PDA

View Full Version : How will the CA Bear arms suit go forward?


sfpcservice
05-06-2009, 10:39 AM
Just wondering what the steps are as far as getting court dates, appeals and when any decisions become final?

HowardW56
05-06-2009, 11:06 AM
Just wondering what the steps are as far as getting court dates, appeals and when any decisions become final?

Expect final resolution sometime late in 2012, maybe if all goes well...

Librarian
05-06-2009, 11:24 AM
Just wondering what the steps are as far as getting court dates, appeals and when any decisions become final?

It looks like almost no step is likely to be shorter than 90 days.

The counties have to respond to the complaint - looks like they get a max of 30 days to do that.

Motions from each side. Briefs from each side.

Argument.

Opinion.

Appeal to 9th Circuit.

Motions, briefs, argument, opinion.

I like 2012, as Howard suggests.

Of course, the counties could acknowledge the Error of Their Ways, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that.

nicki
05-06-2009, 11:49 AM
[QUOTE][Expect final resolution sometime late in 2012, maybe if all goes well...
/QUOTE]

But according to the Mayan Calander and movie previews, the world is going to end in 2012.:mad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VXa82AuwHU

Nicki

FS00008
05-06-2009, 12:07 PM
Expect final resolution sometime late in 2012, maybe if all goes well...


But according to the Mayan Calander and movie previews, the world is going to end in 2012.:mad:

Nicki

Yes, for gun control :chris::thumbsup::43:

FS00008
05-06-2009, 12:09 PM
Excuse me... Victim Disarmament :-P

Bruce
05-06-2009, 12:29 PM
But according to the Mayan Calander and movie previews, the world is going to end in 2012.:mad:

Nicki

Oh Great! And I can retire in 2011! Guess I'll only have one year to spend my 401K !!:eek:

JDay
05-06-2009, 1:53 PM
[QUOTE][Expect final resolution sometime late in 2012, maybe if all goes well...
/QUOTE]

But according to the Mayan Calander and movie previews, the world is going to end in 2012.:mad:

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5VXa82AuwHU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5VXa82AuwHU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Nicki

You need to use the Embed code on the right, not the url. Fixed that for you.

yellowfin
05-06-2009, 2:24 PM
Here's a question: if Maloney gets to the SCOTUS first on incorporation, will our side file Amicus briefs in hopes that we can get a ruling just like Nordyke, where Maloney may technically lose but incorporation be declared? We might have to face that scenario if MacDonald doesn't go fast enough. Can we actually come out and say it up front that it doesn't matter what happens to Maloney that the 2A is incorporated anyway?

Kid Stanislaus
05-06-2009, 3:24 PM
Expect final resolution sometime late in 2012, maybe if all goes well...


WHAT?C'mon, it'll only take two weeks!!

ENVYGREEN
05-06-2009, 3:30 PM
FYI The two weeks thing is super played out and hasn't been funny for months

KWA-S
05-06-2009, 3:32 PM
I hope they dont see the error of their ways. Otherwise, CCW is fixxed...for one case in one county, vs 9th who can fix all ccw in all counties. Of course, I'm no master strategist.

Window_Seat
05-06-2009, 3:54 PM
FYI The two weeks thing is super played out and hasn't been funny for months

Agreed, I am for keeping the discussions related to this case in a serious tone.

Erik.

2009_gunner
05-06-2009, 4:15 PM
I haven't been able to find if there's been movement on the DC roster case yet. It was filed 3/9:
http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=287
complaint: http://saf.org/legal.action/dc.roster.lawsuit/roster_final_complaint.pdf

I've checked the court website, but doing a search for Hanson turned up nothing. Since this case is about 8 weeks ahead of the CA cases, maybe we can predict our time line from it. http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/

Anyone know when the DC roster case will get a case number and we can start to see filings?

RomanDad
05-06-2009, 4:40 PM
Here's a question: if Maloney gets to the SCOTUS first on incorporation, will our side file Amicus briefs in hopes that we can get a ruling just like Nordyke, where Maloney may technically lose but incorporation be declared? We might have to face that scenario if MacDonald doesn't go fast enough. Can we actually come out and say it up front that it doesn't matter what happens to Maloney that the 2A is incorporated anyway?

1. Maloony has about as much chance of getting to the Supreme Court, as I have of being named Obama's first pick to it.

2. In the unlikely event it happens, then yeah.... We argue for incorporation in accordance with Nordyke. (and I start shopping for a black robe that doesnt make my butt look big.)

MP301
05-06-2009, 5:26 PM
Hey, who's idea was it to "Arm California Bears" in the first place. They should not be allowed guns because of their attitudes...especially in Yosemite where the buggers break into your ice chests and steal your food. This is just wrong! Im writing the brady bunch to levy my complaint right damn now!

GaryV
05-06-2009, 5:32 PM
Hey, who's idea was it to "Arm California Bears" in the first place. They should not be allowed guns because of their attitudes...especially in Yosemite where the buggers break into your ice chests and steal your food. This is just wrong! Im writing the brady bunch to levy my complaint right damn now!

Maybe he meant Cal Bears. Arming students in Berkeley might not be a bad thing, unless your a Stanford alum.

bodger
05-06-2009, 5:58 PM
Oh Great! And I can retire in 2011! Guess I'll only have one year to spend my 401K !!:eek:

You've got a 401K with anything left in it that you can spend?
Damn, you lucky!

Legasat
05-06-2009, 6:00 PM
Oh Great! And I can retire in 2011! Guess I'll only have one year to spend my 401K !!:eek:

Should be a REALLY good year...no?

HowardW56
05-06-2009, 7:26 PM
Of course, the counties could acknowledge the Error of Their Ways, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that.

That will happen when Bratton nominates OJ SImpson for citizen of the year.... [NEVER]

HowardW56
05-06-2009, 7:28 PM
Here's a question: if Maloney gets to the SCOTUS first on incorporation, will our side file Amicus briefs in hopes that we can get a ruling just like Nordyke, where Maloney may technically lose but incorporation be declared? We might have to face that scenario if MacDonald doesn't go fast enough. Can we actually come out and say it up front that it doesn't matter what happens to Maloney that the 2A is incorporated anyway?

If SCOTUS agrees to take Maloney...

bruss01
05-07-2009, 7:57 AM
Serious question.

It was pointed out to me recently that the NRA vs SF lawsuit involving public housing ended in a settlement, meaning the sued party offered terms, the suing party accepted, thus no court verdict issued and no precedent set. Also pointed out was that if you are offered "reasonable" settlement terms that failure to accept them and drop the suit earns the contempt of the court.

My question is, if the two counties mentioned in this suit say "Fine, we'll issue permits to these specific individuals, and makes some 'reasonable' changes to our CCW policy, that's our settlement offer" will that kill this whole process right here, right now? What would a judge consider a "reasonable" settlement offer in this instance?

swaits
05-07-2009, 8:25 AM
Why would SAF and CGF (two of the plaintiffs) settle for that? If you haven't read the complaint by now, you should. It's quite straightforward and all the demands are laid out.

Scarecrow Repair
05-07-2009, 8:33 AM
My question is, if the two counties mentioned in this suit say "Fine, we'll issue permits to these specific individuals, and makes some 'reasonable' changes to our CCW policy, that's our settlement offer" will that kill this whole process right here, right now? What would a judge consider a "reasonable" settlement offer in this instance?

I would assume you include legal fees, take the CCW, and file for hundreds more now that the precedence has been set by that sheriff. Do that just a few times and their policy has become shall issue, you move on to another county. If they refuse any for lack of good cause, you don't settle.

Barbarossa
05-07-2009, 10:17 AM
I'd love to have a suit with bear arms!

