What's new

What kind of F'n BS is this???

edglock21

Abby...someone
Joined
May 21, 2020
Member Number
938
Messages
39
Plaintiff Natalia Marshall, while under the age of 21, wished to purchase a handgun from a federally licensed firearms dealer and sued to challenge the constitutionality of the federal laws and regulations which prohibited her from doing so while she was 18–20 years old. A divided panel of this court found those laws violated the text, structure, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment. After the opinion issued but before the mandate, Marshall turned 21. And that made her claims moot. Despite efforts to add parties and reframe her claimed injuries, it is too late to revive this case. So it must be dismissed as moot.
So one can only bring a case once one turns 18 (at the earliest) and they think it will get to the appeals level before that person turns 21?

The Judiciary is no longer going to uphold the Constitution; finally joining the other two branches in ignoring it. :mad3:

 
okay, had to read the article. So she won the ruling, then “sought to revive”, what does that mean? And why, she already won?

“On September 22, 2021, the same three judge panel concurred in vacating the July ruling, after the plaintiff, who is now 21 years of age, sought to revive the case on behalf of friends under the age of 21.”
 
Last edited:
okay, had to read the article. So she won the ruling, then “sought to revive”, what does that mean? And why, she already won?

“On September 22, 2021, the same three judge panel concurred in vacating the July ruling, after the plaintiff, who is now 21 years of age, sought to revive the case on behalf of friends under the age of 21.”
The same 2 that voted in her favor when she was under-21 have now decided that their decision no longer applies since she is now 21 and the point is moot.

The "revive" is because she's trying to include friends who are still under-21.

The "Roe" woman in Roe v. Wade gave birth before the ruling allowing her to abort it was handed down, does that mean the point was moot then?

If the 4th Circus applied the same logic, it would.
 
Snowflake demakommie judges
garontee if it was an "anti gun" suit it woulda prevailed!
 
But why does she need to revive it? Was it a private ruling that only applies to her? Court had decided in her favor already
 
You need an 18 year old to attempt purchase, get denied, then suffer violent death.

Then you won't have a case timeout
 
It's because she brought the suit on her behalf. Since she is no longer under age of 21 the suit is moot. They should have included another minor that was under age. Technicality yes but that how the courts work.

Similar to the case in LA that was thrown out as the Judge ruled that the city had to provide housing for the homeless, irrc. The upper court said he applied the rule based on things that were not presented in the case and on behalf of people that were not named in the suit. Interesting to read and if you sort follow the steps the faulted this judge for you can see how this case was flawed.
 
It's because she brought the suit on her behalf. Since she is no longer under age of 21 the suit is moot. They should have included another minor that was under age. Technicality yes but that how the courts work.

Similar to the case in LA that was thrown out as the Judge ruled that the city had to provide housing for the homeless, irrc. The upper court said he applied the rule based on things that were not presented in the case and on behalf of people that were not named in the suit. Interesting to read and if you sort follow the steps the faulted this judge for you can see how this case was flawed.
The "Roe" woman in Roe v. Wade gave birth before the ruling allowing her to abort it was handed down, does that mean the point was moot then?
 
Top Back Refresh