Lake Erie Conservative

thoughtful discussion(s) about issue(s)

Posts Tagged ‘legal challenge’

… This One Could Be a Game Changer [#Labour Law case][#Friedrichs v C.T.A.]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,January 11th,2016

.. yes , this one could really be a doozy ..

.. I think that there could be as many 6 votes for this one , possibly 7 …

.. well , start at the beginning . Lori Friedrichs is a schoolteacher in California . She resigned for her union , the C.T.A . This union is , to be specific , the California Teachers Association ..

.. California is not a union – friendly state . Since the latter part of the 1970s , the reigning SCOTUS precedent , Abood v Detroit Bd of Ed , has allowed unions to collect fees [agency fees , to be exact] from non – members of the union . These people are required by law , however , to be members of the collective bargaining unit , no matter what ..

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the blog article …

.. like many who resign from the union , Friederichs endured quite a bit . Teachers who resign from their union get a large amount of professional shunning and personal abuse from their fellow teachers . Yet she endured , as did several dozen others ..

.. now SCOTUS has offered certiorari on these folks appeal from their loss at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals . Given the rulings and precedents of recent years , such as Beck v CWA , Ferris State Teachers , and Knox v CTA, the ground could be extremely dangerous for the AFL – CIO and their member unions ..


Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… POTUS could not be This Stupid [#Alaska]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,September 7th,2015

.. it appears that he is that dumb ..

.. it appears that the ObamaCraps have made a very , very large designation of wilderness in the state of Alaska . It is enormous , containing over 12.5 million acres of land . You would think , no biggie , right ?!?! …

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the news article ..

.. Wrong ! Much of this land contains a great deal of the discoverable and provable resources of oil and natural gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [A.N.W.R.] . Worse , the ObamaCraps did this move without any consultation with the state and legislative leaders in Alaska . Neither party [GOP or Dem] was consulted at all …

.. nice move , dummies ! This move can and will be challenged in court . Also , you can guarantee that Congress will get involved in this . If the ObamaCraps can pull this stunt in Alska , which has a congressional delegation with little punch , it can do it elsewhere , in states with much more political punch …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… A Clear Ruling on Gun Rights in D.C. [#not a big surprise]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,May 26th,2015

.. Federal District Court Judge Frederick Scullin strikes again ..

.. and , once again , the political leadership in the District ends up looking like a bunch of damn fools ..

.. a new case came up . No , it is not the original one [Palmer v. D.C.] , which struck down the District ‘ s clear gun rights ban . This one is much different . It was brought by 4 individuals , each of whom wanted to own a gun in the District of Columbia . As you might expect , the District ‘ s P.D. [under the new restrictive ” may issue ” gun law ] refused to issue each of these individuals a license to own a gun …

.. Big problem for the District , however . The U.S. Constitution allows for individuals to own and ” bear ” arms . Plain and Simple . Also , no ” Mother , may I ” about it …

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the blog news post ..

.. so , Judge Scullin struck down the District ‘ s ” good reason ” standard , stating …

“This conclusion should not be read to suggest that it would be inappropriate for the District of Columbia to enact a licensing mechanism that includes appropriate time, place and manner restrictions on the carrying of handguns in public,” Judge Scullin said in his ruling. “The District of Columbia’s arbitrary ‘good reason’/’proper reason’ requirement, however, goes far beyond establishing such reasonable restrictions.”

“Rather, for all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

“Rather, for all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

Well, that was the point. The district’s establishment wants to make it impossible or very nearly so for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights in the nation’s capital, and they calculated this law to leave themselves enough room to guarantee it. This particular effort was so bad, though, that it was doomed to failure, and should embarrass everyone associated with it. The law essentially said that constitutional rights can be rationed by government only on the basis that government sees a “good reason” to allow it. I’m pretty sure that’s not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind with the Bill of Rights.

The city tried to argue that the “good reason” requirement was connected to public safety, but Scullin rejected the argument :

While, as stated, Defendants argue that the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement relates reasonably to its interest in preventing crime and protecting public safety, they have not established that relationship.

The fact that an individual may be able to demonstrate a greater need for self-protection, and therefore meets the “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement, does not indicate, in any way, whether that person is less likely to misuse handguns or may be less dangerous. See Drake, 724 F.3d at 454 (Hardiman, C.J., dissenting). Nor does the District of Columbia’s “good 12 reason”/”proper reason” requirement make it less likely that those who meet this requirement will accidently shoot themselves or others or engage in criminal activity than those who cannot meet this requirement. See id. The fact that a person may have a greater need for self-protection says nothing about how limiting the carrying of handguns to such individuals would result in a reduction of risk to other members of the public or reduce violent crime. Is the Court to conclude that people who do not have a heightened need for self-protection are more likely to commit violent crimes?

Furthermore, even if the Court were to accept the proposition that handguns are used disproportionately in the commission of violent crimes, how is that use related to whether or not a person has a greater need for self-protection? Moreover, isn’t it possible that even persons who cannot manifest a present need for self-protection are just as likely to be victims of a violent crime.

.. first Palmer , now this case . It is only a temporary injunction , but it is an injunction . To get one , you have to show  a very strong likelihood that you will ” win on the merits . ” This one may well skip the D.C. Appeals Court , and go right to the U.S. Supreme Court ..

.. I certainly would hope so ..

Posted in 2nd Amendment, constitutional opinion, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »