Friday, March 26, 2004
2d amendment, 10th circuit, don't mix.
u.s. v. dale parker, my link doesn't work.
See Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th
Cir. 1999).
10th cir. rejects emerson.
now, the panel is right to hold that en banc review is required, but wrong to fail to urge such review.
i'll bet volokh already has this covered, off to go check.
ooh ooh! there's an interesting concurrence by kelly.
United States v. Baer, 235 F.3d 561,
564 (10th Cir. 2000), - the right to baer arms.
when i read "double barrell twelve gauge shotgun with a barrell length of less than 18 inches" instead of "gun", my ears perk up. is he going where i think he's going?
see also
United States v. Crawley, 837 F.2d 291, 292 (7th Cir. 1988).
yes...he mentions thomas decides on narrower grounds.
update: volokh posted on this and related cases, about a week after i emailed him. (I don't think my email affected his post.)
Maybe i'll go read vicesquad.
u.s. v. dale parker, my link doesn't work.
See Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th
Cir. 1999).
10th cir. rejects emerson.
now, the panel is right to hold that en banc review is required, but wrong to fail to urge such review.
i'll bet volokh already has this covered, off to go check.
ooh ooh! there's an interesting concurrence by kelly.
United States v. Baer, 235 F.3d 561,
564 (10th Cir. 2000), - the right to baer arms.
when i read "double barrell twelve gauge shotgun with a barrell length of less than 18 inches" instead of "gun", my ears perk up. is he going where i think he's going?
see also
United States v. Crawley, 837 F.2d 291, 292 (7th Cir. 1988).
yes...he mentions thomas decides on narrower grounds.
update: volokh posted on this and related cases, about a week after i emailed him. (I don't think my email affected his post.)
Maybe i'll go read vicesquad.
Comments:
Post a Comment
