Abandoning the Second Amendment

[publius]

Graystar,

Thanks for patiently sharing your knowledge.

Would you mind terribly going through the SC docket page on the Stewart case and translating it into English and explaining what's going on? I mean line by line, under the assumption that I know nothing. I'm wondering because you said "ask Justice O'Connor" why the case was remanded and not reversed. I see that the original applications in the case were submitted to, and granted by, Justice O'Connor. I take it cases are given to individual Justices to handle before coming before the Court? But does that then mean that it would be O'Connor's decision, not the Court's decision, whether to reverse or remand? I would have thought that once a cert petition is granted, such decisions would be made by the whole Court.

~Date~~~ Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aug 27 2004 Application (04A176) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 8, 2004 to October 8, 2004, submitted to Justice O'Connor.
Aug 30 2004 Application (04A176) granted by Justice O'Connor extending the time to file until October 8, 2004.
Sep 28 2004 Application (04A176) to extend further the time from October 8, 2004 to November 7, 2004, submitted to Justice O'Connor.
Sep 28 2004 Application (04A176) granted by Justice O'Connor extending the time to file until November 7, 2004.
Nov 5 2004 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 6, 2004)
Dec 6 2004 Brief of respondent Robert Wilson Stewart, Jr. in opposition filed.
Dec 6 2004 Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent.
Dec 22 2004 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 7, 2005.
Jun 6 2005 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 9, 2005.
Jun 13 2005 Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED.
Jun 13 2005 Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. ____ (2005).
Jul 15 2005 JUDGMENT ISSUED.

huh?

 

[Graystar]

Would you mind terribly going through the SC docket page on the Stewart case and translating it into English and explaining what's going on?

Sure, but you have to remember that I’m not a lawyer...I just play one in the forums So my information is certainly not as complete as a person who’s really in the know.

Each Justice is assigned a Circuit. Justice O’Connor is assigned to the Ninth Circuit. That’s why she made the rulings.

A Writ of Certiorari is an order to call up the records of the case in question from the inferior court.

According to the Supreme Court rules, you must file a Writ of Certiorari within 90 days of the ruling you wish to have reviewed. If you cannot, you may file for an extension, allowing you more time.

On 27-AUG-04 the government filed and extension.
On 30-AUG-04 the extension was granted.
On 28-SEP-04 the government filed another extension.
On 28-SEP-04 the extension was granted.
On 5-NOV-04 the government filed its Writ of Certiorari

The rules allow a respondent to file a brief explaining why the Court should not take on the case.

On 6-DEC-04 Stewart files a brief in opposition

The rules allow a petitioner or a respondent to make a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (as a poor person: relieved of the fees and costs of a legal action because of inability to pay.) This gives relief from any fees, and allows a less stringent format for document preparation.

On 6-DEC-04 Stewart files a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
On 13-JUN-05 the motion was granted.

On 13-JUN-05 the petition for a Writ of Certiorari was granted.

On 13-JUN-05 Judgement VACATED
It is my understanding that a single justice can make rule on a case on procedural grounds, and that seems to be what happened in this case. As far as I can tell, a writ of certiorari was never issued. Justice O’Connor simply vacated the judgement and sent the case back.

And that seems to be the end of the case. I'm not aware of Stewart filing a new appeal.

 

[cz75bdneos22]

This is usually the result of dogmatic theory coming into direct conflict with harsh reality. That's why most academics have to hide in the bowels of college campuses--they are so dogmatic about their ideological beliefs that the second they were exposed to harsh reality they would wither like a hot-house flower in a blizzard.

Edited to add: I don't mean this as a criticism of CZ75BD's position. It just struck me as an example of a roadblock I often reach when trying to have a rational discussion with a dogmatic ideologue on either the right or the left. The fact that CZ made this comment indicates his thinking is not hindered by such road blocks.

+10 and thank you, sir...

 

[cz75bdneos22]

I give up with this one. Is there an interpreter in the house who can translate gibberish into coherent English?

you know what i mean...regardless of the way it is written, thought..right?
it's alright...life will go on...enjoy life, that's all!

 

[sigman4rt]

Meplat

I can't remember the exact phrase, so I'll paraphrase. "there are men with muddy boots and there are men who write about those men in muddy boots." You sir have muddy boots. I salute you and yours for your actions during the recent lawlessness.

R.T.

 

[publius]

On 13-JUN-05 the petition for a Writ of Certiorari was granted.

On 13-JUN-05 Judgement VACATED
It is my understanding that a single justice can make rule on a case on procedural grounds, and that seems to be what happened in this case. As far as I can tell, a writ of certiorari was never issued.

OK, I'm still not understanding that. The government petitioned for one, the petition was granted, but it was never issued?

