Court dismisses gun rights ruling for those under 21

MCgrease08

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Mar 14, 2013
11,197
149
Earth
Girl under 21 is unable to purchase a gun through an FFL and sues to challenge the law as unconstitutional. She turned 21 before the case made its way through the courts so it's declared moot, despite a lower court ruling calling it unconstitutional.

It seems like the blue print for liberal court to slow walk similar lawsuits in the future. Tie the case up in court, wait for the plaintiff to turn 21.

 

Timjoebillybob

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Feb 27, 2009
6,387
149
It seems like the blue print for liberal court to slow walk similar lawsuits in the future. Tie the case up in court, wait for the plaintiff to turn 21.

IANAL but it seems to me that the court provided a blueprint on how to avoid that. Add additional younger plaintiffs before the case becomes moot. It seems her attorney either messed up or got the time frame wrong or something. They filed in district court to add additional plaintiff(s) after the appeal was filed, and the day before she turned 21. District court can't add additional plaintiffs after it goes to appeal. They then filed in the appeals court a couple of days after she turned 21 when the case was already moot. Once moot can't add additional parties either.

The bad thing about this opinion was it vacated their prior opinion and the district court's. So now neither one is precedence so it'll basically be starting from scratch. And the anti 2A judge (Wynn) that dissented in the first appeal was crowing about that in his concurring opinion.
 

Timjoebillybob

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Feb 27, 2009
6,387
149
That is how the courts do it...

What I don't get is Roe certainly was not pregnant when the case got to court...

Oh, I get it, that was a left issue and case. My bad...
SCOTUS isn't bound by quite the same rules as the lower courts. Although the Mootness rule used in Roe, should have applied in my non lawyerly opinion here as well though.

Although they can still appeal to SCOTUS and see if they will accept the case.
 
Last edited:

Ingomike

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
May 26, 2018
9,104
113
North Central
SCOTUS is bound by quite the same rules as the lower courts. Not to mention that Roe was a class action suit, so it applied to more than just Roe. This was not. Under the Mootness rule used in Roe, should have applired in my non lawyerly opinion been allowed here as well though.

The point is lefty cases always get through, gun cases not so much. Of course gun cases never have all the communist law firms supporting them...
 

Timjoebillybob

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Feb 27, 2009
6,387
149
The point is lefty cases always get through, gun cases not so much. Of course gun cases never have all the communist law firms supporting them...
I'm pretty sure that not all lefty cases always get through, and some gun cases do. Although your last sentence is probably pretty accurate.
 

HoughMade

Grandmaster
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Oct 24, 2012
31,088
149
Valparaiso
Federal courts have a robust "mootness" doctrine. It has to do with the fact that the Constitution requires that there be an active "case or controversy" in order for federal courts to have jurisdiction.


Often, state courts do not have the same restrictions or, at least, the "mootness" application in state courts is much less strict.

I get it that we don't like the result, but people who deal with federal courts all the time will see that the "mootness doctrine" is applied broadly, not just to political issues that conservatives like and liberals don't.

It comes down to whether we are strict constructionists or not.
 

Ingomike

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
May 26, 2018
9,104
113
North Central
Federal courts have a robust "mootness" doctrine. It has to do with the fact that the Constitution requires that there be an active "case or controversy" in order for federal courts to have jurisdiction.


Often, state courts do not have the same restrictions or, at least, the "mootness" application in state courts is much less strict.

I get it that we don't like the result, but people who deal with federal courts all the time will see that the "mootness doctrine" is applied broadly, not just to political issues that conservatives like and liberals don't.

It comes down to whether we are strict constructionists or not.

I am completely distrustful of the courts today, they squandered the great respect I was taught. The appointment of judges is now completely a political team exercise, even in local courts, though one teams judges NEVER turn, while the other teams often do. We see out and out crass political judgments often, Constitutional is a distant second behind politics.

Do you really believe if the circumstances were identical but the case was about abortion it would have been dismissed?
 

Timjoebillybob

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Feb 27, 2009
6,387
149
Do you really believe if the circumstances were identical but the case was about abortion it would have been dismissed?
Maybe, maybe not. The reason Roe went through was due to "repeatability and time". Roe could get pregnant again, and due to the short length of pregnancy the case would never make it through to appeal. In this case the lady can never be under 21 again, and 3 yrs is a good bit longer than 9mo. And as I pointed out above, the court pretty much said what they have to do. Add younger plaintiffs before the case become moot. In this case they tried but did it wrong, they first tried to in district court the day before she turned 21. The case had already been appealed so they couldn't do it in district court. They then filed in the appeals court the day after her birthday by which time the case was moot.

IANAL but perhaps one of the ones here could explain waiting until the 11th hour to attach additional plaintiffs?
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jul 7, 2021
177
43
central indiana
If a federal judge wants to bounce a case, jurisdiction is the go to route.
I value this opinion. But I wonder if lawyers (non-judges) agree it should be this way. I have to believe sometimes it's the correct ruling, but, " If a judge wants to bounce a case...". Yuck.
As to thread, the age for legal contracts, cigs, booze, fighting in war and exercising 2a through personal purchase of firearm should all be the same age. We can debate the age but one is either a consenting adult with full Bill of Rights or not.
 

Timjoebillybob

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Feb 27, 2009
6,387
149
The one they tried to add was 20 when the original woman was 19? The FPC Facebook page has them looking for 18-19 year olds.
They tried to add one the day before she turned 21, but they filed in district court. Since the case had already been appealed the district court could not add them. They then filed to add one the day after she turned 21 in the appeals court. But since she was 21, the case was already moot.
 

JEBland

INGO's least subtle Alphabet agency taskforce spy
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Oct 24, 2020
920
63
West Lafayette
They tried to add one the day before she turned 21, but they filed in district court. Since the case had already been appealed the district court could not add them. They then filed to add one the day after she turned 21 in the appeals court. But since she was 21, the case was already moot.
Right. So is the current plan to seek out 18-19 year olds and just keep adding fresh plantiffs each year and force it to go to court?

Here's a .gov copy of the same document (but without red annotations) that TJBB posted earlier just in case the Wash. Post link ever dies: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/192250A.P.pdf?ftag=YHF4eb9d17
 

Timjoebillybob

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Feb 27, 2009
6,387
149
Right. So is the current plan to seek out 18-19 year olds and just keep adding fresh plantiffs each year and force it to go to court?

Here's a .gov copy of the same document (but without red annotations) that TJBB posted earlier just in case the Wash. Post link ever dies: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/192250A.P.pdf?ftag=YHF4eb9d17
Probably what they'll have to do. Whether that is their plan or not, I have no idea. I'm still wondering why they waited until the last minute to try to add one this time.
 

Site Supporter

INGO Supporter

Forum statistics

Threads
490,036
Messages
8,829,574
Members
47,982
Latest member
rodneyw71
Top Bottom