Crappy Lawyer

[Captain Crunch]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA...I agreed with every letter of this post until I came to this little tidbit. My wife makes plenty of decisions in our home, but this is most certainly not one of them. As a husband it is my duty to protect us to the best of my ability from harm. As such, I'll be the one deciding on what tools I need to best accomplish that goal. She decides what we'll have for dinner tonight.

Take it easy, now...

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Rob99VMI04]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA...I agreed with every letter of this post until I came to this little tidbit. My wife makes plenty of decisions in our home, but this is most certainly not one of them. As a husband it is my duty to protect us to the best of my ability from harm. As such, I'll be the one deciding on what tools I need to best accomplish that goal. She decides what we'll have for dinner tonight.

We now continue with our regularly scheduled program...

I've worked in in two gun stores for a combined total of over 8 years. Sold over 2000 guns. For a new person, whose trying to make the decession to buy a gun the statement I constantly hear is. Well I have to talk to my wife first.

Coming into a relationship, with the other knowing that you have guns is a completly differn't story. Heck my fiance knows I have a lot of firearms. However, most couples tend to talk things over expecially when they share a bank account about purchases over x ammount of dollars. Guns for non-gun people are a huge issue. It might be hard to fathom for you and I because guns are the equivalent of a power saw or hammer, that are works of art and products of extremely smart innovative people/inventors which form the fabric of our existance and history. However, to them they represent something completly differn't.

Lets face it to the unknowing blind who still think a gun is going to jump off the table and take them out. Guns are scary to them. You and I know thats hog wash but to them it still makes sense. Some are so caught up in a past experience that they don't want to get educated thus taking a firm stance that guns are evil.

Okay the Whole statement was Women In most households decide whether or not a gun is in the home. Most meaning there are exceptions. Now I know its easy to state, but if your wife did a complete flip flop and said get rid of the guns or I'm divorcing you would you do it? I know its extremely personal and on paper can be easily answered however...........My statement before was a PC way of saying........

If a man wants to have a healthy x life, with happiness companionship with his significant other 2.5 kids and a labrador, not fearing hes going to be divorced, Women in General are going to decide whether or not there are going to have guns in the home. Otherwise shes splitting taking the 2.5 kids leaving you Bullet the Black Lab.

[ZW17]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA...I agreed with every letter of this post until I came to this little tidbit. My wife makes plenty of decisions in our home, but this is most certainly not one of them. As a husband it is my duty to protect us to the best of my ability from harm. As such, I'll be the one deciding on what tools I need to best accomplish that goal. She decides what we'll have for dinner tonight.

We now continue with our regularly scheduled program...

[Rob99VMI04]

Take it easy, now...

Sorry won't speak on it again.

[Fast Cloud]

the statement I constantly hear is. Well I have to talk to my wife first.

Probably because she'll be the one handling the money.

Coming into a relationship, with the other knowing that you have guns is a completly differn't story.

Granted, this was my situation. There are many subjects that should be discussed before a marriege. A firearm should be one of them.


but if your wife did a complete flip flop and said get rid of the guns or I'm divorcing you would you do it?


Yes...right after I had her commited.



If a man wants to have a healthy x life,


This is where it might get complicated... It might sound like I'm some hard ass red neck but I'm really not. We've been married 12 years and I let her get her way 98% of the time but when it comes to that 2% and I drop the hammer, I mean it. Oh, she'll huff and puff a little bit but she gets over it.

Sorry Capn' Last post off topic, I promise.

[tabsr]

I read that the city water being supplied with all the chemicals is reducing the hormones and males are becoming impotent.

My wife does not know how many I own or cares but is capable with my Colt MK111 357.

[mcp1810]

Rob you are right. I had completely ignored the safety and marksmanship programs. I was more thinking about NRA-ILA side of things. I imagine that is because it was always the ILA that was hitting me up for the money. I am probably wrong on this but from my perspective it looked like the political side had taken over and sort of pushed the actual hands on stuff back into a corner.

[dunndw]

NRA offers tons of training as well. I know in TN the NRA basic pistol course is more inclusive than the CCW course...and it can be used in place of the standard CCW class.
I just went through 28 hours of NRA instructor training so it's still VERY fresh in what's left of my tired mind....but as soon as my paperwork comes in I'll be a cartified NRA pistol instructor

[cwblanco]

Yes, indeed! I mistitled the post. It is definitely not my opinion that he is a crappy lawyer. In fact, he seems to have successfully outmaneuvered the NRA lawyers. It just caught my eye that that is how he decribed the NRA's opinion of him.

