Third Circuit joins 2nd & 4th Circuits - Limited to bearing inside one's home.

This is a discussion on Third Circuit joins 2nd & 4th Circuits - Limited to bearing inside one's home. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; This was Argued February 12, 2013, and Published/Filed July 31, 2013 Third Circuit joins the Second and Fourth Circuits in declaring that Heller and McDonald ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18
Like Tree13Likes

Thread: Third Circuit joins 2nd & 4th Circuits - Limited to bearing inside one's home.

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array tmoore912's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    North Coast of Georgia
    Posts
    667

    Third Circuit joins 2nd & 4th Circuits - Limited to bearing inside one's home.

    This was Argued February 12, 2013, and Published/Filed July 31, 2013


    Third Circuit joins the Second and Fourth Circuits in declaring that Heller and McDonald are limited to bearing inside one's own home.

    Hopefully SCOTUS will agree to hear this case. Seems that they would considering the Seventh Circuit does not agree with them.

    Comments from The Volokh Conspiracy

    Eugene Volokh • July 31, 2013 4:23 pm

    The case is today’s Drake v. Filko (3d Cir. July 31, 2013), a 2-1 decision. I agree with the dissent, except that I think intermediate scrutiny isn’t the right standard to apply to such a broad restriction on the right to carry guns for self-defense.

    My guess is also that there’s a decent chance that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the case (I doubt that the Third Circuit will rehear it en banc). There is something of a split between the circuits and state supreme courts that have upheld such restrictive schemes, and the Seventh Circuit, which struck down the Illinois law; and while the Illinois law was an unusually broad carry ban, I think the logic of the Seventh Circuit decision is indeed contrary to that of the other decisions. And the fact that there’s a dissent on the panel also cuts in some measure in favor of a grant of certiorari. The odds are still against cert — they almost always are — but I’d say that there’s at least a 25% chance or so of the Supreme Court agreeing to hear this case, assuming plaintiffs petition for review (and I expect they will).

    Decision is here: http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/121150p.pdf

    It's a good read, and obviously the dissent is the best part. The dissenting Judge tears up the Majority's opinion very well.

    ETA: This is another Alan Gura case.
    bklynboy and 84160 like this.
    GeorgiaCarry.org
    GPDO SAF NRA
    Let Not My Last Thought Be, If Only I Had My Gun.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,875
    it reads to me like they decided the demonstrate need was assumed to be lawful as it us repeatedly declared "presumptively lawful" as well as "long standing" and decided that since a higher court (SCOTUS) hadn't already said otherwise, they weren't going to challenge it.

    Reads like utter BS and a proverbial "cop out" to me.

  4. #3
    Ex Member Array IndianaSig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    733
    Over the next 7 years, the SCOTUS is likely going to change from a 5-4 conservative lean to a 6-3 liberal one. When that happens, what you have known as your 2A rights will change drastically. There's not much any of us can do at this point to stop it. More than at any time in our lifetime, the 2016 POTUS election is one we cannot lose. To keep the Court on our side, we must be the ones picking the replacements for Thomas and Scalia.

  5. #4
    Senior Member Array acepilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    NW WI
    Posts
    559
    I can't find, in Article III of The Constitution, where it says that the judicial branch of the government has the authority to "interpret" The Constitution. They can't arbitrarily add words to any amendments such as the second amendment, which is what they would be doing if they add that it only applies in one's home. To change the second amendment in any way requires it to be done in accordance with Article V. Of course, I'm NOT a lawyer and I haven't played one on TV, but...juss sayin'
    Ace
    Gotta Fly or Gonna Die

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,720
    The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and yet according to these anti-gun folk it specifically means ONLY carrying arms within one's residence is what's acknowledged as right? Huh??

    Wrong.

    Amazing these people are called "judges." Amazing we've allowed our judiciary from top to bottom to be so infected. "Shall NOT Be Infringed" is pretty darned clear, simple, impossible to misconstrue unless deliberately choosing to do so for politically-motivated citizen-control reasons beyond the law.
    Tzadik, Ghost1958 and 84160 like this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  7. #6
    Member Array G26Realtor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Pa
    Posts
    29
    Stack the courts and get legislation you couldn't legislate.

