GOA & GOF pull out of Harney County Trial

[po18guy]

The ol' withdrawal method can still cause unwanted…. situations.

Did not work out so well for Onan.

 

[sobo]

Did not work out so well for Onan.

That was a good one...

 

[titsonritz]

So people donate money to these organizations to fight this crap and they just bagass and bail? Cool

 

[Stomper]

Did not work out so well for Onan.

The biblical name, "Onan" when translated (loosely) means, "he who has callused palms, and slippery floors".

 

[Yarome]

So people donate money to these organizations to fight this crap and they just bagass and bail? Cool

Their supporters definitely deserve an explanation, IMHO.

I tend to go along with the "slam dunk" theory, but withdrawing does have some impact on the perceptions and merits of the case that is not exactly favorable... even if the end result is unaffected... transparency with their donors merits some type of official comment.

 

[PiratePast40]

There has been continuous criticism that the plaintiffs were from out of state. No idea if that actually has anything to do with the decision, just throwing something out since it doesn't make any sense.

 

[Yarome]

There has been continuous criticism that the plaintiffs were from out of state. No idea if that actually has anything to do with the decision, just throwing something out since it doesn't make any sense.

When all else fails... ask! I'm sure I'm not the only one contacting them for comment, but I sent in a request for additional information and will report back if/when they respond.

 

[PiratePast40]

Turns out, Oregon does not have Representational Standing. That means that plaintiffs can be buried in demands for discovery, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. So they just dropped out as plaintiffs but are still supporting the other parties. They are still funding the case.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C1-6-6-1/ALDE_00013003/#:~:text=internal citations omitted).,party or jus tertii standing.

ArtIII.S2.C1.6.6.1 Overview of Representational Standing

Article III, Section 2, Clause 1:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Federal courts must sometimes decide whether a litigant who has not suffered an injury-in-fact may request judicial relief on behalf of an injured third party who has not appeared before the court. The presumption is that an uninjured litigant lacks standing to sue and cannot raise claims on behalf of a third party.1​ The Supreme Court, however, has at times permitted this form of representational standing, allowing certain relationships between an uninjured litigant and an injured third party to overcome that presumption.2​ Thus, for example, courts may permit representational standing when a formal association seeks to bring suit on behalf of its members;3​ a state sues on behalf of its citizens;4​ a plaintiff asserts a claim assigned to it by another party (e.g., a claim assigned to it by the government under a qui tam5​ provision);6​ or an agent brings suit on behalf of its principal.7​ Such issues may also arise when a party brings a facial challenge to a law on First Amendment grounds, arguing that although the party itself is not subject to the law, it would be unconstitutional for the government to apply it to third parties with which the litigant has some form of close relationship (e.g., a business relationship).8​

 

[Jade Falcon]

We're always going to be outspent. The gun control lobby simply has WAY more money than we do. Anti-gun states have tax payer money, and the private gun control groups have Michael Bloomberg and donations from MDA and Giffords. And these trials all run on money.

I'm suddenly not liking our chances in September to be honest. Fingers crossed.

 

[Yarome]

I'm suddenly not liking our chances in September to be honest. Fingers crossed.

I don't think there is too much to worry about at the state level, but the Fed court... they decided long before 114 was ever on the ballot that any challenge would loose.... no matter what the law has to say about it. The demo's credo, "laws don't matter if you're morally in the right". And they are the ones that decide what is "right".

The shakiest ground in Harney county, solely under the OR constitutional challenge, is probably the permit to purchase, itself.