My dial-up is smokin' tonight. ;^)

[Fixit]

Maybe, do you work for HCI?

Careful there, them are fighting words!

;-)

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

Not even that would help Mass., your beyond help. HA.

[nunya bidness]

Emerson bump!

[Torie]

Until the government agrees to drop the simple possession of a firearm while subject to a civil divorce court order, both Dr. Emerson and the Second Amendment remain at risk."

The odds that SCOTUS will grant cert on this case are slim to none. What is in controversy is Emerson's legal troubles interfering with his claimed right to possess a firearm. There is no conflict between appellate circuits. The issue is narrow, and not otherwise ripe for a SCOTUS decision. The attempt to wrap the second amendment around this case to give it sweeping importance is feeble.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

You a lawyer, or just trying to pee in our punch?

I suppose the answer could be both.

Why can't the SCOTUS affirm the individual right, agree that some restrictions are allowed, but find that the boilerplate striking down of a constitutional right without due process is unconstitutional.

That is when the protection order is being discussed and the defendant and accuser are getting their say in court, some mention of the loss of 2nd ammendment rights should take place and be considered.

[Quix]

PERSONALLY

THIS GUN CASE NEEDS A WHOLE BUNCH OF PRAYER

I don't by any stretch consider all the court justices sane on such an issue. I realize "those who live by the sword will die by the sword." However, I believe God had a strong hand in insuring this was in our founding document. I believe in some areas, for some extended period of time, the degree of gun ownership may well directly effect the degree of freedom of believers to survive. This is not an "evangelism" issue. That does NOT make it unimportant to pray for.

[Dan from Michigan]

Bump for Emerson. SAF has been excellent on this so far.

I'm afraid SCOTUS won't touch it, but ya never know.
BTW - Who is the Head Judge for that area? Please be Thomas.

[Dan from Michigan]

Unfortunatly, I tend to agree. I don't think they want to step in this hornet's nest.

[Torie]

I am a lawyer, although not a constitutional expert. I gave you my opinion (SCOTUS won't take up the case). I am quite confident about it. We shall see.

[Torie]

The issue is too limited. SCTOUS isn't interested in deciding who is a bad boy and who is just a naughty boy, absent evidence of widespread abuse. SCOTUS will only take up the second amendment when the issue is clearly joined as to whether there is a right to possess a gun outside an organized militia. And they won't be happy about taking that case. I think the common wisdom among elite legal circles is that the ambiguity about a somewhat ambiguous amendment is the best course at present.

[Torie]

There need to be 4 votes to grant cert.

[Dan from Michigan]

It's so much of a hornet's nest. I bet they are all saying - "I'm not touching this. I don't want the Buck here". No one want to be the ones saying flat out "There is an individual right." or "There is no right".