First, Emerson could appeal this decision if he wanted to. It went against him. However, the Court is saying that there was barely enough "evidence" to implicate 922. If Emerson had induced evidence that the prohibition against future violence was pro forma in all restraining orders without any particular showing of previous violence (IT MOST CERTAINLY IS, I CAN ATTEST TO THAT FROM MY CURRENT POSITION) then I would wager the decision would have been different as there was no showing of actual violence or threats.
Second, this decision, in outlining the history of the Second Amendment, is a huge, "respectful" slap in the face to all those sister circuits that didn't analyze Miller.
Third, this decision, using historical quotes, specifically endorses the "insurrectionist interpretation" of the Second Amendment.
PHUCK YOU MICHAEL BARNES AND SARAH BRADY.
Fourth, this opinion establishes a split between the Circuits as to the nature of the Second Amendment - a prerequisite for SCOTUS review.
Fifth, it clearly analyzes the individual right as a fundamental one - "narrowly tailored" is the Strict Scrutiny Review reserved for fundamental rights and is the hardest to survive.
Sixth, it clearly lays the groundwork for a 14th Amendment/incorporation challenge of State Laws that don't meet a Strict Scrutiny review.
All in all a win for individual rights. Small, baby steps will win this war against tyranny.
Let's hit Feinswein/Daschle/Sarbanes/all the rest of the anti's with this quote:
I wish, among other reasons why something should be done, that those who have been friendly to the adoption of this consitution may have the opportunity of proving to those who were opposed to it that hey were as sincerely devoted to liberty and a Republican Government, as those who charged them with wishing the adoption of this constitution in order to lay the foundation of an aristocracy or despostism."
They have been shown the evidence and history. If they truly believe in individual rights they will follow Madison's admonishment and work to support the consitution.
I realize this is speculation on your part for the future but I would like to know if a future case in a district court in another circuit could have the Emerson decision cited as a basis for a district court ruling and would the Emerson case also be a included in a possible appeal to a circuit?
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
We have to keep after em, as they are like a cockroach and will always be here. It's a everyhour , everyday job and I'll be one that checks em daily and counters with "FACT" versus "SPIN".......baby steps as you stated, good analogy Abundy !
Stay Safe !
It has long been established that a State may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm'n of California, 271 U.S. 583 . "Constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be . . . indirectly denied," Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 664 , or "manipulated out of existence." Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 345 . Significantly, the Twenty-fourth Amendment does not merely insure that the franchise shall not be "denied" by reason of failure to pay the poll tax; it expressly guarantees that the right to vote shall not be "denied or abridged" for that reason. Thus, like the Fifteenth Amendment, the Twenty-fourth "nullifies sophisticated as well as simple-minded modes" of impairing [380 U.S. 528, 541] the right guaranteed. Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268, 275 . "It hits onerous procedural requirements which effectively handicap exercise of the franchise" by those claiming the constitutional immunity. Ibid.; cf. Gray v. Johnson, 234 F. Supp. 743 (D.C. S. D. Miss.).