Current 2A Cases

Kamala Harris is dumber than a box of rocks.

If she was smart she'd be focused on supporting Richards (Yolo County Calif.) and/or Baker (Hawaii) in some fashion, making sure one of those went en banc and overturned Peruta. Instead she's messing around with Peruta when she doesn't need to.

She's either a moron or a glory hog (PR chaser) of some sort...probably both.
 
She has no standing in the Baker case, since it does not involve California law. Further, Baker arose from the denial of a petition for preliminary injunction, rather than after a judgment on the merits, so it is extremely unlikely that en banc will be granted.
 
I'm two minutes in and it is already a mess. Our side is arguing that a law from 1930 should be considered long-standing. Why didn't he go directly to the dangerous and unusual reasoning wherein bazookas might actually be outside of the second amendment protection?

He then goes on to practically stipulate that fully automatic weapons are illegal in most states, which is false.

Okay, he did better as it went along. I could not believe the female judge declaring that thumbhole stock enabled a person to "spray from the hip", and that a collapsible stock somehow made an AR 15 "concealable".

And would it be so difficult to get some kind of reliable number or range of numbers indicating the degree of commonality of these semi automatic rifles? That being a linchpin of the common use test, I would think that data would have been essential. Also, no mention of the microscopically tiny number of rifles of all types being used in homicides, let alone from "assault rifles".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@maestro pistolero - all of those things were covered in the appellate briefs. The actual hearing is very limited in time and I actually feel pretty good about this one. Easterbrook will be the swing vote, I think he went into the bazooka thing trying to set up a trap and the fish weren't biting. Easterbrokk did seem to accept that the banned weapons were "in common use".

Wilson, the Highland Park attorney, was just awful and basically had nothing but appeals to emotion.
 
Palmer v DC news: The DC Attorney General announced that the appeal of Palmer has been dropped and his office will focus on defending DC's new concealed carry law.
 
The Highland park case could be extra interesting. If the supreme court takes it up, they'd better be careful with their wording if they uphold the Highland park bans. It could be interpreted as allowing local civic law to trump federal law if they are not careful. For that reason, I would think they will not likely side with the Chicago suburb government.
 
A challenge to an assault weapon ban, Friedman v. Highland Park (15-133), has been relisted for the 5th time.

I wish I could see what is going on behind the curtain on this one!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top