tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3274583756441452923.post5743282126114410711..comments2024-02-13T14:28:21.282-05:00Comments on New Jovian Thunderbolt: 4th CircuitNew Jovian Thunderbolthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09452246769246304612noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3274583756441452923.post-24169946224186391262013-03-23T09:31:01.899-04:002013-03-23T09:31:01.899-04:007th Circuit decided that the 2a means what it says...7th Circuit decided that the 2a means what it says, so we have a circuit splitIan Argenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03704336044732061128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3274583756441452923.post-38441123168849902942013-03-22T07:44:01.869-04:002013-03-22T07:44:01.869-04:00The sad part is that it was a punt. 4CA said esse...The sad part is that it was a punt. 4CA said essentially "we don't think outside the home needs strict scrutiny, only intermediate and this law satisfies intermediate, therefore we aren't even going to touch 2A outside the home."<br /><br />Besides the circular logic (which only makes sense in the legal arena for some reason), it's really a way to say "we don't want to rock the boat, we'll make the SCOTUS decide." The SCOTUS said that it shouldn't be the court of "first impression", which means that the SCOTUS shouldn't be the first court to rule on issues like 2A outside the home, that's the job of the districts and courts of appeal, leaving the SCOTUS to deal with circuit splits or to correct the CA when they screw up. This decision says "too bad, you must give us guidance, we don't want make the first call."Frozenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17016423856797275973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3274583756441452923.post-13092892820708301532013-03-21T22:43:47.458-04:002013-03-21T22:43:47.458-04:00Now it needs to go to SCOTUS... sighNow it needs to go to SCOTUS... sighOld NFOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16404197287935017147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3274583756441452923.post-51139775309169260222013-03-21T15:26:18.288-04:002013-03-21T15:26:18.288-04:00It is unfortunate that what is, to me, an obvious ...It is unfortunate that what is, to me, an obvious consequence of the phrase "keep and bear arms", that being the word "bear" strongly implies carrying the arms outside a domicile, is murky and fuzzy to jurists. In addition, the obvious implication of the introductory clause of having a well-trained (which is what "regulated" meant in the late 18th century) militia would necessitate carrying arms outside a domicile. Not to mention the right every person has to defend his life, and those of his loved ones. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I needed to vent. High blood pressure and all that.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08015544320906146949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3274583756441452923.post-89361088818302220712013-03-21T14:51:14.445-04:002013-03-21T14:51:14.445-04:00The decision can be read here:
Woollard DecisionThe decision can be read here:<br /><br><br /><a href="http://www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/woollard.pdf" rel="nofollow">Woollard Decision</a>Frozenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17016423856797275973noreply@blogger.com