Rhys898
05-07-2009, 10:52 AM
couldn't help myself.....

http://www.jeremystroud.com/misc/beararms.jpg

bruss01
05-07-2009, 12:09 PM
Why would SAF and CGF (two of the plaintiffs) settle for that? If you haven't read the complaint by now, you should. It's quite straightforward and all the demands are laid out.

I did read it, all of it. My question is that if these persons are granted permits, then no one in the suit has "standing" or can demonstrate that they were "harmed" by the party being sued. Constitutionality becomes a moot point, since none of the parties were injured. This was also an issue during the Heller suit - there was legislation being pushed by the NRA to rescind the DC handgun ban... which would have put Heller out of action before the Supremes could render a verdict because it would have removed his claim to being injured by the ban. No injury, no standing, no case, lawsuit dropped.

Why should they settle? Maybe because a judge says "your parties all have permits now, no standing, constitutionality a moot point, no basis for continuing the lawsuit - either settle or raise the ire of the court". The NRA settled in SF - what, did they not raise these same issues? This was post-heller, pre-nordyke... did they just "jump the gun" instead of waiting for incorporation? (eta: now I recall, they were hoping the case would lead to incorporation, but it didn't because they settled).

Suppose the two counties in question granted the plaintifs their permits, and made some changes to the application process, such as actually giving out and accepting applications, charging a high fee or requiring a huge amount of training, psych and medical exam, including "self defense" as PART of a gc statement as long as it is positively affected by other factors (Were valedictorian, worked in peace corps, no police record at all, member of social group like Kiwanis etc) in other words burden on applicant to prove that society is benefited by that individual being protected. A judge might decide that these sound reasonable and meet most of the issues at hand... can he force a settlement at that point?

Someone please explain why the issues above don't come into play in this case - assuming of course, that they don't.

Aegis
05-07-2009, 12:30 PM
I did read it, all of it. My question is that if these persons are granted permits, then no one in the suit has "standing" or can demonstrate that they were "harmed" by the party being sued. Constitutionality becomes a moot point, since none of the parties were injured. This was also an issue during the Heller suit - there was legislation being pushed by the NRA to rescind the DC handgun ban... which would have put Heller out of action before the Supremes could render a verdict because it would have removed his claim to being injured by the ban. No injury, no standing, no case, lawsuit dropped.

Why should they settle? Maybe because a judge says "your parties all have permits now, no standing, constitutionality a moot point, no basis for continuing the lawsuit - either settle or raise the ire of the court". The NRA settled in SF - what, did they not raise these same issues? This was post-heller, pre-nordyke... did they just "jump the gun" instead of waiting for incorporation? (eta: now I recall, they were hoping the case would lead to incorporation, but it didn't because they settled).

Someone please explain why the issues above don't come into play in this case - assuming of course, that they don't.

I doubt our side would settle for just these individuals getting permits. The big picture is larger than just these plaintiffs. Even if these plaintiffs received permits, and the same discretionary policy is in place, this issue is back in court again when the next applicant is denied a permit. I believe a settlement would have to include a change in the policy to essentially shall issue.

bruss01
05-07-2009, 12:31 PM
I would assume you include legal fees, take the CCW, and file for hundreds more now that the precedence has been set by that sheriff. Do that just a few times and their policy has become shall issue, you move on to another county. If they refuse any for lack of good cause, you don't settle.

That's my point. A verdict establishes a legally binding precedent for any future case within that court's jurisdiction. A settlement does not establish a legally binding precedent... it just makes the current issue "go away". I would think that this would be what the antis want.

stag1500
05-07-2009, 12:56 PM
Even if these plaintiffs received permits, and the same discretionary policy in in place, this issue is back in court again when the next applicant is denied a permit.

Or if these plaintiffs get their permits revoked in two years because their "good-cause" is no longer good enough.

Untamed1972
05-07-2009, 1:00 PM
That's my point. A verdict establishes a legally binding precedent for any future case within that court's jurisdiction. A settlement does not establish a legally binding precedent... it just makes the current issue "go away". I would think that this would be what the antis want.

That's my concern. A settlement by one sheriff doesn't not rewrite the "may-issue" of state law. Although if a sheriff were to settle and say "Ok, I said before your client didn't have good cause, but I will now issue them a permit anyway" kinda highlights the whole inequality and arbitrary aspect of the CCW process in CA, so I dont see how a sheriff could make such a settlement and not also end up looking like an azz unless part of the settlment was to change the issuance policy.....but again....he can only do that for his county, that doesn't help the rest of us except creating grounds for more lawsuits.

ilbob
05-07-2009, 1:02 PM
1. Maloony has about as much chance of getting to the Supreme Court, as I have of being named Obama's first pick to it.

Why would a heavyweight like Ken Starr get involved if it has no chance of being accepted by the SC?

ilbob
05-07-2009, 1:07 PM
Suppose the other side wanted to screw with us. We get to court and the county sherrif says something like "I have come to the conclusion that my policy is legally suspect so I am going to change it so self protection is considered good cause".

Since that is what is being asked for, the case would seem to be over, without doing a lick of good for anyone in another county.

DDT
05-07-2009, 1:14 PM
Suppose the other side wanted to screw with us. We get to court and the county sherrif says something like "I have come to the conclusion that my policy is legally suspect so I am going to change it so self protection is considered good cause".

Since that is what is being asked for, the case would seem to be over, without doing a lick of good for anyone in another county.

This is the only way to go after the law at this time. If both counties do this then we already have the basic pleading outline, just change the plaintiffs and defendants.

CnCFunFactory
05-07-2009, 1:47 PM
[QUOTE][Expect final resolution sometime late in 2012, maybe if all goes well...
/QUOTE]

But according to the Mayan Calander and movie previews, the world is going to end in 2012.:mad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VXa82AuwHU

Nicki

It's a self fulfilling prophecy. They will rule against and the SHTF hence end of the world.:p

otteray
05-10-2009, 6:13 AM
This is the only way to go after the law at this time. If both counties do this then we already have the basic pleading outline, just change the plaintiffs and defendants.

Hopefully they would start with the seven sheriffs that said "no on AB357" to the Public Safety Committee.
I believe Santa Cruz was one of them.

BobB35
05-10-2009, 9:00 AM
traitor McGuiness was one of the offending sheriffs. He is the perfect person for this case. You should hear the LIES he spouts on his weekly radio spot. Really bad... He has gone so far as to comment on this exact issue and tell people that he believes in the 2A and people having the right to defend themselves. While at the same time refusing to issue and revoking CCWs left and right.

Large man need to be spanked now and hard...

Rhys898
05-10-2009, 11:11 AM
That's my point. A verdict establishes a legally binding precedent for any future case within that court's jurisdiction. A settlement does not establish a legally binding precedent... it just makes the current issue "go away". I would think that this would be what the antis want.

I don't really know what your deal is other than you are a serious glass is half empty kind of person. While the San Francisco Housing Authority case did end in a settlement, it did not end in just allowing the one plaintiff to own guns. It ended in that entire policy being made unenforceable. So now anyone (who isn't already prohibited from owning firearms) in property controlled by SFHA can own a gun.

As far as this case is concerned, here is the relief requested from the first amended complaint.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that judgment be entered in their favor and against Defendants as follows:
1. An order permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from enforcing the "good moral character" and "good cause" requirements of California Penal Code 12050 against handgun carry permit applicants who seek the permit for self-defense and are otherwise qualified to obtain a handgun carry permit under that section;
2. An order permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from requiring any duration of local residence prior to accepting an application under California Penal Code 12050;
3. Declaratory relief that the "good moral character" and "good cause" provisions of California Penal Code 12050 are unconstitutional either on their face and/or as applied to bar applicants who are otherwise legally qualified to possess firearms and who assert self-defense as their "good cause" for seeking a handgun carry permit;
4. Costs of suit, including attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988;
5. Any other further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.