  8. #7
    VIP Member
    Array Echo_Four's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Land of the mostly free
    Posts
    2,830
    You can't assume how the court will change in the future. Not one person knows who will be picking judges in 2017, so nobody knows how that will shake out. And as has been seen in the past, you don't always get the judge you thought you had once they get to the court. No need worrying about things before it becomes time.

    As far as judicial review, you're correct that the constitution doesn't explicitly grant this power to the judiciary. However I'd be shocked if the framers didn't have that specific job in mind as they set up our government. Without the power of judicial review they cannot serve as a check against the other two branches of government. In Marbury v Madison the court granted themselves the power and there's been no question since that time. In the end it is a good thing. If not for judicial review we'd be completely subject to the tyranny of the majority if Congress and the White House decided to go against the Constitution to further their political agenda there would be nothing standing in their way.
    "The only people I like besides my wife and children are Marines."
    - Lt. Col. Oliver North

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array Patti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Show Me State
    Posts
    2,644
    This is what happens when the people elect an anti-American radical leftist who appoints communist judges.

    It is completely within their character to destroy the Constitution and to deny liberty and freedom.
    Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. Winston Churchill

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,720
    Another example of attempting to redefine "shall not be infringed" to instead mean "shall infringe whatever we say is infringeable."

    "Clintonesque" was the term, back when. Seems to apply here. The practical impact of this redefinition? That "not" instead becomes "most certainly." Great judgement, there.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array Smitty901's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,288
    Quote Originally Posted by acepilot View Post
    I can't find, in Article III of The Constitution, where it says that the judicial branch of the government has the authority to "interpret" The Constitution. They can't arbitrarily add words to any amendments such as the second amendment, which is what they would be doing if they add that it only applies in one's home. To change the second amendment in any way requires it to be done in accordance with Article V. Of course, I'm NOT a lawyer and I haven't played one on TV, but...juss sayin'
    The only thing required to change the 2nd amendment is one vote on the court.
    You seem to forget the Constitution says and means what 5 of the nine says it does and that is that.
    And that will happen with in months of Obama appointing one more to the court.
    IndianaSig likes this.

  12. #11
    Ex Member Array IndianaSig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Echo_Four View Post
    You can't assume how the court will change in the future....... No need worrying about things before it becomes time.
    Perhaps you can't and you choose not to plan ahead. I prefer a more proactive, educated approach.

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,266
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and yet according to these anti-gun folk it specifically means ONLY carrying arms within one's residence is what's acknowledged as right? Huh??

    Wrong.

    Amazing these people are called "judges." Amazing we've allowed our judiciary from top to bottom to be so infected. "Shall NOT Be Infringed" is pretty darned clear, simple, impossible to misconstrue unless deliberately choosing to do so for politically-motivated citizen-control reasons beyond the law.
    Wait...so you mean to tell me that I'm allowed to speak outside my home? Oh and I'm allowed to practice whatever religion I want on my street corner? What about a business? Can I run that from outside my home too?
    paramedic70002 likes this.
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,266
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Another example of attempting to redefine "shall not be infringed" to instead mean "shall infringe whatever we say is infringeable."

    "Clintonesque" was the term, back when. Seems to apply here. The practical impact of this redefinition? That "not" instead becomes "most certainly." Great judgement, there.
    They're not attempting to redefine. They already HAVE REDEFINED. We're on on the losing end of an uphill battle that many before us already lost. If we all don't get our butts in gear we're going to be the ones to lose the war.
    ccw9mm and phreddy like this.
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  15. #14
    Senior Member Array KyBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Lexington, Ky
    Posts
    516
    When the law is unreasonable, those with the ability to reason will ignore the law.

  16. #15
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,339
    S H A L L N O T B E I F R I N G E D ....

    It is going to get far far far worse people... They cant outright take our rights so they will chip away one millimeter a year until the forest is nothing but a pile of dirt.
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

drake v filko certiorari

,

join 4th circuit

,

leftist third circuit court

,

third circuit second amendment

,

what is misconstrue circuits

Click on a term to search for related topics.