Each of you has just been elevated to a seat on the 5th circuit court of
appeals. (Don't worry--you sailed through the Senate confirmation hearings
unscathed.)
A case is now before you, the proper disposition of which depends, as a
first question, on whether the 2A protects an individual right to possess
firearms. Your panel, thankfully, did not get hung up on whether the Emerson
holding is dicta; you've all agreed that it was not. However, the panel is
not coming to agreement on whether Emerson sets a binding precedent that
your panel is obliged to follow on this point. The problem, of course, is
whether the Emerson court improperly attempted to abrogate prior circuit
precedent without an en banc decision.
Please state your best arguments, on either side of the question:
Should Emerson be regarded as precedential in the 5th circuit, or
disregarded for itself not having followed binding precedent?
Curb any political, goal-oriented motives, please. Cold, hard,
dispassionate, rigorous, logical, legal reasoning only.
--
Bob Woolley
St. Paul, MN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To say that President George W. Bush has been spending money like a drunken
sailor is an insult to drunken sailors. After all, when land-starved seamen
go on their binges, they spend only their own money, not yours and mine.
-- Nick Gillespie
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