This makes it clear as day that the defendants throwing up their hands and saying "your three plaintiffs can have CCW's but that's it" would not be excepted by the rest of the defendants, or the judge. The case is not just about these three people. These three people are being used as examples of unconstitutional offenses against "the people" under the 2nd and 14th.

Hope this helps anyone that is on the fence about supporting CGF.

Jer

nicki
05-10-2009, 11:41 AM
Yolo and Sacramento counties could possibly end the lawsuits by going shall issue and settling out of court legal costs involved.

That of course would mean that Sacramento and Yolo would be shall issue immediately, not in years.

Of course, their are many other counties and the fact of our win would boost the size of Calguns because people who had been sitting on the sidelines would suddenly see a real victory.

A out of court settlement would probably attract enough resources for Calguns to mount legal lawsuits in another 3 to 5 counties.

Many smaller counties with less resources which are operating under "may issue", may read the writing on the wall and just cut the crap and adapt whatever we would work out with Yolo and Sacramento counties.

This is more than just gun rights, it is equal rights.

This is a win/win suit for us. That is the beauty of offense because we are picking the battles.

Nicki

ilbob
05-10-2009, 11:49 AM
traitor McGuiness was one of the offending sheriffs. He is the perfect person for this case. You should hear the LIES he spouts on his weekly radio spot. Really bad... He has gone so far as to comment on this exact issue and tell people that he believes in the 2A and people having the right to defend themselves. While at the same time refusing to issue and revoking CCWs left and right.

Large man need to be spanked now and hard...
many police officers feel the same way. they don't have a problem with SD at home, but they get iffy about it outside the home.

Mulay El Raisuli
05-11-2009, 6:30 AM
Yolo and Sacramento counties could possibly end the lawsuits by going shall issue and settling out of court legal costs involved.

That of course would mean that Sacramento and Yolo would be shall issue immediately, not in years.

Of course, their are many other counties and the fact of our win would boost the size of Calguns because people who had been sitting on the sidelines would suddenly see a real victory.

A out of court settlement would probably attract enough resources for Calguns to mount legal lawsuits in another 3 to 5 counties.

Many smaller counties with less resources which are operating under "may issue", may read the writing on the wall and just cut the crap and adapt whatever we would work out with Yolo and Sacramento counties.

This is more than just gun rights, it is equal rights.

This is a win/win suit for us. That is the beauty of offense because we are picking the battles.

Nicki



OK, this makes sense to me. It still isn't the battle that that I believe should have been fought first, but I can now see how it can lead to that is best.

Now I just hope that it does.

The Raisuli

Kid Stanislaus
05-11-2009, 7:28 AM
[QUOTE][Expect final resolution sometime late in 2012, maybe if all goes well...
/QUOTE]

But according to the Mayan Calander and movie previews, the world is going to end in 2012.:mad: Nicki

Well THAT'S a real burn, I've just started collecting my Social Security and now I'll only get it for three years!:mad:

Aegis
05-11-2009, 5:47 PM
many police officers feel the same way. they don't have a problem with SD at home, but they get iffy about it outside the home.

LE can't be everywhere at all times and the constitution grants law abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms inside and outside of the home. Nearly every other state has shall issue CCW and the crime rate is lower in those states. It is a win-win for all.

JDoe
05-12-2009, 7:26 AM
LE can't be everywhere at all times and the constitution grants law abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms inside and outside of the home. Nearly every other state has shall issue CCW and the crime rate is lower in those states. It is a win-win for all.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

The Second prohibits the government from interfering with the individual right (one that always existed, even before there was a U.S.A.) to keep and bear arms. Period. :thumbsup: