Urgent case law research request thread, RE: Hobson McKown "tries to take loaded gun"

[MDJschool]

I'm doing some research and as I so often do, I remember reading cases with goodies in them but lose their content and/or citations. I need urgent assistance finding cases, which I'll add here and take off as found. For those without legal subscriptions, try http://scholar.google.com (free) or a 24-hour free trial at http://www.fastcase.com and give me a hand, as I try to give the defendant a hand!

• Pa. appellate case where a judge, either issuing the majority opinion, or a concurring or dissenting opinion, stated that citizens (or persons) ought to be able to go about armed because every next assault cannot be predicted, that they needn't wait to first be harmed before arming themselves.

The urgency is the matter of the next 24 hours, with a brief due Dec. 26.

[brsims]

Is this what you are looking for?

Heller v. District of Columbia

[brsims]

What appears to be a list of Supreme court cases dealing with the Second amendment: http://www.saf.org/2ndAmendSupremeCourtTable.html

Additional cases: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/fedcases.2nd.html

[Gun]

• Pa. appellate case where a judge, either issuing the majority opinion, or a concurring or dissenting opinion, stated that citizens (or persons) ought to be able to go about armed because every next assault cannot be predicted, that they needn't wait to first be harmed before arming themselves.

Is this what you are looking for?

Heller v. District of Columbia

He is asking for a case from PA., I believe.

[MDJschool]

He is asking for a case from PA., I believe.

What appears to be a list of Supreme court cases dealing with the Second amendment: http://www.saf.org/2ndAmendSupremeCourtTable.html
Additional cases: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/fedcases.2nd.html

Is this what you are looking for?

Heller v. District of Columbia

I'm looking for a specific excerpt regarding the notion that persons or citizens ought to be able to carry arms/firearms for an unanticipated attack, that they needn't wait to be harmed, under duress, or peril, to begin going about armed. I think it's a Pa. appellate case. But if you find an excerpt that fits my category elsewhere, I will gladly take that as well.

[aberforth]

You're not thinking of Ginsberg's:

“[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ”

From Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), are you?

[MDJschool]

You're not thinking of Ginsberg's:

From Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), are you?

No, thanks.

[XACEX]

legal research is for lawyers. not random gun owners with google.

[ImminentDanger]

I'm looking for a specific excerpt regarding the notion that persons or citizens ought to be able to carry arms/firearms for an unanticipated attack, that they needn't wait to be harmed, under duress, or peril, to begin going about armed. I think it's a Pa. appellate case. But if you find an excerpt that fits my category elsewhere, I will gladly take that as well.

I'm sorry I couldn't have been of more help....

In researching for the above sentiments, I came across one of the later cases that went to the Commonwealth Court on appeal before Pennsylvania (in 1989) finally became a 'Shall Issue' state.

The case below, like the case you are helping, demonstrates the tyranny of subjecting our RIGHTS to the interpretative opinions of governmental and/or judicial authorities who most often prefer the minimization of such RIGHTS rather than their most expansive protection.

Here is expressed exactly the opposite attitude to that you sought above by upholding a denial of a LTCF to someone who had previously been granted a license but was then denied for lack of justification (because he hadn't yet been mugged, vandalized or had violent acts committed against him)....

Haines v. Jenkins - 521 A. 2d 522 - FEBRUARY 5, 1987
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...01929290269426
- - - - - - - - Quoted from ruling - - - - - - - - - -
After reviewing the appellant's application, which contained appellant's reasons for applying for the license, and taking testimony from officials of the Sheriff's Office responsible for the denial of appellant's request, the trial court concluded that appellant's fears were pervasive and genuine but not realistic in light of the lack of evidence of actual instances in which appellant experienced muggings, vandalism or similar acts of violence. Based on its findings that appellant had not demonstrated a sufficient need under the Act, it concluded that the Sheriff's decision was not an abuse of discretion. We believe that the trial court properly applied the Act to deny appellant's challenge.[3]
- - - - - - - - End of Quote - - - - - - - - - -

If we don't fight the good fight on every front at all times possible, we will surely succumb to the tenacity of evil.

...

[triple-tap]

legal research is for lawyers. not random gun owners with google.

agreed.


OP:
Waiting until the last minute to file a brief is NOT good form. In fact, it can likely lead to malpractice claims in most states adopting the Model Rules (I know this doesn't matter for amicus briefs). Buy westlaw or lexis or go to a law library if you want the info that bad. Asking PAFOA members to do legal research with google DURING THE CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY ??? What were you expecting .