Delaware Concealed Carry Forum
State News & Gun News => Delaware News => Topic started by: MarkB on November 18, 2022, 10:10:49 PM
-
Read about the SAF lawsuit here: https://www.ammoland.com/2022/11/delaware-slapped-federal-lawsuit-banning-assault-guns/?ct=t(RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN)#axzz7l2JVRixI (https://www.ammoland.com/2022/11/delaware-slapped-federal-lawsuit-banning-assault-guns/?ct=t(RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN)#axzz7l2JVRixI)
The suit says the law banning the "assualt rifles and pistols" is unconstitutional and violates the Second Ammendment.
-
Good. This court is made up of two trump appointees, one from Reagan, one from Obama, and one from biden.
I still think, however, these dolts are salivating over other states newly enacted laws like Oregon with their purchase licenses and want to follow suit. Always trying to play catchup in taking out rights away while never actually addressing the problem
-
This is effectively the same as the DSSA suit. I wonder if this will wind up holding up the DSSA decision with this being duplicitous litigation. Then again, the court could exercise its inherent authority to consolidate these two cases as they are substantially the same in all respects except for plaintiffs.
-
So the 2 cases were combined, and I'm not seeing any litigation dates on the court calendar through late January
-
I kind of figured that would happen. The Court tends to join related litigation in the interest of judicial economy.
-
So, no new dates? Thanks
-
I've been looking and haven't seen anything through February
-
Just looked at the court calendar this morning
Friday, February 24th there will be an evidentiary hearing on DSSA et al v delaware DSHS et al
-
Just looked at the court calendar this morning
Friday, February 24th there will be an evidentiary hearing on DSSA et al v delaware DSHS et al
Do you have a link to the calendar.
-
Ded.uscourts.gov page and click on calendars
-
Thanks
-
Looks like the evidentiary hearing in this case got bounced to Friday Judge Andrews' 9:00 AM calendar on Friday in Courtroom 6A.
Here's a link to the docket listing to date:
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/45316051/Delaware_State_Sportsmens_Association,_Inc_et_al_v_Delaware_Department_of_Safety_and_Homeland_Security_et_al
-
Apparently this judge was born in the UK. Hopefully, that doesn't color his interpretation of the Constitution too much.
-
I doubt it'll matter that the judge was UK born. The Court is bound by the doctrine of stare decisis, so that keeps them from going out into left field...and no trial judge likes being reversed on appeal.
-
I doubt it'll matter that the judge was UK born. The Court is bound by the doctrine of stare decisis, so that keeps them from going out into left field...and no trial judge likes being reversed on appeal.
I’ll say it again:
Don’t tell me what the law is, tell me who the judge is.
-
Off to the Third Circuit this case goes.
https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/22-951.pdf
-
So disheartening. Given the SCOTUS decisions they should be under the assumption the plaintiffs will ultimately be successful in the end. The law should never have passed in the first place
He did say that the "common use" defense does in fact pass muster when it comes to magazines and the "assault" weapons, but did not change the overall opinion
But then it goes into common use as a self defense weapon, and the argument that "assault" weapons are used in self defense the least. This is a tough one because there are endless situations when it comes to defending yourself. It could be one person against you, or a mob against you. I'd argue an AR15 or the like would be the choice weapon in at least one of those scenarios. Problem is there aren't many ppl who get caught in a mob scenario unless they are at their place of business or they are law enforcement and have approached said scenario.
Unfortunately I think the defense wins that argument everyday. How many ppl could really say the actively carry an AR or AK in public in case of a mass disturbance that they must protect themselves with? A city-wide riot would probably be the best argument
Guess we will have to find out later
-
The problem is....those on the left have no idea what they are directing their anger towards. They have never read the Constitution or don't care. And they know that it will take years to get overturned. They won't prosecute criminals using firearms but will prosecute law abiding citizens for using the same firearm.
-
They won't prosecute criminals using firearms but will prosecute law abiding citizens for using the same firearm.
This is definitely a misstatement in Delaware. I can tell you for a fact based on my caseload that the AG's office is very aggressively prosecuting folks for weapons offenses. Most of my clients with weapons offenses are charged with Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited and they face a three year minimum mandatory sentence for a first go round on that charge, five years minimum mandatory on the second go round, and 10 years minimum mandatory for the third go round with the wrinkle on the third go round that if there are two prior violent felonies, the penalty is enhanced to 15 years minimum mandatory up to a maximum of life in prison.
That said, I do think that this case will get reversed by the Third Circuit, maybe not by a panel, but I could see it happening with the Court en banc. It'll take the better part of a couple years, but still, it's something. My reading of the opinion is that the judge mistakenly applied a variation of the two step analysis framework that Bruen did away with.
-
I must be pretty naive as it seems to me the Second Amendment to the Constitution makes it pretty clear that any law that would impede a citizen's right to bear arms would be an infringement that would be banned.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
-
I don't recall where I saw the numbers, but it said she prosecutes less that 10% of firearm related crime.
-
I don't recall where I saw the numbers, but it said she prosecutes less that 10% of firearm related crime.
Bill, I remember seeing that somewhere as well. I did a quick search, but didn't seem to come up with anything.
-
Wonder if that means firearm in commission of a crime or just the firearm crime itself. For instance, if someone robs at gunpoint vs police happen to find you with a concealed firearm without a license after pulling you over for speeding
-
All I know, is that I feel "infringed"; I'm sure along with many others.
This kind of 'knee jerk' legislation by local politicians has got to be punished, if not by the electorate, then the Judge.
I might be dreaming, but what retribution could be levied by a Judge upon Carney and crew?
Simon
-
The only retribution is if a judge strikes down a law because they interpret it as unconstitutional. But even then it's not really teaching them a lesson when they just make another law that's slightly different. Sometimes it's not really different at all
Now, after being giddy about getting my md permit last year, they have new and worse legislation coming around. Bunch of hissyfit states in the wake of bruin
-
Well Illinois gets their injunction, although our judge made it sound like we should have probably gotten our injunction if not just ultimately win the case anyway
-
All of this crap depends on an honest judge that understands the Constitution. They seem hard to find.