 

[Manedwolf]

ok. i see that you have situational incidents that seem on face value to counter my assertions as to why people believe what they do....that's fair. it's true too. People are a funny bunch of folks. still, you or i don't seem to be addressing the ultimate principle involved behind these behaviors...while, there may be exception to every rule...i don't think you would support using those exceptions as the rule by which to conduct affairs. again, i point out that most people are genuinely well intentioned. they labor over seemingly straitforward information to arrive.. by logic, at decisions (choices) concerning matters of importance..and they come to this reason using the information that is available to them at a given time. But, know something..it's nice to be wrong..we(people) seem to have a knack for learning from our mistakes. there is a saying in spanish...from said to done, there's a whole way's in between..de dicho a hecho, es mucho el trecho..People do foolish things all the time..even seemingly intelligent people. what's more, it continues even when logic tells them otherwise and any rational person would have folded their cards. we can at least agree on that. some people have an uncanny ability to know that, i think. i never have been one to follow selective occurences, nor will i ever be. you may play with the cirscumnstances regarding any given situation, but that does not change the underlying principle. it never stopped anyone from trying though. that's human behavior for ya! just when we think logic prevails, primal instincts can and often override our seat of reason. that can drive anyone crazy..don't ask me how i know this!

Uh..if you're trying to get a point-across, Faulknerian stream-of-conciousness isn't the best way. Paragraph breaks are a good thing.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

You know, that might make a good new forum on THR; we could take our cue from an old "The Onion" bit and have the "Ask a Faulknerian Idiot Manchild" forum.

I think I'm a bit loopy. I have a low-grade fever and haven't slept and have to fly to Cincinnati in a couple of hours. I feel very much like a Faulknerian idiot manchild. Time to shut down the computer.

 

[Graystar]

OK, I'm still not understanding that. The government petitioned for one, the petition was granted, but it was never issued?

Like I said, a writ of certiorari is an order to call up the records for review. But if a justice can make a procedural ruling without looking at the case documents (because enough information was provided in the petition) then there’s no reason to get the case records.

 

[Meplat]

you know what i mean...regardless of the way it is written, thought..right?

Actually, I have NO IDEA what you mean. I don't read gibberese. Sorry. Free-form prose is fine for poets, but in a medium where ideas should be precisely worded, it is pretty useless.

it's alright...life will go on...enjoy life, that's all!

Don't worry about that. I intend to. And intend to ensure that anyone who tries to stop that life from going on - or me from enjoying that life doesn't enjoy their efforts. I can't ensure that unarmed and naked. (See? That's how one makes a coherent point. You might want to give it a try.)

 

[publius]

Uh..if you're trying to get a point-across...

Hey, lay off. I think he's just trying to politely say he has a rash on his seat of reason.

 

[Meplat]

Hey, lay off. I think he's just trying to politely say he has a rash on his seat of reason.

I honestly don't think he knows what he is trying to say, and so therefore just wanders around hoping to one day accidently make a point.

 

[NineseveN]

it was argued for a reason...since the second ammendment guarantees the "keep and bear arms" clause...which i agree to an extent...ever since the inception of a National Armed Forces the "militia" became a moot point...that is why ever since the turn of the 20th century, after the passage of the Old "Wild" West era...iit was in the first three decades that the states acted to restrict by law both the keeping and the bearing of arms to those who would comply with the parameters set forth by the individual states...also, contributing to the discrepancy in allowing a CCW to be issued/reciprocated among the states...it's late ...and i'm leaving in a few hours...see ya!

Oh great, another half-way gunowner. This kind of thinking clearly demonstrates the difference between "someone that owns guns" and "someone that knows and understands the importance of the right to keep and bear arms". Barbie has her own Barbie house too, that doesn't make her an expert on or an advocate of private property rights.


BTW, good discussion on the Miller decision.

 

[cz75bdneos22]

Actually, I have NO IDEA what you mean. I don't read gibberese. Sorry. Free-form prose is fine for poets, but in a medium where ideas should be precisely worded, it is pretty useless.



Don't worry about that. I intend to. And intend to ensure that anyone who tries to stop that life from going on - or me from enjoying that life doesn't enjoy their efforts. I can't ensure that unarmed and naked. (See? That's how one makes a coherent point. You might want to give it a try.)

Sir, neither you nor anyone else can stop a person from killing you or others..if you think so, then you just have not met the one man who will show you otherwise. Secondly, don't go by what you see in the media. Life is not edited for t.v...being armed does not make you immune to dying. moreso, continuing to believe as you do...then, it's only a matter of time before you find out the hard way...unfortunately for you, it will be too late. Death is not cool..especially when it involves oneself. Am i saying not to arm yourself. No. it's your right damn it! Arm yourself to the teeth for all i care. You are free to pursue whatever ends tickle your fancy..However, don't delude yourself...Death is certain. And while variables (insert your fav) can
and do positively affect outcomes (sometimes) in life or death
situations..In no way does it guarantee you will live. Just
ask a relative of a person who was killed while being armed themselves. i guess you must be the one exception to the rule. As long as you are armed, no one will kill you or others close to you. you remind me of countless other people who share the same view towards Life..I'm getting a fire-extinguisher in case of fire. I'm getting a helmet in case i fall off my moto. I'm putting my seat belt in case i have an accident. I'm getting an alarm in case my house is burglarized. etc, etc.
It's O.K..i long for the day i can feel the same way as you do. until then, i have much to learn...Live long

 

[horge]

Breath-taking.

 

[NineseveN]

Breath-taking.

Folks, the head of the nail just met the hammer.

 

[Meplat]

Sir, neither you nor anyone else can stop a person from killing you or others..if you think so, then you just have not met the one man who will show you otherwise.

*sigh* Sometimes I grow weary. This is one of those times. You sir, I can barely bring myself to deal with. I admit it. Your head in the clouds ( and I AM being very generous with that location) attitude is just too much for me. If I want half baked Shaolin philosophy from those incapable of actually intellectually thinking, I'll buy the old Kung Fu series on DVD. You have YET to directly address any one of many examples given to you of just how false this "philosphical" mindset of yours is. I have given clear examples - concrete examles of lives spared through the possession and or use of firearms.

Secondly, don't go by what you see in the media.

I don't. As I have more than patiently explained to you dozens of times. I've given concrete, real world examples. You have responded with poorly worded, ill thought out false philosophical posts in an attempt to appear somehow "enlightened".

Life is not edited for t.v...being armed does not make you immune to dying.

Once again, if you will just go back and read what I have posted, you will quite clearly see that I never claimed that being armed would make me immune to dying. I did say that it would make it a whole lot harder for someone to MAKE that occur.

moreso, continuing to believe as you do...then, it's only a matter of time before you find out the hard way...unfortunately for you, it will be too late. Death is not cool..especially when it involves oneself.

That would sound like a threat if I were not already so familiar with your weak grasp of the English language and poor ability to think on a rational level.

Am i saying not to arm yourself.

That's fine, because I never asked your permission.

No. it's your right damn it! Arm yourself to the teeth for all i care. You are free to pursue whatever ends tickle your fancy..However, don't delude yourself...Death is certain.

You're kidding me, right? Death is certain? Are you sure?

And while variables (insert your fav) can
and do positively affect outcomes (sometimes) in life or death
situations..In no way does it guarantee you will live.

I never said, anywhere, that being armed guaranteed survival. Merely that being armed increases your chances of survival if someone else is intent on whittling those chances down.

Just ask a relative of a person who was killed while being armed themselves. i guess you must be the one exception to the rule. As long as you are armed, no one will kill you or others close to you. you remind me of countless other people who share the same view towards Life..I'm getting a fire-extinguisher in case of fire. I'm getting a helmet in case i fall off my moto. I'm putting my seat belt in case i have an accident. I'm getting an alarm in case my house is burglarized. etc, etc.

So now you think that fire extinguishers cannot stop minor blazes from growing into deadly fires, that motorcycle helmets can't prevent otherwise minor head injuries from being fatal, that seat belts can't and don't cut down on fatalities in automobile accidents, and that house alarms don't decrease your chances of being burgled? Save me from a half baked philosopher. Choose as you will on all of the above subjects...that should be the right of any free man - irregardless of what those who would run your life might like to think. Ride you scoot without a brainbucket. Drive your car without your seatbelt. For what it's worth, I stand behind your or anyone else's decision to do so. Especially yours.

It's O.K..i long for the day i can feel the same way as you do. until then, i have much to learn...Live long

I intend to do just that, thank you very much.

BTW, I can't help but notice the fact that one of your postscripts claims NRA membership. With your out there philosopy, why?

 

[bowline]

It doesn't really take all kinds, we get them anyway though....
FWIW, I am retired military, once a competitive shooter, carry concealed, and am a mean hand at scrabble.
Owning and carrying a firearm doesn't make me immune to death. Nor does it guarantee that 'the government / army / looters' will respect my freedoms, rights, property - but it keeps the subject open to debate!
If the question comes up, I'd much rather be prepared to answer than stay silent. There are apparently those who would prefer to be unable to respond.

Apologies to military personnel for lumping them in with thieves and, umm... thieves.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I'm reading a book called "Bloody Business," about government contractors and our government's reliance on them. Governments use contractors to do work that is politically impossible for them to do. It makes me think that when someone comes to collect our guns, it won't be soldiers, but rather some really determined dudes from a company like Blackwater.

The book is excellent. It's written by a retired colonel and takes a pragmatic look at the need for contractors and mercenaries throughout history (it makes a strong distinction between the two). I'm reading an uncorrected proof because the book won't be published until May, by Zenith Press. This book is incredible.

 

[cz75bdneos22]

NRA membership, why?
simple, cuz I can take preventative measures now to ensure the right we have under 2A can be shared by me/others in the future..and
when that is no longer possible, cuz it can/or will happen..i will continue to support through activism, some other interest..because my life's interests are independent of my ability to keep and bear arms. YMMV.

one other thing let's separate philposohy from action..what i believe (Philosophy) has nothing to do with what i do (activism). I can believe something, and by the same token, do the opposite. Can't I? I can. Can you? let's see some examples in practicum...

Meplat, if i reply to your quote...it is to make a point. It is using your line of thinking as a point of reference to what is being discussed. It does not equate to a personal attack. It's about the message, not the messanger. we are here to discuss issues and come to an understanding of the issues and how they impact us. You are free to your opininons regardless of the content. that i know. But this is the high road and it is our responsability to come to a better understanding of what we must do, as opposed to what is already being done. i am here to learn too.

I believe smoking is bad for my health. yet, I smoke.
I believe drugs are bad for my health. yet, i do drugs.
I believe fornication is a sin. yet, I fornicate.
I believe in God. yet, I don't live through Him.

so, what was the point?

 

[NineseveN]

I believe smoking is bad for my health. yet, I smoke.
I believe drugs are bad for my health. yet, i do drugs.
I believe fornication is a sin. yet, I fornicate.
I believe in God. yet, I don't live through Him.

Then we can certainly take anything you profess as a matter of principle with a grain of salt. If I were you, and I am not, I would do one of two things before I continued with any discussion:

I would either rectify all of those hypocrisies and live according to my beliefs

or

I would reconcile my beliefs with how I live my life and make honest decisions as to the validity of the statements above.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

No offense, but you may want to lay off the drugs, too. Normally I try not to preach, but dude, sometimes your ideas come out a bit garbled.

 

[j grimes]

to cz75 .we r not rag nor tag,a million well armed citizens is a force to be reckoned with.who was that jappaness who said a rifle behind every blade of grass.
shall not be infringed! except for XY & Z :banghead:

 

[Stauble]

BTW, here's a question for the legal scholars amongst us... In light of the fact that our troops do indeed use sawed off shotguns in battle (proving them to be suitable for use by the "Militia"), what would the chances be of getting Miller overturned?

im no expert, but our troops also use automatic weapons, wich we are not allowed to own except under special circumstances. Though from my understanding, Judge Alito has questioned if outlawing machine guns was constituional

Being an American is a state of mind. You qualify.

kinda like bein a redneck

very good post

 

[richyoung]

Sir, i disagree with some of your comments...
1."if war comes to the US", no way is any soldier's army going to offend our shores. period..

THANK GOD! I am SO releived to learn I was hallucinating when I thought that Islamic fundamentalist terrorists crashed hijacked planes and crashed them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and that Mexican police and army have crossed the southern border repeatedly to protect narcotics traffic.

2." a lot has changed since 1700's", yes it has..we have USAF, States National Guard, National, State and Local Law Enforcement..if this is not enough to address threats by irregulars, then heaven help us...because no rag tag assembly of citizenry will aid in this one no matter what you say/ arms yourself with..

YESSIR! No way that the Viet Cong could defeat the French, and then the US army, or that Afghanies could defeat the Russian army, or that the French Resistance could have a meaningful effect on the war in Europe, or that rebels fighting with leftover weapons and improvised bombs could keep us tied down for two years in Iraq with no end in sight, or that anti-communist guerillas could defeat the Soviet backed Sandinistas, or...

3. your romantiziced notion of the second amendment is shared by many...War is not something to be taken lightly as we have found out throughout numerous "conflicts" since WWII...but you just have to experience the "dogs of war" to see that arms in and of themselves do not "peace" make, just the opposite..Sir, even warriors have codes of honor, we don't have to debase ourselves in the pursuit of "justice". As we now know, "War" is being fought for a number of contradictory reasons..political, economical, moral...it's nice to make decisions from the safety zone..War zones, on the other hand, is hell!!...we seem to think that might makes right, but they aren't buying our "ideals"..."they" are just in fear of being obliterated if they don't comply witht the misguided demands of the U.S....our idea that somehow "they" cannot coexist without our intervention in their affairs is just the ticket we are buying..as i've said before, "they" have dealt/lived with ethnic or racial conflict for millenia...but We know better...so much for the high road... YMMV

ATTENTION: DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND ---one of your trolls has escaped...