He has been involved from the beginning. I'm sure he will present a good case. Hell, the Second is so straightforward, I could present a good case. (Although it would be impossible for me to be respectful of Ginsburg.) It is interesting that the fate of this decision rides on a fifteen minute oral argument and whether the Justices really want to preserve the Founders intent and foresight.

In reality virtually all cases before the U.S. Supreme Court are decided from the briefs that have been filed. The oral arguments presented have little bearing, except for entertainment value. With all of the amicus briefs presented, the Supreme Court undoubtedly will have before it plenty of material from which to decide the case. Further, the briefs that have been filed are public record. I have not heard that the counsel complained about filed a crappy brief. From what I have read, it was right on point.

I would point out that many of the intermediary federal appellate courts frequently do not even permit oral arguments on many of the cases.

Also, remember that everytime a lawyer loses a case (50% of them do you know), the reason given is that he was a crappy lawyer. Yet, for a lawyer who has never lost a case, it merely means that he has never tried a case or not many cases, or that he has not tried hard cases, or that he always settles the hard cases.

In summary, do buy into the crappy lawyer theory. His oral argument will not afect on the outcome anyway. In reality it is basically a political decision which will be decided upon the predisposed political attitudes of the justices.

[SelfDefense]

In reality virtually all cases before the U.S. Supreme Court are decided from the briefs that have been filed. The oral arguments presented have little bearing, except for entertainment value. With all of the amicus briefs presented, the Supreme Court undoubtedly will have before it plenty of material from which to decide the case. Further, the briefs that have been filed are public record. I have not heard that the counsel complained about filed a crappy brief. From what I have read, it was right on point.

I would point out that many of the intermediary federal appellate courts frequently do not even permit oral arguments on many of the cases.

Also, remember that everytime a lawyer loses a case (50% of them do you know), the reason given is that he was a crappy lawyer. Yet, for a lawyer who has never lost a case, it merely means that he has never tried a case or not many cases, or that he has not tried hard cases, or that he always settles the hard cases.

In summary, do buy into the crappy lawyer theory. His oral argument will not afect on the outcome anyway. In reality it is basically a political decision which will be decided upon the predisposed political attitudes of the justices.

I agree that the oral arguments are only a small part. But the briefs are not all that significant either. I haven't read them but one can imagine what the Brady bref contains.

The fact is this is very a easy case. The Second is very obviously an individual right. The District of Columbia is Federal land and is obligated by the mandate for the Federal government, the Constitution. As I pointed out, the Congress has supreme legislative authority of DC and could have defeated this ban long before it arrived at the Court. In point of fact, no matter the decision of the Court the Congress can still either ban or allow guns in DC.

The Court will opine that the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms and will uphold the appeals court decision to overturn the ban.

It will have no effect on the states, which are sovereign entities and can pass any laws the people decide concerning gun laws.

By the way, the Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with incorporating the Bill of Rights as a mandate for the states. Can you say, "judicial activism?"

I am concerned that many contributors here, many of whom are strong state's rights advocates, want the Federal government to infringe upon state sovereignty.

[cwblanco]

[QUOTE=SelfDefense;664079The fact is this is very a easy case.[/quote]
I recall how often I have said that only to be quite surprised. Over-confidence can lead to disaster.

The Court will opine that the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms and will uphold the appeals court decision to overturn the ban.

I suspect that you are correct, but will then ask "Why did the court agree to review the decision in the first place?"

It will have no effect on the states, which are sovereign entities and can pass any laws the people decide concerning gun laws.

Don't count on that. I am confident that you are aware that a lot of U.S. Bill of Rights components have been applied to the states on various theories. Although though not expressly stated in the constitution and bill of rights, there are thousands of examples of 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment cases where the federal courts have applied them to the states. Chances are that the 2nd Amendment likewise will be held to apply to the states. However, because this case is a District of Columbia case, the Supreme Court may elect not to discuss whether the 2nd Amendment will be applied to the states.

By the way, the Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with incorporating the Bill of Rights as a mandate for the states. Can you say, "judicial activism?" I am concerned that many contributors here, many of whom are strong state's rights advocates, want the Federal government to infringe upon state sovereignty.

You are quite right. Most frequently, one's interpretation will depend upon "whose ox is being gored." Those persons who previously opposed applying the U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights to the states may now take a different position when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.