PDA

View Full Version : Winning carry in the Appellate courts?: A decent chance and why


Crom
02-23-2012, 8:29 AM
I wanted to share some thoughts I had.

After a lot of reading I've come to the conclusion that we stand a decent chance of winning carry in the Appellate courts. In which circuits is anybody's guess.

Here is why I think this.

Take Heller I. Heller lost in trial court but won on appeal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Court_of_Appeals) and the Supreme Court Affirmed the appellate court's opinion.

Next take McDonald. McDonald lost at trial court and lost again in the court of Appeals. However if you read what the court wrote in McDonald they give an explanation on how the federal courts work.

Look at what the court said about trial (district) courts:

The court observed that a district judge has a "duty to follow established precedent in the Court of Appeals to which he or she is beholden, even though the logic of more recent caselaw may point in a different direction." Id., at 753.

The above explains all of the losses in the district courts. The necessary case law to win did not exist. We are in effect creating it as the cases move forward and upward. The ultimate goal of course is being heard by the SCOTUS.

Reading the next McDonald quote below tells us that the Seventh Circuit declined to opine on what SCOTUS would do regarding incorporation, but they could have formed an opinion, and that is the point.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed, relying on three 19th-century cases—United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 (1876), Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 (1886), and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535 (1894)—that were decided in the wake of this Court's interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36 (1873). The Seventh Circuit described the rationale of those cases as "defunct" and recognized that they did not consider the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause incorporates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. NRA, Inc. v. Chicago, 567 F. 3d 856, 857, 858 (2009). Nevertheless, the Seventh Circuit observed that it was obligated to follow Supreme Court precedents that have "direct application," and it declined to predict how the Second Amendment would fare under this Court's modern "selective incorporation" approach. Id., at 857-858 (internal quotation marks omitted).

My last example is what happened in Nordyke IV (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5678782307901693880) when Don Kilmer successfully argued before the 9th cir. for selective incorporation through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The 3-judge panel formed an opinion, and a correct one at that as evidenced by McDonald a year later.

In my opinion [which should not count for much as I'm not a constitutional scholar, historian, or an attorney] we never stood a chance at winning carry in the trial court. But I think we stand a decent shot in the appellate courts.

It's anybody's guess as to what's going to happen. Understanding the key concept of a circuit split (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_split) is helpful as it has been suggested that may be the way to get to SCOTUS.

I'm eagerly watching and waiting. :)

Gray Peterson
02-23-2012, 8:57 AM
There is the bare possibility that every circuit may get it correct. Count on one of the governmental defendants appealing to SCOTUS, though

M1A Rifleman
02-23-2012, 10:35 AM
Eventually, the court may get it right, but I doubt anything will change in this state anytime soon.

My prediction is current 9th circuit cases will have similar conclusions as in other recent circuits regarding carry - meaning no 2nd Amend right outside the home.

Even if one of the current cases go right today, nothing will change anytime soom. The big anti cities/counties in this state will find all sorts of ways to prevent issuance thru implementation of high fees, libaility insurance etc. Yes these "additional" requirements may be against current state law, but so what until a judge tells them to stop.

Even after you get over this hurdle, these City's/Counties will find another way to limit issuance - such as by creating long review and process times by limiting funding and the number of staff to review and process applications, or by denying and returning applications for very minor questions, and requiring applicants to resubmit for an endless loop of correction and resubmittal.

This boils down to nothing will happen for those of us in the anti-gun areas of this state anytime soon.

Why do I have this opinion - I have inside knowledge as to how government works ;)

Connor P Price
02-23-2012, 11:12 AM
I'd count on the 2nd and 9th getting it wrong. If another court gets it right that will just make it easier to get in front of 9 judges.

Gray Peterson
02-23-2012, 11:41 AM
Eventually, the court may get it right, but I doubt anything will change in this state anytime soon.

My prediction is current 9th circuit cases will have similar conclusions as in other recent circuits regarding carry - meaning no 2nd Amend right outside the home.

No circuit has ruled in that issue in a direct fashion, so this is wrong.

Even if one of the current cases go right today, nothing will change anytime soom. The big anti cities/counties in this state will find all sorts of ways to prevent issuance thru implementation of high fees, libaility insurance etc. Yes these "additional" requirements may be against current state law, but so what until a judge tells them to stop.

Liability insurance & over cap fees are expressly forbidden by state law. You realize that in state court, we have TRO's and preliminary injunctions. Essentially, while the issue is being litigated the rule or regulation is placed on hold...

Even after you get over this hurdle, these City's/Counties will find another way to limit issuance - such as by creating long review and process times by limiting funding and the number of staff to review and process applications, or by denying and returning applications for very minor questions, and requiring applicants to resubmit for an endless loop of correction and resubmittal.

What questions could there possibly be when "good cause"= self defense, & good moral character =passing the fingerprint check with no prohibitive convictions?

Though "good cause" is self defense in Sacramento, the reasons their lines are so long is likely due to overchecking inefficiency in regards to good moral character. If that's gone...

Also, carry licensing fees are required to go directly to the cost of processing applications. If they refuse to fund the carry licensing unit properly, one can file to have the fees reduced in state court.

If they process slowly, one can file in federal court to order the process be done immediately, or like what the Jehovah's Witnesses cases in the 1940's, have the criminal prohibitions struck down.

Do you really think the sheriffs and the state are willing to roll that dice post SCOTUS carry case? They will process it quickly, face cooling their heels in a court house jail cell, or have the underlying criminal statute tossed..

This boils down to nothing will happen for those of us in the anti-gun areas of this state anytime soon.

Why do I have this opinion - I have inside knowledge as to how government works ;)

We are all quite aware of how government work is. Perhaps tacitly admitting to knowledge of methods of government obstructionism is not the best idea for you.

If you're working in the processing of paperwork involving a fundamental right, such as a marriage licensing, or business licensing of the press or bookstores, you would know what the fundamental rights issues involved here. Notice that no state requires marriage licenses to have no more then a 3 day waiting period, and has an immediate judicial override procedure...

If you're in a different part of government which has no involvement in the civil regulation of fundamental rights, your "inside knowledge" isn't with a hill of beans....

kcbrown
02-23-2012, 11:42 AM
Eventually, the court may get it right, but I doubt anything will change in this state anytime soon.

My prediction is current 9th circuit cases will have similar conclusions as in other recent circuits regarding carry - meaning no 2nd Amend right outside the home.

Even if one of the current cases go right today, nothing will change anytime soom. The big anti cities/counties in this state will find all sorts of ways to prevent issuance thru implementation of high fees, libaility insurance etc. Yes these "additional" requirements may be against current state law, but so what until a judge tells them to stop.

Even after you get over this hurdle, these City's/Counties will find another way to limit issuance - such as by creating long review and process times by limiting funding and the number of staff to review and process applications, or by denying and returning applications for very minor questions, and requiring applicants to resubmit for an endless loop of correction and resubmittal.

This boils down to nothing will happen for those of us in the anti-gun areas of this state anytime soon.

Why do I have this opinion - I have inside knowledge as to how government works ;)

This, in spades.

Anti-gun counties will do numerous things to make RKBA in public difficult to impossible within them:


They'll follow Sacramento's lead (whether that lead is deliberate or not) in making the process take so long that it amounts to denial of the right.
They'll play with the fee structure to make it exorbitantly expensive.
They'll require training classes to be taken for both the initial license and for any renewals, and arrange for them to be essentially unavailable, either by requiring the appropriate permits on the part of the instructors (which will be made available on a "may issue" basis) or by requiring that they be done "in-house" in order to limit availability.
They'll tie the license itself to some other form of "may issue" permit.
They'll put onerous restrictions on the licenses, such as one which stipulates that if your weapons gets exposed at all, the license will henceforth be invalid and non-renewable.
They'll put nonsensical time, place, and manner restrictions on the licenses, such as not being valid between midnight and 6AM, or not being valid within 500 feet of a toy store or day care center, etc.
They'll vary the restrictions so that there are numerous specific restrictions that will need to be fought individually in court, such that the only way to get them to stop entirely is to get the court to remove their power to place any restrictions on the licenses at all.
Perhaps worst of all, they'll put GFSZ restrictions on the permits (if Gene is right, that will be essentially impossible to fight).


And that's just the tip of the iceberg. They won't do all that at once, and they'll order it in such a way as to maximize the amount of time it takes to fight it.

And remember: the counties in question are the wealthiest ones, so they're not going to care about having to pay out a million or two in costs and fees after a 2+ year court battle. That's pocket change to them.


No, we're going to be fighting this crap in courts for decades. It will take that long before we get anything approaching real RKBA in public.



Oh, one other thing. A license to carry is an exemption to the general criminal prohibition against carrying loaded, concealed firearms in public. A restriction on the license is a condition under which the license is not valid. That implies that under the conditions specified by the restriction, the criminal law prohibiting carry is in full effect. And that means if you have a restriction, such as a GFSZ restriction, on your carry license and are caught carrying in a GFSZ, you can (and quite possibly will) be charged with criminal violation of the law. This will become especially problematic if the legislature increases the nature of a first violation from a misdemeanor/wobbler to a straight-up felony, which will mean that being caught violating the restriction will result in complete removal of your RKBA for life.

wildhawker
02-23-2012, 11:48 AM
What kc continues to forget is that many of the issues he raises are already implicated (directly or indirectly) in litigation, and the balance will be part of the follow-on cases. A classic case of skepticism grossly exceeding information and experience.

-Brandon

HowardW56
02-23-2012, 11:51 AM
What kc continues to forget is that many of the issues he raises are already implicated (directly or indirectly) in litigation, and the balance will be part of the follow-on cases. A classic case of skepticism grossly exceeding information and experience.

-Brandon

:rofl:

M. D. Van Norman
02-23-2012, 11:52 AM
We’re down to 17 months now, right? ;)

Gray Peterson
02-23-2012, 11:55 AM
This, in spades.

Anti-gun counties will do numerous things to make RKBA in public difficult to impossible within them:


They'll follow Sacramento's lead (whether that lead is deliberate or not) in making the process take so long that it amounts to denial of the right.
They'll play with the fee structure to make it exorbitantly expensive.
They'll require training classes to be taken for both the initial license and for any renewals, and arrange for them to be essentially unavailable, either by requiring the appropriate permits on the part of the instructors (which will be made available on a "may issue" basis) or by requiring that they be done "in-house" in order to limit availability.
They'll tie the license itself to some other form of "may issue" permit.
They'll put onerous restrictions on the licenses, such as one which stipulates that if your weapons gets exposed at all, the license will henceforth be invalid and non-renewable.
They'll put nonsensical time, place, and manner restrictions on the licenses, such as not being valid between midnight and 6AM, or not being valid within 500 feet of a toy store or day care center, etc.
They'll vary the restrictions so that there are numerous specific restrictions that will need to be fought individually in court, such that the only way to get them to stop entirely is to get the court to remove their power to place any restrictions on the licenses at all.
Perhaps worst of all, they'll put GFSZ restrictions on the permits (if Gene is right, that will be essentially impossible to fight).


And that's just the tip of the iceberg. They won't do all that at once, and they'll order it in such a way as to maximize the amount of time it takes to fight it.

And remember: the counties in question are the wealthiest ones, so they're not going to care about having to pay out a million or two in costs and fees after a 2+ year court battle. That's pocket change to them.


No, we're going to be fighting this crap in courts for decades. It will take that long before we get anything approaching real RKBA in public.

When did the video game sales regulations for minors take effect while it was being litigated in ESA v. Brown?

Also, I believe Gene stated that GFSZA isn't challengable in an unlicensed context. Remember Kevin Hall v. Garcia?

kcbrown
02-23-2012, 11:59 AM
When did the video game sales regulations for minors take effect while it was being litigated in ESA v. Brown?


Those were new regulations put in place afterwards. Many of the things I'm stipulating are already in place now, but have not yet been abused because the number of people who have managed to get past the initial application process is very low.


Also, I believe Gene stated that GFSZA isn't challengable in an unlicensed context. Remember Kevin Hall v. Garcia?

Gene cited "court politics" as the reason that a GFSZ challenge would not succeed. Those politics remain the same whether the GFSZ is encoded in law or as a restriction on a license.

gunsmith
02-23-2012, 11:59 AM
I remember the naysayers claiming that we will never have National Park carry when I started looking into it in 2004.

bruss01
02-23-2012, 12:01 PM
Eventually, the court may get it right, but I doubt anything will change in this state anytime soon.

My prediction is current 9th circuit cases will have similar conclusions as in other recent circuits regarding carry - meaning no 2nd Amend right outside the home.

Even if one of the current cases go right today, nothing will change anytime soom. The big anti cities/counties in this state will find all sorts of ways to prevent issuance thru implementation of high fees, libaility insurance etc. Yes these "additional" requirements may be against current state law, but so what until a judge tells them to stop.

Even after you get over this hurdle, these City's/Counties will find another way to limit issuance - such as by creating long review and process times by limiting funding and the number of staff to review and process applications, or by denying and returning applications for very minor questions, and requiring applicants to resubmit for an endless loop of correction and resubmittal.

This boils down to nothing will happen for those of us in the anti-gun areas of this state anytime soon.

Why do I have this opinion - I have inside knowledge as to how government works ;)


The 9th is in a difficult place. Prior to Heller/McDonald, they were pretty much free to be as anti-gun as they liked, because they had case law on the side of there being no 2nd Amendment right apart from militia service. But since the Supremes have decided that right and hence incorporated it, to undermine that right would put all the other bill of rights protections up for grabs too... and that's something they definitely would not want to see. They are going to have to walk a fine line on the gun issue if they want to continue to support individual rights of all kinds. Just like the ACLU is finding itself compelled to take on the occasional gun rights case now. They don't like it, but there's really no way around it.

I predict that the 9th will make the smallest rulings possible in favor of gun rights permissible within the scope of existing case law and the recent SC decisions. To do otherwise would guarantee reversal and/or impact other issues they care too deeply about.

kcbrown
02-23-2012, 12:03 PM
What kc continues to forget is that many of the issues he raises are already implicated (directly or indirectly) in litigation, and the balance will be part of the follow-on cases. A classic case of skepticism grossly exceeding information and experience.


My claim is that the issues that I raised will have to be addressed mostly in the follow-on cases, and that those will take decades to clear out.

The issues I raised are only the tip of the iceberg. Malevolent bureaucracies are immensely creative when it comes to figuring out ways to prevent people from getting what they want.

At some point, our litigation is going to have to switch from specifying what the licensing authority cannot do to specifying what it can do, such that everything else is strictly prohibited to them. That's going to be the only way to remove their ability to be "creative".

Crom
02-23-2012, 12:07 PM
I'd count on the 2nd and 9th getting it wrong. If another court gets it right that will just make it easier to get in front of [the] 9 judges Justices. Fixed it for you. ;)

Eventually, the court may get it right, but I doubt anything will change in this state anytime soon.

My prediction is current 9th circuit cases will have similar conclusions as in other recent circuits regarding carry - meaning no 2nd Amend right outside the home.


I think you are confused. No Appellate court has ruled on carry yet.

This, in spades.

<snip>

No, we're going to be fighting this crap in courts for decades.

True. Second Amendment law is in it's infancy and case after case will be argued to develop a robust set of law to protect our rights. This is going to take a lot of time.

It will take that long before we get anything approaching real RKBA in public.

Don't agree here. Several civil right to carry cases should be ready to be picked up for next SCOUTS cycle. There will be more battles in the legislature and in the courts for sure but with each victory in the courts it becomes more difficult for anti-gun legislators.

California most likely will be at the forefront of this battle.

Gray Peterson
02-23-2012, 12:08 PM
Gene cited "court politics" as the reason that a GFSZ challenge would not succeed. Those politics remain the same whether the GFSZ is encoded in law or as a restriction on a license.

Did Gene say that, or is the "politics remaining the same" just your added on opinion?

Gray Peterson
02-23-2012, 12:13 PM
My claim is that the issues that I raised will have to be addressed mostly in the follow-on cases, and that those will take decades to clear out.

The issues I raised are only the tip of the iceberg. Malevolent bureaucracies are immensely creative when it comes to figuring out ways to prevent people from getting what they want.

At some point, our litigation is going to have to switch from specifying what the licensing authority cannot do to specifying what it can do, such that everything else is strictly prohibited to them. That's going to be the only way to remove their ability to be "creative".

There's a reason we pointed out repeatedly that a certain lawsuit filed against the loaded carry ban is premature.....

kcbrown
02-23-2012, 12:30 PM
Did Gene say that, or is the "politics remaining the same" just your added on opinion?

The "politics remaining the same" is my opinion, so take it for what it's worth. If it's somehow not valid, then I'd like an explanation as to why.

My justification for saying that is that the "court politics" which make fighting the GFSZ so difficult, as I understand them, are related to the fact that it's schools that we're talking about, and it's all about "protecting the children". Which is to say, the thought process the courts will be following are inherently irrational. I see no reason to believe that said dynamic will drastically change when the thing under consideration is a restriction on a shall-issue license instead of a general prohibition in law, since the GFSZ exists in addition to the general prohibitions on carry, and was passed long after the general prohibitions on loaded carry.


To expound on this further, the "reason" for the GFSZ is to keep scary, evil guns from being anywhere near schools (which have lots of children), with the exception of those carried by people that the government trusts (to "protect the children"). Up until the point we're talking about, that "trust" was determined on a case-by-case basis by people the government places a large amount of trust in: sheriffs and chiefs of police. The fact that the determination was on a case-by-case basis and in depth is what established the necessary level of trust. Now think of the situation the court will be facing here. Concealed carry licenses are now on a shall-issue basis. That means anyone and their brother can get one as long as they don't have a felony criminal record. The degree of trust is no longer there.

Do you really think a court which is so concerned about "protecting the children" will magically change its mind simply because the person in front of them happens to have a license that was issued only because the issuing authority was forced by law to? Please. :rolleyes:

Untamed1972
02-23-2012, 12:40 PM
I think you are confused. No Appellate court has ruled on carry yet.

Did not SCOTUS decline to take a couple of carry cases last term? Which would mean they'd already been ruled on at the appellate level? Granted they were criminal cases. Did you mean no Appellate court has ruled on a CIVIL carry case yet?

Gray Peterson
02-23-2012, 12:49 PM
Did not SCOTUS decline to take a couple of carry cases last term? Which would mean they'd already been ruled on at the appellate level? Granted they were criminal cases. Did you mean no Appellate court has ruled on a CIVIL carry case yet?

4th circuit made a ruling which didn't directly confront the carry issue. There was a concurrent opinion from a known critic of Heller. The other carry case was Williams, which was a criminal case from the MD court of appeal.

He speaks of civil cases...

Gray Peterson
02-23-2012, 1:24 PM
The "politics remaining the same" is my opinion, so take it for what it's worth. If it's somehow not valid, then I'd like an explanation as to why.

My justification for saying that is that the "court politics" which make fighting the GFSZ so difficult, as I understand them, are related to the fact that it's schools that we're talking about, and it's all about "protecting the children". Which is to say, the thought process the courts will be following are inherently irrational. I see no reason to believe that said dynamic will drastically change when the thing under consideration is a restriction on a shall-issue license instead of a general prohibition in law, since the GFSZ exists in addition to the general prohibitions on carry, and was passed long after the general prohibitions on loaded carry.


To expound on this further, the "reason" for the GFSZ is to keep scary, evil guns from being anywhere near schools, with the exception of those people that the government trusts (to "protect the children"). Up until the point we're talking about, that "trust" was determined on a case-by-case basis by people the government places a large amount of trust in: sheriffs and chiefs of police. The fact that the determination was on a case-by-case basis and in depth is what established the necessary level of trust. Now think of the situation the court will be facing here. Concealed carry licenses are now on a shall-issue basis. That means anyone and their brother can get one as long as they don't have a felony criminal record. The degree of trust is no longer there.

Do you really think a court which is so concerned about "protecting the children" will magically change its mind simply because the person in front of them happens to have a license that was issued only because the issuing authority was forced by law to? Please. :rolleyes:

I decline to give LCAV a specific roadmap of how I would litigate the issue, other than bringing up already existing 1st amendment analogues. Also remember there it's another element to the TPM restrictions being allowed to be printed on the license, which is a creation of state statute itself.

kcbrown
02-23-2012, 1:28 PM
I decline to give LCAV a specific roadmap of how I would litigate the issue, other than bringing up already existing 1st amendment analogues. Also remember there it's another element to the TPM restrictions being allowed to be printed on the license, which is a creation of state statute itself.

Fair enough. My point is only this: if a court cannot be persuaded to overturn the CA GFSZ law in the face of the 2nd Amendment jurisprudence which we surmise will be in place at that point, then it cannot be persuaded to prohibit issuing authorities from placing GFSZ restrictions on shall-issue licenses, because the court's motivations are the same in both cases. I see no reason at all to believe otherwise, and plenty of reason to believe as I do (as I described above).

nicki
02-23-2012, 1:50 PM
While no one can predict the future, we can look at the past when it came to implementation of civil rights in the past.

We ultimately will have a court recognized right to bear functional arms for self defense in non sensitive places for self defense with the only burdens allowed by the courts are those that serve a compelling public safety interest.

I think the end game will be that getting a ccw permit shouldn't be that much more difficult than getting a driver's license.

We have a national data base of prohibited people that is instantly used on all gun sales already.

In California, all handgun sales are not only registered, but buyers take a written safety test to get a handgun card and a handgun safety demonstration.

In addition Californian gun buyers are burdened with a 10 day waiting period, limited to one gun purchase a month and limited to purchasing only safe handguns:mad:

If the courts take the position that self defense is a fundamental right, then laws, policies and regulations that burden our right solely for the purpose of burdening it will be thrown out by the courts.

The courts invalidated things like poll taxes and literacy tests on the right to vote because their purpose was to suppress voting rights.

We can expect the other side will copy the same strategy of racists to stop gun rights and we will copy the model of the civil rights movement to take back our rights.

For those who are still pessimistic, something to consider. We are not on defense, we are on offense, so we are picking the battles.

It is true that we still on are defense with our legislature, but our anti rights legislature must be both blind and deaf to what is happening in the courts across the country or maybe they just want to posture even though they know they will eventually lose in the courts anyway.

We will have about 5 to 10 years of court battles and each trip to the SCOTUS will enhance our rights even more.

We are fortunate that we have arrogant and ignorant opponents who are delusional that still don't get it that they lost, they actually believe Heller was a victory for them.:eek:

Nicki

newbee1111
02-23-2012, 2:34 PM
The big urban counties might fold quicker than expected. While the government in SF seems to be full of true believers in banning guns forever the rest of the big urban areas have sheriff's that treat carry permits like really awesome gifts they can hand out to celebrities and campaign donors. While I'm sure they are going to want to hang onto that system for as long as they can there is a point where it isn't worth it anymore. I'm guessing that point will be when the CGF is filing injunctions with a supreme court decision backing it up. San Francisco would probably hang on to the bitter end but they would run out of money way before LA, OC or San Diego.

Gray Peterson
02-23-2012, 2:41 PM
The big urban counties might fold quicker than expected. While the government in SF seems to be full of true believers in banning guns forever the rest of the big urban areas have sheriff's that treat carry permits like really awesome gifts they can hand out to celebrities and campaign donors. While I'm sure they are going to want to hang onto that system for as long as they can there is a point where it isn't worth it anymore. I'm guessing that point will be when the CGF is filing injunctions with a supreme court decision backing it up. San Francisco would probably hang on to the bitter end but they would run out of money way before LA, OC or San Diego.

They can "hold out", but they'll be forced to issue the licenses before the main litigation starts.....

Connor P Price
02-23-2012, 2:49 PM
Fixed it for you. ;)

Thanks. No coffee this morning is taking its toll.

Crom
02-23-2012, 3:37 PM
Did not SCOTUS decline to take a couple of carry cases last term? Which would mean they'd already been ruled on at the appellate level? Granted they were criminal cases. Did you mean no Appellate court has ruled on a CIVIL carry case yet?

They were criminal appeals cases not "Carry" cases. The two good cases I remember that dealt with 2A outside the home were: Mascindaro and Williams.

We got close in Mascindaro...

In Mascindaro (http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/094839.P.pdf) the Appellate court affirmed his conviction of possession of a loaded weapon in his vehicle while in a National Park. They used intermediate scrutiny. They completely ducked the issue of whether the 2A applied outside the home. They used intermediate scrutiny and 'public safety' argument to uphold the conviction to the 'as-applied' challenge.

Judge NIEMEYER, wrote separately in section IIIB, a really nice piece on why they should explore the constitutional question. In a foot note he argued that constitutional avoidance was not appropriate in this case. He also gave a nod to reading Heller in the way we read it. He made note about if the right didn't extend beyond the home then why have sensitive places? Etc.
Masciandaro also argues that he possessed a constitutional right to possess a loaded handgun for self-defense outside the home. I would agree that there is a plausible reading of Heller that the Second Amendment provides such a right, at least in some form.
Williams was convicted of carry without a permit in the state of Maryland. SCOUTS declined to hear the case on appeal from the Maryland State Supreme Court.

hoffmang
02-23-2012, 4:20 PM
Everyone needs to remember that all we need is one civil carry case to win in a circuit. Once that happens that case either goes directly up or the next loss (if any) generally goes up as a circuit split.

We have carry in the following Circuits that will likely rule this year - CA-10, CA-2, CA-1, CA-7. CA-9 will likely delay into next calendar year for a ruling due to Nordyke. CA-7, 1, and 2 are rocket dockets. CA-10 is a fast docket that is having a very rare second oral argument.

Next SCOTUS term should be very, very interesting.

Once we have a SCOTUS ruling on carry we get to get mean and much faster if any CA Sheriff tries to hold out.

-Gene

kcbrown
02-23-2012, 6:57 PM
Everyone needs to remember that all we need is one civil carry case to win in a circuit. Once that happens that case either goes directly up or the next loss (if any) generally goes up as a circuit split.

We have carry in the following Circuits that will likely rule this year - CA-10, CA-2, CA-1, CA-7. CA-9 will likely delay into next calendar year for a ruling due to Nordyke. CA-7, 1, and 2 are rocket dockets. CA-10 is a fast docket that is having a very rare second oral argument.

Next SCOTUS term should be very, very interesting.

Once we have a SCOTUS ruling on carry we get to get mean and much faster if any CA Sheriff tries to hold out.

-Gene

Most certainly we can and will challenge sheriffs in court much more quickly under those circumstances, but without specific guidance from the courts as to exactly how and under what circumstances they should be issuing, why would anti-gun sheriffs in wealthy counties not fight in court? Worse, what is going to keep them from slapping a bunch of restrictions on the licenses they find themselves forced to issue?

Seems to me that winning public carry in SCOTUS is just the beginning of the long, drawn out fight, and that we won't have real (i.e., usable without risking a felony conviction) carry in urban areas in California for at least a decade.

I won't be comfortable at all with things until SCOTUS starts taking criminal 2A cases. If they continue to deny cert to such cases as they have done thus far (and admittedly, it's too early to tell if that's a trend), then we will have to fight and win against every individual variation of a restriction on carry before the "right" is secured, and that will take decades. For malevolent government entities are very creative at finding ways to deny you your "rights".

kcbrown
02-23-2012, 7:01 PM
They can "hold out", but they'll be forced to issue the licenses before the main litigation starts.....

Yes, but not all licenses are created equal, and equal protection suits are supposedly very difficult to win in court.

Gray Peterson
02-23-2012, 7:05 PM
Yes, but not all licenses are created equal, and equal protection suits are supposedly very difficult to win in court.

Who said anything about equal protection in this particular case?

kcbrown
02-23-2012, 7:06 PM
I decline to give LCAV a specific roadmap of how I would litigate the issue, other than bringing up already existing 1st amendment analogues. Also remember there it's another element to the TPM restrictions being allowed to be printed on the license, which is a creation of state statute itself.

You do not want to go down the road of 1st Amendment jurisprudence with this. 1st Amendment jurisprudence gets us Renton v Playtime Theatres.

kcbrown
02-23-2012, 7:10 PM
Who said anything about equal protection in this particular case?

I did. It naturally follows from "not all licenses are created equal".

wildhawker
02-23-2012, 7:16 PM
You do not want to go down the road of 1st Amendment jurisprudence with this. 1st Amendment jurisprudence gets us Renton v Playtime Theatres.

So if all firearms are adult books - especially those pesky "quintessential self-defense weapon" handguns - then what firearms are not adult books?

-Brandon

kcbrown
02-23-2012, 7:23 PM
So if all firearms are adult books - especially those pesky "quintessential self-defense weapon" handguns - then what firearms are not adult books?


Not all arms are firearms.

In Renton v Playtime Theatres, the Supreme Court claimed that the zoning ordinance which explicitly targeted adult theaters (as opposed to all theaters) was somehow "content neutral" even though the defining characteristic of the targeted theater is the nature of the content it presents.

Renton makes it clear that the Supreme Court will uphold place restrictions on the basis of "for the children" and will play word games in order to do so if the restriction is something it wants to uphold.

Since the GFSZ (whether it be a restriction on the license or a restriction in law) is a place restriction very much like that in Renton, it follows that attempting to litigate the GFSZ using 1st Amendment analogues places you in very real danger of getting the same kind of opinion out of the Court as was issued in Renton.

wildhawker
02-23-2012, 7:31 PM
So your assertion is that firearms are not the core arms protected under 2A?

-Brandon

p.s. Saying GFSZs are like zoning in Renton is, well... how did that "those people can go practice at the range outside Chicago" argument work in Ezell?

kcbrown
02-23-2012, 7:55 PM
So your assertion is that firearms are not the core arms protected under 2A?


No. My assertion is that the GFSZ does not impact all arms, just as the ordinance in Renton does not impact all speech.

The one major difference in Renton is that they actually gathered evidence of negative impacts of the presence of adult theaters on the surrounding area. Such evidence almost certainly does not exist for GFSZs. So that may be enough to do the GFSZ in.

However, there are other analogues. If you want a more direct analogue, take note of the "free speech zone" restrictions that are now imposed upon the people who are engaging in political speech, which is the core of the 1st Amendment. And note that no case has managed to make it to the Supreme Court on that.


Again, from what I can tell, you do not want to use 1st Amendment analogues here. I sense great peril in that direction.



p.s. Saying GFSZs are like zoning in Renton is, well... how did that "those people can go practice at the range outside Chicago" argument work in Ezell?

Just because the core right is what is implicated doesn't mean the Court will automatically find in your favor. Again, look at "free speech zones". The core right is implicated there, and the justification is precisely that "those people can go protest somewhere else".

Yes, I agree the details are different. My only point here is that you do not want to use 1A analogues for this. What you're doing in the above is using a 2A argument against the GFSZ, which I agree is the way to go.

jwkincal
02-23-2012, 8:00 PM
The one major difference in Renton is that they actually gathered evidence of negative impacts of the presence of adult theaters on the surrounding area. Such evidence almost certainly does not exist for GFSZs. So that may be enough to do the GFSZ in.

I was actually going to say this. Very cogent point, IMO.

kcbrown
02-23-2012, 8:28 PM
I was actually going to say this. Very cogent point, IMO.

Yes. However, note that what they did was to allow infringement on a fundamental right in order to further the city's "interest" in maintaining a pleasant environment. Which is to say, an enumerated right took a back seat to something unenumerated and more nebulous on the basis that said enumerated right could be exercised elsewhere.

Same with "free speech zones" (though that hasn't been ruled on by the Supreme Court yet. It is notable that no litigation has succeeded against it except for settlements as far as I know).

Why should we believe that the GFSZ must, of necessity, be any different if we insist on applying 1A jurisprudence to it?


The interesting question about Renton isn't specifically how they ruled under the circumstances, it's how they would have ruled if the city didn't have the evidence in question to back it up. That's something I don't have an answer to.

"For the children" should not be underestimated as to its persuasive power, regardless of any facts.

wildhawker
02-23-2012, 8:38 PM
No. My assertion is that the GFSZ does not impact all arms, just as the ordinance in Renton does not impact all speech.

What? That's not even coherent unless your assertion is exactly what I said.

The one major difference in Renton is that they actually gathered evidence of negative impacts of the presence of adult theaters on the surrounding area. Such evidence almost certainly does not exist for GFSZs. So that may be enough to do the GFSZ in.

Surrounding area has nothing to do with it. The evidence, if it exists, is likely admissible even if it's from a nonadjacent locale.

However, there are other analogues. If you want a more direct analogue, take note of the "free speech zone" restrictions that are now imposed upon the people who are engaging in political speech, which is the core of the 1st Amendment. And note that no case has managed to make it to the Supreme Court on that.

I'm not sure I can make out a relevant point in all this.

Again, from what I can tell, you do not want to use 1st Amendment analogues here. I sense great peril in that direction.

As opposed to what? What do you suggest can be offered to the Court as an alternative and what supports your theory?

Just because the core right is what is implicated doesn't mean the Court will automatically find in your favor. Again, look at "free speech zones". The core right is implicated there, and the justification is precisely that "those people can go protest somewhere else".

When did we say that the Court would give us everything we want?

Yes, I agree the details are different. My only point here is that you do not want to use 1A analogues for this. What you're doing in the above is using a 2A argument against the GFSZ, which I agree is the way to go.

Back to the question: even assuming you're correct, what, then, do you suggest?

-Brandon

warkaj
02-23-2012, 8:39 PM
Eventually, the court may get it right, but I doubt anything will change in this state anytime soon.

My prediction is current 9th circuit cases will have similar conclusions as in other recent circuits regarding carry - meaning no 2nd Amend right outside the home.

Even if one of the current cases go right today, nothing will change anytime soom. The big anti cities/counties in this state will find all sorts of ways to prevent issuance thru implementation of high fees, libaility insurance etc. Yes these "additional" requirements may be against current state law, but so what until a judge tells them to stop.

Even after you get over this hurdle, these City's/Counties will find another way to limit issuance - such as by creating long review and process times by limiting funding and the number of staff to review and process applications, or by denying and returning applications for very minor questions, and requiring applicants to resubmit for an endless loop of correction and resubmittal.

This boils down to nothing will happen for those of us in the anti-gun areas of this state anytime soon.

Why do I have this opinion - I have inside knowledge as to how government works ;)



Pretty much spelled it out exactly how I think on it... seriously the Supreme Court of the United States themselves could tell and affirm that the 2nd amendment is lliterally one's right to carry permit and all states SHALL ISSUE permits... and still... California would fight it or find some loophole to "rid the streets of evil meany guns" (unless of course you're a criminal then you carry anyway). There's no helping this state, need to start voting people out, that's about the only way.

kcbrown
02-23-2012, 9:00 PM
What? That's not even coherent unless your assertion is exactly what I said.



You said my assertion was this:


So if all firearms are adult books - especially those pesky "quintessential self-defense weapon" handguns - then what firearms are not adult books?


I took that to imply that you were saying that my categorization was fallacious because the GFSZ targets all arms that are protected. So I think I may have misunderstood where you were going with that.



Surrounding area has nothing to do with it. The evidence, if it exists, is likely admissible even if it's from a nonadjacent locale.


Of course. The point here is that as far as I know, evidence in re the GFSZ doesn't exist anywhere.



I'm not sure I can make out a relevant point in all this.


The "free speech zones" implicate the core of the 1st Amendment right: political speech. They impose a place restriction on said speech on the basis that such speech can be conducted elsewhere.

Now, the GFSZ imposes a place restriction on the core of the 2nd Amendment right, but the difference here is that self defense isn't something that one can reasonably choose to exercise in one place versus another. That is a uniquely 2nd Amendment attribute that does not have a 1st Amendment analogue as far as I know (examples to the contrary welcome).



As opposed to what? What do you suggest can be offered to the Court as an alternative and what supports your theory?


A pure 2nd Amendment approach: the core of the right is self defense, and the necessity of self defense does not change based on whether or not you happen to be within 1000 feet of a school, and therefore the GFSZ categorically infringes upon the right in such a way that cannot be compensated for.

It needs to be shown to the Court in no uncertain terms that "place" restrictions on that right are a very different animal from "place" restrictions on 1A. This is why attempting to use 1A arguments in a 2A context can easily be the wrong thing to do.



When did we say that the Court would give us everything we want?


If it doesn't give us what we want for this, then in urban California, RKBA is dead.

M1A Rifleman
02-23-2012, 9:30 PM
The 9th is in a difficult place. They are going to have to walk a fine line on the gun issue if they want to continue to support individual rights of all kinds. .

I'm not so sure about this. I read a linked article on this site one time written by a judge. The comment from the author was that they (judges) are not impartial. They will draft their decisions based upon their personal feelings on an issue, and will wordsmith their decisions accordingly to fit existing law. Not sure why this surprised me, but it did.

hoffmang
02-23-2012, 9:44 PM
GFSZS don't apply to those with licenses to carry.

-Gene

kcbrown
02-23-2012, 9:55 PM
I'm not so sure about this. I read a linked article on this site one time written by a judge. The comment from the author was that they (judges) are not impartial. They will draft their decisions based upon their personal feelings on an issue, and will wordsmith their decisions accordingly to fit existing law. Not sure why this surprised me, but it did.

It surprised you because your cynicism level isn't high enough. :D

Now you know better. :43:

kcbrown
02-23-2012, 10:00 PM
GFSZS don't apply to those with licenses to carry.

-Gene

No, but they would apply to anyone who has a "not valid in GFSZs" restriction on their licenses.

My reasoning (and I'm open to corrections, as usual) is that the license is an exemption to the law. Said law prohibits concealed carry of a firearm. A restriction on the license specifies the conditions under which the license is not valid, i.e. the conditions under which one's exemption to the law is removed. If one carries under conditions that are specified in the restrictions, one is carrying illegally and subject to the penalties of the original law, because it is only the license itself, under conditions not specified in the list of restrictions, that gives you the exemption to said law.

Put another way, the possession of the license is an affirmative defense against the law, but only when the restrictions aren't applicable.

M1A Rifleman
02-24-2012, 6:00 AM
No circuit has ruled in that issue in a direct fashion, so this is wrong.



Liability insurance & over cap fees are expressly forbidden by state law. You realize that in state court, we have TRO's and preliminary injunctions. Essentially, while the issue is being litigated the rule or regulation is placed on hold...



What questions could there possibly be when "good cause"= self defense, & good moral character =passing the fingerprint check with no prohibitive convictions?

Though "good cause" is self defense in Sacramento, the reasons their lines are so long is likely due to overchecking inefficiency in regards to good moral character. If that's gone...

Also, carry licensing fees are required to go directly to the cost of processing applications. If they refuse to fund the carry licensing unit properly, one can file to have the fees reduced in state court.

If they process slowly, one can file in federal court to order the process be done immediately, or like what the Jehovah's Witnesses cases in the 1940's, have the criminal prohibitions struck down.

Do you really think the sheriffs and the state are willing to roll that dice post SCOTUS carry case? They will process it quickly, face cooling their heels in a court house jail cell, or have the underlying criminal statute tossed..



We are all quite aware of how government work is. Perhaps tacitly admitting to knowledge of methods of government obstructionism is not the best idea for you.

If you're working in the processing of paperwork involving a fundamental right, such as a marriage licensing, or business licensing of the press or bookstores, you would know what the fundamental rights issues involved here. Notice that no state requires marriage licenses to have no more then a 3 day waiting period, and has an immediate judicial override procedure...

If you're in a different part of government which has no involvement in the civil regulation of fundamental rights, your "inside knowledge" isn't with a hill of beans....

It's good that you realize that an unwanted decision from the courts results in either obstruction, non-compliance, or slow compliance from the goverment, as your opinions seem delusional that the court will solve all the problems anytime soon. My point is there are miles to go beyond the courts to winning this issue, and the road here in California is that much longer. It does not matter which area of local government is to act on this issue because the system works slow, not cost effective, and tends to obstructionist to things it does not like in all branches/areas from the sheriff to public works. I don't get your hostel point that it may not be best for me to point this out = please explain.

As far as all your stated in-roads on the issue locally, what changed in Alameda and SF counties that results in a hill of beans?

Mulay El Raisuli
02-24-2012, 6:58 AM
The 9th is in a difficult place. Prior to Heller/McDonald, they were pretty much free to be as anti-gun as they liked, because they had case law on the side of there being no 2nd Amendment right apart from militia service. But since the Supremes have decided that right and hence incorporated it, to undermine that right would put all the other bill of rights protections up for grabs too... and that's something they definitely would not want to see. They are going to have to walk a fine line on the gun issue if they want to continue to support individual rights of all kinds. Just like the ACLU is finding itself compelled to take on the occasional gun rights case now. They don't like it, but there's really no way around it.

I predict that the 9th will make the smallest rulings possible in favor of gun rights permissible within the scope of existing case law and the recent SC decisions. To do otherwise would guarantee reversal and/or impact other issues they care too deeply about.


Which may be all we need.


The Raisuli

P.S. LOVE the "Zombie Outbreak" pic.

M. D. Van Norman
02-24-2012, 7:36 AM
Back to the question: even assuming you’re correct, what, then, do you suggest?

I think that kcbrown and others would ultimately like to see some criminal convictions overturned, which somewhat presupposes the notion that we will still have to break the law on some occasions in order to establish a functional civil right to bear arms.

Crom
02-24-2012, 8:53 AM
I predict that the 9th will make the smallest rulings possible in favor of gun rights permissible within the scope of existing case law and the recent SC decisions. To do otherwise would guarantee reversal and/or impact other issues they care too deeply about.

I think this is exactly how the Judges should operate. My hope is that the Circuit Judges don't dodge the constitutional question.

HowardW56
02-24-2012, 9:06 AM
I predict that the 9th will make the smallest rulings possible in favor of gun rights permissible within the scope of existing case law and the recent SC decisions. To do otherwise would guarantee reversal and/or impact other issues they care too deeply about.

With Nordyke being the next case up, a win would strike down the Alameda County gun show ban, but it could include a watered down form of intermediate scrutiny...

Rossi357
02-24-2012, 1:06 PM
IMO it will come down similar to Ezell. Buying a gun is closer to the core right that practicing at a gun range. The, "you can't buy one here, but you can somewhere else", won't fly.
But, what do I know?

Gray Peterson
02-24-2012, 1:17 PM
IMO it will come down similar to Ezell. Buying a gun is closer to the core right that practicing at a gun range. The, "you can't buy one here, but you can somewhere else", won't fly.
But, what do I know?

That isn't what Ezell held...

kcbrown
02-24-2012, 1:18 PM
I think that kcbrown and others would ultimately like to see some criminal convictions overturned, which somewhat presupposes the notion that we will still have to break the law on some occasions in order to establish a functional civil right to bear arms.

No, what I'm saying with respect to criminal cases is that I will have no real confidence in RKBA jurisprudence until SCOTUS starts overturning criminal convictions.

It's not so much that someone has to break the law in order to establish a functional civil right to bear arms, it's that the real litmus test of the strength of the right is whether or not laws that are on the books and which have been violated are struck down under those circumstances.

Otherwise, the situation you'll find yourself in is that laws, ordinances, etc., can be passed and people bitten by them between the time they're passed and the time they are successfully challenged in court. If the resulting criminal cases are denied cert, then that means that for those cases, the law that was violated was not Unconstitutional. Ultimately, that means we will perpetually be in a state of peril with respect to RKBA simply as a result of the fact that lawmaking bodies can move faster than courts can.


Imagine how completely worthless our 4th Amendment rights would be if the Supreme Court denied cert to all criminal cases that arose from improper searches and seizures, and instead insisted that the improper searches and seizures had to be challenged in civil court in order to have any effect at all.

Gray Peterson
02-24-2012, 1:26 PM
Btw, folks, count on a governmental defendant appealing a la DC with Parker becoming Heller....

Connor P Price
02-24-2012, 1:30 PM
No, what I'm saying with respect to criminal cases is that I will have no real confidence in RKBA jurisprudence until SCOTUS starts overturning criminal convictions.

It's not so much that someone has to break the law in order to establish a functional civil right to bear arms, it's that the real litmus test of the strength of the right is whether or not laws that are on the books and which have been violated are struck down under those circumstances.

Otherwise, the situation you'll find yourself in is that laws, ordinances, etc., can be passed and people bitten by them between the time they're passed and the time they are successfully challenged in court. If the resulting criminal cases are denied cert, then that means that for those cases, the law that was violated was not Unconstitutional. Ultimately, that means we will perpetually be in a state of peril with respect to RKBA simply as a result of the fact that lawmaking bodies can move faster than courts can.


Imagine how completely worthless our 4th Amendment rights would be if the Supreme Court denied cert to all criminal cases that arose from improper searches and seizures, and instead insisted that the improper searches and seizures had to be challenged in civil court in order to have any effect at all.

The legislature isn't always going to move so much faster than the courts. Once the right is solidified it will be easy to get injunctions preventing unconstitutional laws from going into effect at all. Remember AB962? The lawmakers will not be perpetually ahead of us.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk

Rossi357
02-24-2012, 2:36 PM
Pass.

kcbrown
02-24-2012, 3:01 PM
The legislature isn't always going to move so much faster than the courts. Once the right is solidified it will be easy to get injunctions preventing unconstitutional laws from going into effect at all. Remember AB962? The lawmakers will not be perpetually ahead of us.


I suppose in California that's true. State courts seem to be pretty fast about these things, and a PI that's upheld in even the superior court level winds up applying throughout the entire state.

Nevertheless, that presumes that the law in question is being issued by the legislature where it can be directly targeted. There's also the problem of bureaucratic rulemaking, which is harder to challenge in such a way that the rule never goes into effect because there is no convenient delay (in the general case, at any rate) between the time of rulemaking and the time the rule goes into effect as there is with legislation in general.

A challenge to a law giving a bureaucracy sweeping powers is likely to be much harder to challenge, so you're left with challenging the various edicts that said bureaucracy decides to put forth.

M. D. Van Norman
02-24-2012, 3:24 PM
No, what I’m saying with respect to criminal cases is that I will have no real confidence in RKBA jurisprudence until SCOTUS starts overturning criminal convictions.

A distinction without a difference? But I hear what you’re saying. ;)

I have neither boundless optimism nor boundless pessimism, but I am somewhat confident that at an appropriate point in this polite, legalistic process, the powers that be will begin to do the right thing. To follow that with a fearful note, however, I have to add that if their behavior wasn’t so deeply irrational, they would already be doing so. Nevertheless, I choose confidence over fear.

bulgron
02-24-2012, 3:27 PM
I suppose in California that's true. State courts seem to be pretty fast about these things, and a PI that's upheld in even the superior court level winds up applying throughout the entire state.

Nevertheless, that presumes that the law in question is being issued by the legislature where it can be directly targeted. There's also the problem of bureaucratic rulemaking, which is harder to challenge in such a way that the rule never goes into effect because there is no convenient delay (in the general case, at any rate) between the time of rulemaking and the time the rule goes into effect as there is with legislation in general.

A challenge to a law giving a bureaucracy sweeping powers is likely to be much harder to challenge, so you're left with challenging the various edicts that said bureaucracy decides to put forth.

You know something? You have to have some optimism, even if only a little bit, or there's absolutely no point in pursuing any of this. Why do you even bother coming around here to talk about this if you're so sure we're going to fail in our efforts to reform the system?

My belief is that it's going to be hard to get that initial win on carry, and that some of the leadership around here is being overly optimistic on the timeline for that to happen. But I also think that once we have that initial win, most (80% - 90%) of the issuing agencies in the state will immediately toe the line. Might we have some problems with a few of the hardcase counties (LA, SF, Alameda, Santa Clara)? Sure. But even they will toe the line in time. We just have to keep cranking up the pain for non-compliance.

Nobody said this would be easy, or quick. But if you don't think there's any possibility of success, then this message board is probably not the best place for you to hang out.

(Of course, if you DO think there's some possibility of success, I'd like to see you express it every once in a while.)

In other words: You're killing my buzz, man.

kcbrown
02-24-2012, 5:00 PM
You know something? You have to have some optimism, even if only a little bit, or there's absolutely no point in pursuing any of this. Why do you even bother coming around here to talk about this if you're so sure we're going to fail in our efforts to reform the system?


Because the fight has to be fought no matter the odds. And I'd rather see us win by accounting for every possible thing that can go wrong as opposed to missing one and having that one thing we missed bite us in the a**. The people we have running the show are the best there is. But nobody is perfect, not even them. For this fight, we must be perfect, because what we are attempting is not tolerant of mistakes.



My belief is that it's going to be hard to get that initial win on carry, and that some of the leadership around here is being overly optimistic on the timeline for that to happen. But I also think that once we have that initial win, most (80% - 90%) of the issuing agencies in the state will immediately toe the line. Might we have some problems with a few of the hardcase counties (LA, SF, Alameda, Santa Clara)? Sure. But even they will toe the line in time. We just have to keep cranking up the pain for non-compliance.


No argument here. I will say this: we have more endurance for this than they have. :43:




Nobody said this would be easy, or quick.


Oh yes they did. Gene was predicting we'd have real, usable carry in the anti-gun strongholds within 36 months of McDonald.



But if you don't think there's any possibility of success, then this message board is probably not the best place for you to hang out.

(Of course, if you DO think there's some possibility of success, I'd like to see you express it every once in a while.)

In other words: You're killing my buzz, man.

Okay, I do think we have a chance of success here. But I think it's going to take many, many years (decades, even) to get it in the areas where most people in California live.

Keep buzzing. :D

kcbrown
02-24-2012, 5:04 PM
A distinction without a difference? But I hear what you’re saying. ;)

I have neither boundless optimism nor boundless pessimism, but I am somewhat confident that at an appropriate point in this polite, legalistic process, the powers that be will begin to do the right thing. To follow that with a fearful note, however, I have to add that if their behavior wasn’t so deeply irrational, they would already be doing so. Nevertheless, I choose confidence over fear.

I choose that which has proven to be correct most often. Sadly, that is not confidence, at least as regards timelines. Outcomes without a time limit attached are a different thing altogether, but less meaningful.

kcbrown
02-24-2012, 5:21 PM
Look, we will win, eventually. But that's the key word: eventually. And "eventually" can be a very, very long time.

bulgron
02-24-2012, 6:51 PM
Okay, I do think we have a chance of success here. But I think it's going to take many, many years (decades, even) to get it in the areas where most people in California live.

Ah, good to know. To read some of your posts, it sounded like you think we have no chance whatsoever. Now that I understand what you're all about, please do continue with the angst. ;)

Keep buzzing. :D

Oh, yeah, okay. Looks like I'm in for the evening now, so I think I'll sample some of my Laphroaig (18 yo). That always gives me a very nice buzz, indeed. :D

kcbrown
02-24-2012, 8:10 PM
Ah, good to know. To read some of your posts, it sounded like you think we have no chance whatsoever. Now that I understand what you're all about, please do continue with the angst. ;)


LOL!

Actually, I should expound on the success thing a bit.

I don't just think we have a chance of success. I actually think the chance of success is very high, well north of 50%. But I think that success will be achieved in a longer period of time than what many people think.

My belief is that the longer you're talking about, the higher the chance of success. Time is on our side, not that of the enemy, particularly with the rise of the non-mainstream media on the internet.

And freedom is contagious. :43:

hammerhead_77
02-24-2012, 10:06 PM
Please remember: KCBrown serves an important purpose. If nothing else, his insightful (if often controverted) opinions force us to look at all sides of the issue. KcBrown is the Pollyanna antibiotic.

Thanks, KC. May you never lose your willingness to be proven wrong.

SWalt
02-24-2012, 10:40 PM
All I have to say, you all better vote come this November, we don't need the current administration continuing to nominate Justices and the Republicans rolling over like a dog having its belly rubbed.

I'm almost certain that Nordyke will be ruled in our favor, theres only a slight chance in my mind it won't. The right to self defense IS the most basic human right. To say 2A is a fundamental right then disallow its promotion in a public forum is ludicrous.

Besides, the gun show at the LA Co fair grounds was always the best one and I want to buy tickets.

HowardW56
02-25-2012, 8:37 AM
LOL!

Actually, I should expound on the success thing a bit.

I don't just think we have a chance of success. I actually think the chance of success is very high, well north of 50%. But I think that success will be achieved in a longer period of time than what many people think.

My belief is that the longer you're talking about, the higher the chance of success. Time is on our side, not that of the enemy, particularly with the rise of the non-mainstream media on the internet.

And freedom is contagious. :43:

kcbrown, you mean it won't all be resolved in :twoweeks: my hopes are crushed...

:rofl2:

pointedstick
02-25-2012, 10:19 AM
kcbrown, didn't federal GFSZ already get struck down at SCOTUS once, in U.S. v. Lopez? The one we have now is 99% the same law and as far as I can tell, the only reason it hasn't also been struck down is because it hasn't been challenged at SCOTUS yet. And that was before Heller and McDonald! It was a 5-4 decision then, and it seems likely that it would be a 5-4 decision today, seeing has how Rehnquist and O'Connor have been replaced by Roberts and Alito.

I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem that we wouldn't have much to lose if GFSZ came before the court in its current configuration, no?

Gray Peterson
02-25-2012, 10:33 AM
kcbrown, didn't federal GFSZ already get struck down at SCOTUS once, in U.S. v. Lopez? The one we have now is 99% the same law and as far as I can tell, the only reason it hasn't also been struck down is because it hasn't been challenged at SCOTUS yet. And that was before Heller and McDonald! It was a 5-4 decision then, and it seems likely that it would be a 5-4 decision today, seeing has how Rehnquist and O'Connor have been replaced by Roberts and Alito.

I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem that we wouldn't have much to lose if GFSZ came before the court in its current configuration, no?

There are better places to challenge the federal GFSZA.

pointedstick
02-25-2012, 11:10 AM
There are better places to challenge the federal GFSZA.

Do tell! :)

Connor P Price
02-25-2012, 1:37 PM
Do tell! :)

Since its not common knowledge it is probably better that he doesn't.

Tarn_Helm
02-25-2012, 2:02 PM
I wanted to share some thoughts I had.

After a lot of reading I've come to the conclusion that we stand a decent chance of winning carry in the Appellate courts. In which circuits is anybody's guess.

Here is why I think this.

Take Heller I. Heller lost in trial court but won on appeal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Court_of_Appeals) and the Supreme Court Affirmed the appellate court's opinion.

Next take McDonald. McDonald lost at trial court and lost again in the court of Appeals. However if you read what the court wrote in McDonald they give an explanation on how the federal courts work.

Look at what the court said about trial (district) courts:



The above explains all of the losses in the district courts. The necessary case law to win did not exist. We are in effect creating it as the cases move forward and upward. The ultimate goal of course is being heard by the SCOTUS.

Reading the next McDonald quote below tells us that the Seventh Circuit declined to opine on what SCOTUS would do regarding incorporation, but they could have formed an opinion, and that is the point.



My last example is what happened in Nordyke IV (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5678782307901693880) when Don Kilmer successfully argued before the 9th cir. for selective incorporation through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The 3-judge panel formed an opinion, and a correct one at that as evidenced by McDonald a year later.

In my opinion [which should not count for much as I'm not a constitutional scholar, historian, or an attorney] we never stood a chance at winning carry in the trial court. But I think we stand a decent shot in the appellate courts.

It's anybody's guess as to what's going to happen. Understanding the key concept of a circuit split (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_split) is helpful as it has been suggested that may be the way to get to SCOTUS.

I'm eagerly watching and waiting. :)
Prediction: CA will never win shall-issue LTC/CCW through litigation.

However, numerous lawyers will live for years off of individuals' attempts to win it.

Name one state that is now shall-issue which was made that way via litigation.

kcbrown
02-25-2012, 2:33 PM
Wow. Two people on here who don't get it. Color me astonished. :rolleyes:


Likewise.

I may think it'll take longer than many are predicting, but that's not the same thing at all as saying that it won't happen at all.

I think we're going to have to send up a lot more cases to the Supreme Court than some here might expect, as the 9th Circuit attempts to worm its way around Supreme Court jurisprudence towards an anti-gun conclusion. In essence, I think the Supreme Court is going to have to place a large number of roadblocks in the way of the 9th Circuit in order to force the 9th in the direction they/we want. That's going to take time.

But saying it's going to take a lot of time is not at all the same thing as saying it won't happen through the courts at all.

kcbrown
02-25-2012, 2:39 PM
Thanks, KC. May you never lose your willingness to be proven wrong.

Willingness to be proven wrong is probably the most important trait of a reasonable person.

Connor P Price
02-25-2012, 2:53 PM
Prediction: CA will never win shall-issue LTC/CCW through litigation.

However, numerous lawyers will live for years off of individuals' attempts to win it.

Name one state that is now shall-issue which was made that way via litigation.

So the basis for your prediction appears to be that since it hasn't happened before it can't happen at all. Are you familiar with the phrase "There's a first time for everything?"

Applying your logic that something that hasn't happened in the past can't happen in the future, nothing would ever happen at all. Literally every occurrence in the history of the world disagrees with you. I don't believe I've ever heard an argument less based in reality.

Kestryll
02-25-2012, 2:57 PM
Whatever it takes to keep the money flowing I guess.

Excuse me?

Not a SINGLE PERSON on the CGF Board makes money off of running CGF.
Several do however give up many hours of their personal time to do the work that needs to be done.

NO CGF Board member is paid to litigate ANYTHING, the lawyers involved are NOT members of the CGF Board nor do they 'kick back' a dime.

So do you want to explain your accusation?

Gray Peterson
02-25-2012, 2:58 PM
Prediction: CA will never win shall-issue LTC/CCW through litigation.

You wanna bet?

However, numerous lawyers will live for years off of individuals' attempts to win it.

42 USC 1988 requires one to prevail in order to get attorney fees. Gura & Kilmer need to win in order to "live for years"

Name one state that is now shall-issue which was made that way via litigation.

Connecticut in 1969, Indiana (Schubert v. DeBard, 1980, Kellogg v. City of Gary, 1990), Rhode Island (Mosbey v. Devine, 2002, Archer v. McGarry, 2004), Alabama in the 1970's, state of Georgia in 1976, West Virginia (City of Princeton ex rel state v. Buckner, 1989)

Tarn_Helm
02-25-2012, 3:08 PM
Wow. Someone on here who actually gets it. Color me astonished.

I hope I am wrong.

I also hope shall-issue LTC/CCW comes to CA before I expire or am too old to safely qualify for a permit to exercise a fundamental "right" ( :facepalm: ).

But I will believe it when I see it.

Till then I take no promises or assurances.

:cool:

pietropau9
02-25-2012, 3:09 PM
LA Judge Denies Hearings on Motions to Dismiss Federal Open Carry Lawsuit

Decision on Motions to Dismiss Expected Within 120 Days.

A Federal judge in Los Angeles has vacated a hearing on the Motions to Dismiss a Federal Civil Rights lawsuit seeking an injunction against California's ban on openly carrying loaded firearms in public.

The motions to dismiss were brought by the Attorney General of California, Kamala Harris and the attorney for the Redondo Beach defendants, Mike Webb, which include the Redondo Beach Police Department and its Police Chief.

The Federal Judge also denied an evidentiary hearing requested by the attorney for the Redondo Beach defendants who objected to videos being submitted as evidence which show; Redondo Beach police officers forcibly ejecting Open Carry advocates from the Redondo Beach Galleria Mall, stopping Open Carry advocates and taking their handguns to see if they were loaded and the City Attorney, Mike Webb, stating that his ban on Open Carry in the City of Redondo Beach applies to all public places in the city. Businesses, like the Galleria Mall, are "public places" according to the California Supreme Court.

"I am not surprised that the Court isn't going to waste its time holding hearings on these frivolous motions." Said Charles Nichols, who has filed the lawsuit and is President of California Right To Carry.

"The Attorney General and the Attorney for the Redondo Beach defendants both claim I don't have "standing" to challenge California's ban on openly carrying a loaded firearm in public. The Attorney General claims that I am only speculating that I would be arrested and prosecuted if I were to do so. The attorney for the Redondo Beach defendants said I had no proof that he was enforcing the law. I told him I had videos before he filed his motion to dismiss, I guess he didn't believe me." Mr. Nichols added.

"Their motions to dismiss will be denied. It isn't necessary to submit evidence or prove one's case when a Federal lawsuit is filed. When deciding on whether or not to dismiss a lawsuit, a Federal judge takes all allegations made in the Complaint as true and then decides whether or not these allegations support an alleged violation of a person's rights under the US Constitution and whether or not the Court has the ability to grant the relief requested in the Complaint. I've alleged that California's ban on openly carrying loaded firearms in public is a violation of the Second, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. A Federal judge has the authority and the power to issue an injunction against the California Open Carry ban and the law is currently being enforced." Mr. Nichols continued.

"There are other technical requirements to a lawsuit, all are present in the Complaint I filed. Governor Brown's answer to my lawsuit is due in two weeks. Once he files his reply, I will file my response accompanied by a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction against California's ban on openly carrying loaded firearms in public. Given that California's Open Carry ban is clearly unconstitutional. I suspect the Federal District Court judge won't waste time conducting a hearing on my motion as well. After all, what can the Defendants argue that already hasn't been decided by the Federal Courts? The US Supreme Court held that Open Carry is the constitutionally protected manner of carry in its 2008 decision in Heller. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has already rejected the claim that the Heller decision only entails a right to possess a firearm in the home. The defendants don't have a legal argument to support why an injunction shouldn't be issued against California's ban on openly carrying a loaded firearm in public. If they had one, they wouldn't have filed these frivolous motions to dismiss my lawsuit in the first place." Mr. Nichols concluded.

Tarn_Helm
02-25-2012, 3:17 PM
You wanna bet?



42 USC 1988 requires one to prevail in order to get attorney fees. Gura & Kilmer need to win in order to "live for years"



Connecticut in 1969, Indiana (Schubert v. DeBard, 1980, Kellogg v. City of Gary, 1990), Rhode Island (Mosbey v. Devine, 2002, Archer v. McGarry, 2004), Alabama in the 1970's, state of Georgia in 1976, West Virginia (City of Princeton ex rel state v. Buckner, 1989)

You're citing Connecticut's fake "shall-issue" as proof?

(The litigation route might be least used because it is least effective and/or least likely to work.)

Ok, for the sake of argument, I will go along with you.

So, this means that CA is going to depend on the least common method of obtaining recognition of our right to shall-issue LTC/CCW?

How many years, from start to finish did it take for "Connecticutters" (and the rest) to obtain recognition of their right?

And how many dollars, adjusted of course to today's dollars?

Sorry, still not in blindfaith, rah rah cheerleader mode here.

I cannot get all passionate about believing that litigation will work here in CA.

Don't waste more time trying to convince me.

Especially since I have no power.

:cool:

Until then, fear not--I will continue to throw my little donations down the black hole of my favorite gun nut orgs.

:oji:

Connor P Price
02-25-2012, 3:27 PM
I cannot get all passionate about believing that litigation will work here in CA.


It doesn't have to work in California it just has to work at SCOTUS.

kcbrown
02-25-2012, 3:27 PM
"The US Supreme Court held that Open Carry is the constitutionally protected manner of carry in its 2008 decision in Heller."


That is very much up for debate. Heller can easily be read to imply that states must make available at least one method of carry, but may choose what those methods are.

Tarn_Helm
02-25-2012, 3:37 PM
It doesn't have to work in California it just has to work at SCOTUS.

How many years after the U.S. Civil War did it take for people of color to be able to actually be able experience equal treatment under the numerous laws aimed at creating it?

Like I said, I hope I am wrong.

But every tick of the clock says I am not.

More importantly, justice delayed is justice denied.

Will I be compensated?

:facepalm:

ilbob
02-25-2012, 3:48 PM
You wanna bet?



42 USC 1988 requires one to prevail in order to get attorney fees. Gura & Kilmer need to win in order to "live for years"



Connecticut in 1969, Indiana (Schubert v. DeBard, 1980, Kellogg v. City of Gary, 1990), Rhode Island (Mosbey v. Devine, 2002, Archer v. McGarry, 2004), Alabama in the 1970's, state of Georgia in 1976, West Virginia (City of Princeton ex rel state v. Buckner, 1989)

As a practical matter, RI is only shall issue in some towns, as it was prior to the rulings you mention. Other towns it is closer to no issue. Despite what the courts ruled. The town police chiefs have done everything they can when they don't want to issue to avoid issuing. Even to attempting to require psychiatric exams, IIRC. It is an interesting case study in how you can win this kind of case and still not get all that much in practical terms for a very long time.

I think a previous poster mentioned voting rights for blacks as an example. It was really not until the 60s that places that did not want blacks to vote started to remove those impediments.

kcbrown
02-25-2012, 3:50 PM
It doesn't have to work in California it just has to work at SCOTUS.

No, sadly, it does have to work in California as well.

SCOTUS will not grant cert to every little carry case that comes up the ladder to it. At some point, the 9th Circuit is going to have to start ruling in our favor for litigation to really work.

A "right" which is not recognized by the circuit courts despite repeated recognition by the Supreme Court is no right at all. There are claims that various incentives exist to keep the circuit courts in line, but I know of no instance in which they have actually been used.

And as you say, "there's a first time for everything". A circuit court may never have been entirely defiant of the Supreme Court on any given thing in the past, but that doesn't mean it won't happen here.

Connor P Price
02-25-2012, 4:37 PM
How many years after the U.S. Civil War did it take for people of color to be able to actually be able experience equal treatment under the numerous laws aimed at creating it?

Like I said, I hope I am wrong.

But every tick of the clock says I am not.

More importantly, justice delayed is justice denied.

Will I be compensated?

:facepalm:

I think the civil war is an improper analogy for our situation. A closer one might be Brown v Board of Education being similar to our Heller. Your still right that we don't get everything all at once from one case, it will take a few years for things to flesh out just like it took a number of years for schools to be completely de-segregated. I do think its reasonable for us to expect our process to go faster thanks to the internet and availability of information making it easier for the right people to collaborate and find sympathetic plaintiffs in a way they never would have been able to before. The fight won't be over soon, but the big stuff should be fleshed out fairly quickly. Not quickly in internet time, but quickly in judicial time.

As far as whether you'll be compensated, no, none of us will.

(Most of this has been covered by people on this forum who know a whole lot more than I do, but I've seen no contrary argument that makes more sense.)

Sgt Raven
02-25-2012, 4:41 PM
And as you say, "there's a first time for everything". A circuit court may never have been entirely defiant of the Supreme Court on any given thing in the past, but that doesn't mean it won't happen here.


IIRC didn't the 9th get their 'pee-pee' slapped about 15-20 years ago by SCOTUS and told not to send anymore XYZ cases up to them? It's been a while, but I'm sure I remember something from back then, when they were trying to be defiant of SCOTUS rulings against them. :oji:

Connor P Price
02-25-2012, 4:54 PM
No, sadly, it does have to work in California as well.

SCOTUS will not grant cert to every little carry case that comes up the ladder to it. At some point, the 9th Circuit is going to have to start ruling in our favor for litigation to really work.

A "right" which is not recognized by the circuit courts despite repeated recognition by the Supreme Court is no right at all. There are claims that various incentives exist to keep the circuit courts in line, but I know of no instance in which they have actually been used.

And as you say, "there's a first time for everything". A circuit court may never have been entirely defiant of the Supreme Court on any given thing in the past, but that doesn't mean it won't happen here.

In a sense you're right, but I think we're arguing two completely different things here. We need the supremes to give us bear in a general sense and that should clean up most of the may issue problems. After that there will surely be more clean up involved that will take further litigation which we'll need the 9th to decide properly. Even you'd agree that they're more likely to decide in our favor after a favorable SCOTUS decision on carry wouldn't you?

Gray Peterson
02-25-2012, 7:46 PM
As a practical matter, RI is only shall issue in some towns, as it was prior to the rulings you mention. Other towns it is closer to no issue. Despite what the courts ruled. The town police chiefs have done everything they can when they don't want to issue to avoid issuing. Even to attempting to require psychiatric exams, IIRC. It is an interesting case study in how you can win this kind of case and still not get all that much in practical terms for a very long time.



One of my best friends, Jared1981, will hopefully be along to explain the Rhode Island situation. Rhode Island is mandatory issue, and psych exams are no longer required at all. URI, the only authorized provider for that, is no longer providing that service. The problem is a lack of willing plaintiffs who are willing to challenge the color of law violations. Rhode Island is an extraordinarily small population state in an extremely urban environment, with many surrounding states nearby within 30 minutes drive, it's a discouragement issue.

He is the Vice President of CRAL-RI. Rhode Island is no California where we have hundreds of potential plaintiffs to chose from.

You're citing Connecticut's fake "shall-issue" as proof?

(The litigation route might be least used because it is least effective and/or least likely to work.)

Ok, for the sake of argument, I will go along with you.

So, this means that CA is going to depend on the least common method of obtaining recognition of our right to shall-issue LTC/CCW?

How many years, from start to finish did it take for "Connecticutters" (and the rest) to obtain recognition of their right?

And how many dollars, adjusted of course to today's dollars?

All of the plaintiffs, attorneys, and defendant in that case are long dead. It's been 43 years, and all of the disbursements and attorneys fees receivables records are long gone.

None of that matters. I pointed out other cases where shall-issue was done by "judicial ruling". Also, I think you and I have may have different understandings as to what "shall-issue" means.

There are actually less than 20 states which are truly "shall-issue". The ones I know off the top of my head is WA, WI, NV, GA, FL, AZ, NV, TX, but I'll have to do a lot of research to figure out what other states are like this as well.

Numerous states in the 1990's and 2000's passed laws which were labeled "shall-issue", but had "dangerous persons" provisions which allowed for denial, suspension, refusals to renew. These laws would not be compliant with the prior restraint and due process doctrines.

Sorry, still not in blindfaith, rah rah cheerleader mode here.

I cannot get all passionate about believing that litigation will work here in CA.

Don't waste more time trying to convince me.

Especially since I have no power.

:cool:

If you had no power, then the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right is dead.

Our power, as a collective unit of people of interest in this, comes from believing we can win as a set of individuals. Or else, none of this matters, and the anti-gunners win.

Until then, fear not--I will continue to throw my little donations down the black hole of my favorite gun nut orgs.

:oji:

I would never suggest someone keep donating if they have zero faith anything would improve.

Tarn_Helm
02-25-2012, 9:13 PM
I think the civil war is an improper analogy for our situation. A closer one might be Brown v Board of Education being similar to our Heller. Your still right that we don't get everything all at once from one case, it will take a few years for things to flesh out just like it took a number of years for schools to be completely de-segregated. I do think its reasonable for us to expect our process to go faster thanks to the internet and availability of information making it easier for the right people to collaborate and find sympathetic plaintiffs in a way they never would have been able to before. The fight won't be over soon, but the big stuff should be fleshed out fairly quickly. Not quickly in internet time, but quickly in judicial time.

As far as whether you'll be compensated, no, none of us will.

(Most of this has been covered by people on this forum who know a whole lot more than I do, but I've seen no contrary argument that makes more sense.)

The Civil War is Part 1 of the U.S. Civil Rights Movement.

The Hundred+ years that followed 1865 is part 2 of the U.S. Civil Rights Movement.

The RKBA movement is in a condition analogous to that of the Jim Crow era.

The analogy can be precised up in many different ways.

But the bottom line is that I have no RKBA in my opinion unless the "B" part is fully exercisable.

It isn't.
:mad:

pointedstick
02-25-2012, 9:19 PM
How many years after the U.S. Civil War did it take for people of color to be able to actually be able experience equal treatment under the numerous laws aimed at creating it?

Like I said, I hope I am wrong.

But every tick of the clock says I am not.

More importantly, justice delayed is justice denied.

Will I be compensated?

:facepalm:

But they got it. It's little consolation to those living before 1954 of course, but they got it. I understand your frustration, I really do, but what other choice do we have? In CA, the anti-gunners have the legislature locked up and anyone openly pro-gun cannot win the governorship given the composition of the electorate. Our only real routes forward involve finding clever loopholes in state laws or using the courts.

I know the seemingly endless waiting sucks, but what other choice do we have for RKBA in CA?

Tarn_Helm
02-25-2012, 9:27 PM
. . . If you had no power,

I thought it was obvious that I meant that I have no power to immediately change the situation myself.

I am at the mercy of legal proceduralism which dignifies judicially sanctioned denial of my rights in the name of some verbal reasoning game aimed at preserving the legal system at the expense of the very people it is supposed to protect--the very ones who pay for that system's existence.

I can't say I am brimming with respect for it or optimism about the chances that it will yield what it owes me.

. . . then the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right is dead.

Our power, as a collective unit of people of interest in this, comes from believing we can win as a set of individuals. Or else, none of this matters, and the anti-gunners win.


You place more importance than I do on packaging this battle as winnable.

. . . I would never suggest someone keep donating if they have zero faith anything would improve.

I would never suggest that someone should only fight battles if he knows they are winnable.

The most important battles must most often be fought under circumstances which make them seem unwinnable--the battle for full and free RKBA is the most important of such battles.

Suit yourself.

kcbrown
02-25-2012, 9:49 PM
Our power, as a collective unit of people of interest in this, comes from believing we can win as a set of individuals. Or else, none of this matters, and the anti-gunners win.


This isn't strictly true, but it's true in the general sense. This is a fight that must be fought even if there's no chance of winning it. That's something I believe, and I doubt I'm the only one. For those of us who believe as I do, the chance of winning is irrelevant. We'll fight anyway.

But in general, yes, people need to believe there's a chance of winning if they're going to be motivated to fight.

Tarn_Helm
02-25-2012, 10:00 PM
But they got it. It's little consolation to those living before 1954 of course, but they got it. I understand your frustration, I really do, but what other choice do we have? In CA, the anti-gunners have the legislature locked up and anyone openly pro-gun cannot win the governorship given the composition of the electorate. Our only real routes forward involve finding clever loopholes in state laws or using the courts.

I know the seemingly endless waiting sucks, but what other choice do we have for RKBA in CA?

I would give ten percent of my pretax income to a campaign to change the law.

We could write every aspect of the law: concealed carry options, burden of proof rules for D.A.'s to follow, civil liability protection, training requirements, etc.

We could write the best set of CCW/LTC laws in the country.

If we had something really worth fighting for instead of some vague litigated CCW/LTC situation, more people might join our movement.

If every potential member could read the list of things they would get by supporting the passage of a set of ideal CCW/LTC laws, they might be much more interested in supporting the campaign.

As things now stand with CA's CCW/LTC laws, were someone to act as an aggressor toward me in such a way as to ostensibly justify my drawing and firing (assuming I had a CCW), I might not do so.

I would be a guinea pig.

Who knows what would happen?

People should read this if they have not done so: The Terrifying and True Harold Fish Story (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2790117/posts).

How would you like to need a site like this after you use your CCW?: http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/

Read this for a professional summary by a renowned 2nd Amendment lawyer and historian: Harold Fish conviction reversed (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/07/harold_fish_con.php).

If we were to pass our own set of CCW/LTC laws, we could prevent people here from ending up like Harold Fish, who, in Arizona of all places, went to prison because of the way CCW self-defense laws were written in that state.

I simply question the dominant assumption that litigation is more likely to work than legislation.

Perhaps we could win more followers for a campaign which includes comprehensive changes to all aspects of CCW/LTC law in CA than a stuttering piecemeal approach which still leaves us legally--criminally and civilly--unprotected even if we do "win" CCW/LTC in CA through litigation.

Maybe I'm wrong.

I myself would rather support a massive campaign aimed at comprehensively re-writing every aspect of CA's CCW/LTC armed self-defense laws.

Think of how frustrating and costly it would be to finally get your CCW/LTC, use it in a justifiable shooting, and then get sued in civil court.

I think we should go for broke.

If we are going to work for shall-issue CCW/LTC in this state, then let's go for the whole thing and support a massive campaign aimed at comprehensively re-writing every aspect of CA's CCW/LTC armed self-defense laws.
:cool:

Again, maybe I'm wrong.

bandook
02-25-2012, 10:33 PM
kcbrown, you mean it won't all be resolved in :twoweeks: my hopes are crushed...

:rofl2:
I think the problem is that it IS going to take :twoweeks:

Jared1981
02-25-2012, 10:51 PM
As a practical matter, RI is only shall issue in some towns, as it was prior to the rulings you mention. Other towns it is closer to no issue. Despite what the courts ruled. The town police chiefs have done everything they can when they don't want to issue to avoid issuing. Even to attempting to require psychiatric exams, IIRC. It is an interesting case study in how you can win this kind of case and still not get all that much in practical terms for a very long time.

I think a previous poster mentioned voting rights for blacks as an example. It was really not until the 60s that places that did not want blacks to vote started to remove those impediments.

Courts never ruled on specific Rhode Island carry cases in respect to overturning a denial from a chief, they never get that far. The Archer case and the Gillette case involved applications. Mosby involved an Attorney General denial (the court did say that RI 11-47-11 is a mandatory shall issue law).

They never get that far in RI, those who want a permit and push the issue with a chief and begin court proceedings get their permits. The problem Jim Archer and I had for years were people who wanted to get a permit and wanted us to spend money on getting them a permit.

The situation in RI isn't the best but it's been getting better as the years go on. Like Gray said, there is not much interest in carrying guns in Rhode Island. Many people who wanted a "town permit" have obtained them.

Jared1981
02-25-2012, 10:56 PM
You're citing Connecticut's fake "shall-issue" as proof?

(The litigation route might be least used because it is least effective and/or least likely to work.)

Ok, for the sake of argument, I will go along with you.

So, this means that CA is going to depend on the least common method of obtaining recognition of our right to shall-issue LTC/CCW?

How many years, from start to finish did it take for "Connecticutters" (and the rest) to obtain recognition of their right?

And how many dollars, adjusted of course to today's dollars?

Sorry, still not in blindfaith, rah rah cheerleader mode here.

I cannot get all passionate about believing that litigation will work here in CA.

Don't waste more time trying to convince me.

Especially since I have no power.

:cool:

Until then, fear not--I will continue to throw my little donations down the black hole of my favorite gun nut orgs.

:oji:

CT issues on a shall-issue basis. They do have a lot of disqualifiers; however, their number is less than "shall-issue" states like Michigan (over 47 disqualifiers, 1 gotcha revocation mechanism, and the dangerous person clause in suspending a license).

No one I know has ever had a problem obtaining a CT permit from the State Police. They use to try to revoke permits for whatever they could, but that practice has stopped with the Spinelli case in the 2nd circuit and the Board of Firearm Permit Examiners has laid down stricter guidelines in revoking permits in recent years.

Many states that are shall-issue are really not if they want to be jerks about it....

Oregon
Maine
Pennsylvania (ask Philly :) )
Colorado
Michigan
a few more that escape my head at the moment.

Gray Peterson
02-26-2012, 1:25 AM
I would give ten percent of my pretax income to a campaign to change the law.

We could write every aspect of the law: concealed carry options, burden of proof rules for D.A.'s to follow, civil liability protection, training requirements, etc.

We could write the best set of CCW/LTC laws in the country.

If we had something really worth fighting for instead of some vague litigated CCW/LTC situation, more people might join our movement.

If every potential member could read the list of things they would get by supporting the passage of a set of ideal CCW/LTC laws, they might be much more interested in supporting the campaign.

As things now stand with CA's CCW/LTC laws, were someone to act as an aggressor toward me in such a way as to ostensibly justify my drawing and firing (assuming I had a CCW), I might not do so.

I would be a guinea pig.

Who knows what would happen?

People should read this if they have not done so: The Terrifying and True Harold Fish Story (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2790117/posts).

How would you like to need a site like this after you use your CCW?: http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/

Read this for a professional summary by a renowned 2nd Amendment lawyer and historian: Harold Fish conviction reversed (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/07/harold_fish_con.php).

If we were to pass our own set of CCW/LTC laws, we could prevent people here from ending up like Harold Fish, who, in Arizona of all places, went to prison because of the way CCW self-defense laws were written in that state.

I simply question the dominant assumption that litigation is more likely to work than legislation.

Perhaps we could win more followers for a campaign which includes comprehensive changes to all aspects of CCW/LTC law in CA than a stuttering piecemeal approach which still leaves us legally--criminally and civilly--unprotected even if we do "win" CCW/LTC in CA through litigation.

Maybe I'm wrong.

I myself would rather support a massive campaign aimed at comprehensively re-writing every aspect of CA's CCW/LTC armed self-defense laws.

Think of how frustrating and costly it would be to finally get your CCW/LTC, use it in a justifiable shooting, and then get sued in civil court.

I think we should go for broke.

If we are going to work for shall-issue CCW/LTC in this state, then let's go for the whole thing and support a massive campaign aimed at comprehensively re-writing every aspect of CA's CCW/LTC armed self-defense laws.
:cool:

Again, maybe I'm wrong.

You are mixing up carry licensing with the self defense provisions of the penal code.

Harold Fish was a victim of a very weak self defense law which passed in 1997 in Arizona. It was essentially a legislatively created legal error which was not discovered by the public at large until the Fish situation, and it required being overturned twice by the Legislature to fix Harold Fish's problem.

California's self defense statute is actually good. There is no "duty to retreat"in California when it comes to self defense on the street....

That being said, anyone doing training should suggest to a carrier that they should sign up for a self defense protection plan while we work on strengthening our self defense laws. For example, the CHP Protection Plan or the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network. Even in states that have Texas-style self defense laws which makes the possibility of charges remote, having that protection plan is the best insurance you can ever have.

As far as a "campaign" versus litigation:

There are two paths of litigation when it comes to carrying: The federal litigation against good cause and good moral character in Richards, and the state litigation against state law violative provisions (in [i]Rossow v.Pazin, and other litigation to follow soon). Those are the only two litigation types that have been filed against California state and issuing authority.

Let's also be more clear on another factor, as you seem to think that CGF is focusing too much on litigation only:

CalGuns Foundation is primarily a litigation and educative organization, who can do limited lobbying under 501(c)(3) rules (I believe there's a 10 or 20 percent rule). For the biggest strength in lobbying, like everyone else in California, we rely on three groups primarily for political lobbying on the legislative front.

1) CalGuns.net forum goers and participants, as well as California residents of nationwide forums such as Gun Rights Media, the High Road, and the various gun rights bloggers who are based in California, NRA Members Councils, etc. With the "Front Sight Army" members in California also joining us, too, we have increased our voice for change.

2) CRPA Representative Lobbyist Tom Pedersen

3) NRA-ILA California lobbyist Ed Worley

Tarn, when the time is right, we'll need your help to be a voice to the legislature calling for reforms of the law, once "good cause" and "good moral character" has been taken out of the Legislature's hands. There are various different ideas floating about which are all positive for us. The ideas, of course, have been discussed repeatedly in the forums.

Questions such as:

Why should the sheriff's be the issuing authority for licenses given their propensity for abuses? Should that be transferred to the state, similar to Florida?

Why have the license only be valid only for 2 years? Shouldn't it be 5 years instead?


These are all questions which neither a state or federal court can answer for us, nor would they have the authority to order a transfer or enlargement of the license because they feel like it should be done. There are numerous other fixes we can do legislatively (SB610 is a good example of what can be passed with large majorities, we need to keep at it). There are other specific aspects to California ideas that is being kept to self, the two examples above is just merely what has been suggested at large here and something that's wanted.

Mulay El Raisuli
02-26-2012, 4:33 AM
LA Judge Denies Hearings on Motions to Dismiss Federal Open Carry Lawsuit

Decision on Motions to Dismiss Expected Within 120 Days.

A Federal judge in Los Angeles has vacated a hearing on the Motions to Dismiss a Federal Civil Rights lawsuit seeking an injunction against California's ban on openly carrying loaded firearms in public.

The motions to dismiss were brought by the Attorney General of California, Kamala Harris and the attorney for the Redondo Beach defendants, Mike Webb, which include the Redondo Beach Police Department and its Police Chief.

The Federal Judge also denied an evidentiary hearing requested by the attorney for the Redondo Beach defendants who objected to videos being submitted as evidence which show; Redondo Beach police officers forcibly ejecting Open Carry advocates from the Redondo Beach Galleria Mall, stopping Open Carry advocates and taking their handguns to see if they were loaded and the City Attorney, Mike Webb, stating that his ban on Open Carry in the City of Redondo Beach applies to all public places in the city. Businesses, like the Galleria Mall, are "public places" according to the California Supreme Court.

"I am not surprised that the Court isn't going to waste its time holding hearings on these frivolous motions." Said Charles Nichols, who has filed the lawsuit and is President of California Right To Carry.

"The Attorney General and the Attorney for the Redondo Beach defendants both claim I don't have "standing" to challenge California's ban on openly carrying a loaded firearm in public. The Attorney General claims that I am only speculating that I would be arrested and prosecuted if I were to do so. The attorney for the Redondo Beach defendants said I had no proof that he was enforcing the law. I told him I had videos before he filed his motion to dismiss, I guess he didn't believe me." Mr. Nichols added.

"Their motions to dismiss will be denied. It isn't necessary to submit evidence or prove one's case when a Federal lawsuit is filed. When deciding on whether or not to dismiss a lawsuit, a Federal judge takes all allegations made in the Complaint as true and then decides whether or not these allegations support an alleged violation of a person's rights under the US Constitution and whether or not the Court has the ability to grant the relief requested in the Complaint. I've alleged that California's ban on openly carrying loaded firearms in public is a violation of the Second, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. A Federal judge has the authority and the power to issue an injunction against the California Open Carry ban and the law is currently being enforced." Mr. Nichols continued.

"There are other technical requirements to a lawsuit, all are present in the Complaint I filed. Governor Brown's answer to my lawsuit is due in two weeks. Once he files his reply, I will file my response accompanied by a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction against California's ban on openly carrying loaded firearms in public. Given that California's Open Carry ban is clearly unconstitutional. I suspect the Federal District Court judge won't waste time conducting a hearing on my motion as well. After all, what can the Defendants argue that already hasn't been decided by the Federal Courts? The US Supreme Court held that Open Carry is the constitutionally protected manner of carry in its 2008 decision in Heller. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has already rejected the claim that the Heller decision only entails a right to possess a firearm in the home. The defendants don't have a legal argument to support why an injunction shouldn't be issued against California's ban on openly carrying a loaded firearm in public. If they had one, they wouldn't have filed these frivolous motions to dismiss my lawsuit in the first place." Mr. Nichols concluded.


Excellent!


The Raisuli

JoeJinKY
02-26-2012, 5:42 AM
I feel so bad for you guys who remain in Commiefornia. I'll bet that these same threads and same discussions will probably be here on this board ten years from now. It looks to me as if you guys are punching the inflatable anti-gun clown. Each time you give it a good punch, it pops right back up with new B.S. and more hoops for you to jump through, and no matter how hard, or how many times you punch it, it just pops right back up again.

It is sad, that there isn't enough money behind simply forcing their hand. Someone should go out, carry a loaded SELF-DEFENSE firearm into some place that makes the anti's pee in their pants, and then come at them with both barrels, and a slew of lawyers and a BOAT LOAD of money from the gun lobby to finally and for all time b*tch slap these hoplophobes into eternal submission.

One of the reasons I left Commiefornia was because of the angst and frustration and STRESS I felt at reading the endless banter about how we just might, maybe, kinda sorts get close to something that could possibly take us in the general direction of ... but everything is on hold until ... and we have to wait for ... and the ruling wasn't in our favor but we can use it to ... hopefully the judge will ... ??? ...

What a load of crap! It became obvious to me that Commiefornia gun owners are going to spend their entire lives in courts fighting for permission to exercise their 2nd Amendment RIGHT to keep and bear arms by battling people who should simply be bludgeoned to death in their homes with nail studded baseball bats and crowbars for the good of humanity. I just got tired of trying to convince myself that if I can only hold out another two, ten or fifty years, there is a good chance that maybe it might look like there could be a possibility of ...

I moved here to Kentucky in May of last year. I now have my CDW. I can shoot a BMG .50 from my back porch if I choose. I can own 30-round magazines. I can buy a dozen handguns and walk out with them, with ammunition for all of them, by simply giving the salesman a credit card, a check or cash. I can buy ammo by the pallet. I can buy nearly ANYTHING I want. there is no "roster" here.

I am NOT "boasting." I am trying to convince you that you all need to shake off the "California is the only place to live! I could never consider living anywhere else!" brainwashing and realize that there are places all across America where you can simply raise your middle digit to ANYONE who complains about the fact that you are carrying a loaded firearm. I suffered from that mindset for 40 years. I truly believed that Commiefornia was THE place to live, and the thought of living somewhere with bugs, and snow, and cows, and mosquitoes was unthinkable! Well, I'm here to tell you that you cannot imagine the feeling of FREEDOM I have, a feeling that was lost and dead while living in that cesspool of Socialism.

You aren't going to live forever! Are you really so opposed to relocating to Free America that you are willing to keep charging these windmills, hoping that one day you'll actually make a state full of brain dead blithering idiot LIBERALS see YOUR point of view? Guess what. YOU WON'T. Not tomorrow, not in a year. Not in twenty years. IT WON'T HAPPEN.

"But Joe! But Joe! We can't just move out of California! My kids go to school here! My parents live here! I have a business here! ..."

We have schools here too, and I dare say they'll give your kids a better education than ANYTHING Commiefornia is producing. If your business is successful there, it will be successful here, unless you are in the business of promoting Commiefornia. Your parents? Sell their home and move them out. You can buy a home almost anywhere for less money than you'll sell their home for there, and you'll get more home for the money. What other excuses do you have?

Tarn_Helm
02-26-2012, 6:31 AM
I feel so bad for you guys who remain in Commiefornia. I'll bet that these same threads and same discussions will probably be here on this board ten years from now. It looks to me as if you guys are punching the inflatable anti-gun clown. Each time you give it a good punch, it pops right back up with new B.S. and more hoops for you to jump through, and no matter how hard, or how many times you punch it, it just pops right back up again.

It is sad, that there isn't enough money behind simply forcing their hand. Someone should go out, carry a loaded SELF-DEFENSE firearm into some place that makes the anti's pee in their pants, and then come at them with both barrels, and a slew of lawyers and a BOAT LOAD of money from the gun lobby to finally and for all time b*tch slap these hoplophobes into eternal submission.

One of the reasons I left Commiefornia was because of the angst and frustration and STRESS I felt at reading the endless banter about how we just might, maybe, kinda sorts get close to something that could possibly take us in the general direction of ... but everything is on hold until ... and we have to wait for ... and the ruling wasn't in our favor but we can use it to ... hopefully the judge will ... ??? ...

What a load of crap! It became obvious to me that Commiefornia gun owners are going to spend their entire lives in courts fighting for permission to exercise their 2nd Amendment RIGHT to keep and bear arms by battling people who should simply be bludgeoned to death in their homes with nail studded baseball bats and crowbars for the good of humanity. I just got tired of trying to convince myself that if I can only hold out another two, ten or fifty years, there is a good chance that maybe it might look like there could be a possibility of ...

I moved here to Kentucky in May of last year. I now have my CDW. I can shoot a BMG .50 from my back porch if I choose. I can own 30-round magazines. I can buy a dozen handguns and walk out with them, with ammunition for all of them, by simply giving the salesman a credit card, a check or cash. I can buy ammo by the pallet. I can buy nearly ANYTHING I want. there is no "roster" here.

I am NOT "boasting." I am trying to convince you that you all need to shake off the "California is the only place to live! I could never consider living anywhere else!" brainwashing and realize that there are places all across America where you can simply raise your middle digit to ANYONE who complains about the fact that you are carrying a loaded firearm. I suffered from that mindset for 40 years. I truly believed that Commiefornia was THE place to live, and the thought of living somewhere with bugs, and snow, and cows, and mosquitoes was unthinkable! Well, I'm here to tell you that you cannot imagine the feeling of FREEDOM I have, a feeling that was lost and dead while living in that cesspool of Socialism.

You aren't going to live forever! Are you really so opposed to relocating to Free America that you are willing to keep charging these windmills, hoping that one day you'll actually make a state full of brain dead blithering idiot LIBERALS see YOUR point of view? Guess what. YOU WON'T. Not tomorrow, not in a year. Not in twenty years. IT WON'T HAPPEN.

"But Joe! But Joe! We can't just move out of California! My kids go to school here! My parents live here! I have a business here! ..."

We have schools here too, and I dare say they'll give your kids a better education than ANYTHING Commiefornia is producing. If your business is successful there, it will be successful here, unless you are in the business of promoting Commiefornia. Your parents? Sell their home and move them out. You can buy a home almost anywhere for less money than you'll sell their home for there, and you'll get more home for the money. What other excuses do you have?


I really do need to seek employment elsewhere.

:(

pointedstick
02-26-2012, 7:30 AM
I simply question the dominant assumption that litigation is more likely to work than legislation.

Legislation can work great—when you have a majority or near-majority among the electorate or elected officials. We have neither. I don't think we're focusing on litigation because we like it; we're doing it because in California, it's basically our only option. There simply are not enough people in this state to reliably support pro-gun legislation without the kinds of backroom shenanigans that we don't have enough legislators on our side for. That's sad, but it's the truth.

I know Calguns.net can make it seem like we're all gunnies here, but in the scheme of the state, we're a small minority, and in a democracy or republic, small minorities are the most dangerous groups to be members of, because the majority can run roughshod over them with near impunity. The word "near" there is only due to the intervention of the courts.

pietropau9
02-26-2012, 7:51 AM
I feel so bad for you guys who remain in Commiefornia. I'll bet that these same threads and same discussions will probably be here on this board ten years from now. It looks to me as if you guys are punching the inflatable anti-gun clown. Each time you give it a good punch, it pops right back up with new B.S. and more hoops for you to jump through, and no matter how hard, or how many times you punch it, it just pops right back up again.

It is sad, that there isn't enough money behind simply forcing their hand. Someone should go out, carry a loaded SELF-DEFENSE firearm into some place that makes the anti's pee in their pants, and then come at them with both barrels, and a slew of lawyers and a BOAT LOAD of money from the gun lobby to finally and for all time b*tch slap these hoplophobes into eternal submission.

One of the reasons I left Commiefornia was because of the angst and frustration and STRESS I felt at reading the endless banter about how we just might, maybe, kinda sorts get close to something that could possibly take us in the general direction of ... but everything is on hold until ... and we have to wait for ... and the ruling wasn't in our favor but we can use it to ... hopefully the judge will ... ??? ...

What a load of crap! It became obvious to me that Commiefornia gun owners are going to spend their entire lives in courts fighting for permission to exercise their 2nd Amendment RIGHT to keep and bear arms by battling people who should simply be bludgeoned to death in their homes with nail studded baseball bats and crowbars for the good of humanity. I just got tired of trying to convince myself that if I can only hold out another two, ten or fifty years, there is a good chance that maybe it might look like there could be a possibility of ...

I moved here to Kentucky in May of last year. I now have my CDW. I can shoot a BMG .50 from my back porch if I choose. I can own 30-round magazines. I can buy a dozen handguns and walk out with them, with ammunition for all of them, by simply giving the salesman a credit card, a check or cash. I can buy ammo by the pallet. I can buy nearly ANYTHING I want. there is no "roster" here.

I am NOT "boasting." I am trying to convince you that you all need to shake off the "California is the only place to live! I could never consider living anywhere else!" brainwashing and realize that there are places all across America where you can simply raise your middle digit to ANYONE who complains about the fact that you are carrying a loaded firearm. I suffered from that mindset for 40 years. I truly believed that Commiefornia was THE place to live, and the thought of living somewhere with bugs, and snow, and cows, and mosquitoes was unthinkable! Well, I'm here to tell you that you cannot imagine the feeling of FREEDOM I have, a feeling that was lost and dead while living in that cesspool of Socialism.

You aren't going to live forever! Are you really so opposed to relocating to Free America that you are willing to keep charging these windmills, hoping that one day you'll actually make a state full of brain dead blithering idiot LIBERALS see YOUR point of view? Guess what. YOU WON'T. Not tomorrow, not in a year. Not in twenty years. IT WON'T HAPPEN.

"But Joe! But Joe! We can't just move out of California! My kids go to school here! My parents live here! I have a business here! ..."

We have schools here too, and I dare say they'll give your kids a better education than ANYTHING Commiefornia is producing. If your business is successful there, it will be successful here, unless you are in the business of promoting Commiefornia. Your parents? Sell their home and move them out. You can buy a home almost anywhere for less money than you'll sell their home for there, and you'll get more home for the money. What other excuses do you have?


+++++1.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-26-2012, 7:57 AM
Excellent!


The Raisuli

It's actually not that excellent. The plaintiff is doing stupid things that are procedurally improper and has already irritated the judge. It looks like she is going to shut this one down pretty quickly and not even bother with oral argument.

Bolillo
02-26-2012, 9:09 AM
You aren't going to live forever! Are you really so opposed to relocating to Free America that you are willing to keep charging these windmills, hoping that one day you'll actually make a state full of brain dead blithering idiot LIBERALS see YOUR point of view? Guess what. YOU WON'T. Not tomorrow, not in a year. Not in twenty years. IT WON'T HAPPEN.


Joe,

You fail to understand that issues that affect the entire USA -- KY included, are fought and won on the "front lines" or margins. The two most significant 2A Supreme Court decisions in our lifetime originated in places that were even worse than CA for gun laws. Heller in DC and McDonald in Chicago. You should be glad that Mr. Heller and Mr. McDonald kept charging at their windmills and didn't decide to just bail out to KY. Those two decisions ratcheted the 2A bar up for the rest of the country, and there's more pro-2A cases, several from CA, that may end up in the pipeline to SCOTUS.

Like it or not, CA does tend to influence legislation in the rest of the states.

When the SCOTUS slapped DC over Heller, DC's first impulse to somehow allow handgun ownership in the home was to pretty much xerox CA's handgun roster.

Go lift the hood on your vehicle in KY. All that smog stuff started in CA in the late-60's and was adopted on a federal level.

Have a seat on your KY commode. Note that it's probably low-flush and has lead-free plumbing now. Feds adopted those rules from CA.

So, just keep sitting on your porch with your .50BMG and your 30-round mags. The front lines are way over on the coast. Stuff like in CA will never happen in your KY. :rolleyes:

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

HowardW56
02-26-2012, 9:10 AM
It's actually not that excellent. The plaintiff is doing stupid things that are procedurally improper and has already irritated the judge. It looks like she is going to shut this one down pretty quickly and not even bother with oral argument.

↑ I believe this is correct... ↑

Mesa Tactical
02-26-2012, 9:27 AM
What other excuses do you have?

I just took some high school kids on a hike through the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains yesterday. Beautiful day; beautiful trees; pretty stream and a nice waterfall. One hour from here (the beach; oh, did I just mention the beach? Yes, I live at the beach, and the mountains are one or two hours away; the desert isn't far either). We were walking around in tee shirts yesterday (26 February). We sleep with the bedroom french doors open all year. ALL YEAR. The cat likes that. The dog likes the beach (there, I said it again!).

Our neighbors are interesting. It's true, they seem to come in different colors and some of them speak with funny accents, but then that's one of the things that makes them interesting.

There are at least a half dozen universities within an hour of here. I find that colleges and universities seem to lend a certain je ne sais quoi to a location.

It doesn't rain between June and September, except in the mountains. That makes planning things easier. There are no bugs (again, except in the maintains and even then only for a month or so in the early summer).

When I want to eat out, I have choices beyond Applebees or Chilis. I like that.

Any more questions?

bulgron
02-26-2012, 10:35 AM
"But Joe! But Joe! We can't just move out of California! My kids go to school here! My parents live here! I have a business here! ..."

We have schools here too, and I dare say they'll give your kids a better education than ANYTHING Commiefornia is producing. If your business is successful there, it will be successful here, unless you are in the business of promoting Commiefornia. Your parents? Sell their home and move them out. You can buy a home almost anywhere for less money than you'll sell their home for there, and you'll get more home for the money. What other excuses do you have?

What you seem to miss is that many of us have people in our lives who are not so nearly motivated by freedom concerns as you are. My wife actually loves the politics in California and absolutely refuses to leave here. And, believe me, I've tried like crazy to get her to move. While I've made some inroads in recent years by pointing out the fiscal disaster that is this state, and the resulting decline in the state's already struggling education systems, any arguments made based on 2A concerns, or my desire to shoot a .50 BMG from my back porch, just isn't going to fly. She doesn't care about those things. It isn't what motivates her "big picture" decisions.

So I COULD leave California, but it would mean getting a divorce and leaving my children behind. I'm just not going to do that.

I could go on endlessly about how I managed to back myself into this corner where the only way for me to get out of this lunatic asylum is to divorce the mother of my children. But that isn't the point of this response. The point is that not everyone is as free to run off to another state seeking their 2A freedoms as you are. So maybe you should try having a little consideration for the people who are here, maybe be a little less arrogant, maybe even have some appreciation for the things we're trying to do here to improve the situation because, if we're successful, that will probably improve your situation too.

In other words, instead of being a snot and telling us all to run away, maybe what you should be telling us is "thank you."

Gray Peterson
02-26-2012, 12:07 PM
Legislation can work great—when you have a majority or near-majority among the electorate or elected officials. We have neither. I don't think we're focusing on litigation because we like it; we're doing it because in California, it's basically our only option. There simply are not enough people in this state to reliably support pro-gun legislation without the kinds of backroom shenanigans that we don't have enough legislators on our side for. That's sad, but it's the truth.

I know Calguns.net can make it seem like we're all gunnies here, but in the scheme of the state, we're a small minority, and in a democracy or republic, small minorities are the most dangerous groups to be members of, because the majority can run roughshod over them with near impunity. The word "near" there is only due to the intervention of the courts.

I would not agree with the underlined. SB610 passed with veto override majorities in the Senate and Assembly, and it helped gun owners. The only thing the Legislature will not do positively in regards to carry licensing is changing good cause and good moral character to "self defense" and "not otherwise prohibited possessor" respectively.

Mulay El Raisuli
02-27-2012, 4:39 AM
It's actually not that excellent. The plaintiff is doing stupid things that are procedurally improper and has already irritated the judge. It looks like she is going to shut this one down pretty quickly and not even bother with oral argument.


That was always the danger. That a good case, with solid precedent & facts backing it up, would be screwed up by a lousy litigator.

Still, fingers crossed.


The Raisuli

OleCuss
02-27-2012, 5:14 AM
I'm guessing we'll be lucky if the case is dismissed quickly. I don't know enough to really know this, but I suspect that if the case is litigated all the way through to a normal ruling that having a bad litigator will mean we'll get a bad bit of case law.

I suspect early dismissal does us less damage?

Again, IANAL and I could be way off. . .

Tarn_Helm
02-27-2012, 5:25 AM
You are mixing up carry licensing with the self defense provisions of the penal code. . . .

I am not "mixing up" anything.

YOU are not reading carefully what I have written.

Go back and re-read it.

I am deliberating suggesting that the issue of armed self-defense be conceptualized in a larger way.

I am also questioning whether a comprehensive re-write of CA self-defense laws, including CCW/LTC laws, would be more effective than what is currently being attempted.

Also, in response to the gist of one of your comments: "good enough" is not good enough.

We need civil liability protection.

We also need armed self-defense laws similar to those of Texas which recognize a right to shoot in defense of property.

Crom
02-27-2012, 8:04 AM
Prediction: CA will never win shall-issue LTC/CCW through litigation.
It's debatable what's going to happen. Remember that 2A law is in it's infancy. If the Supreme Court determines that carry is part of the core right of self defense then your prediction is most likely wrong.

However, numerous lawyers will live for years off of individuals' attempts to win it.
Name one state that is now shall-issue which was made that way via litigation.

Winning lawsuits takes time. Heller and McDonald gave us a foundation to work with. All the litigation going on since then is an attempt to shape the right. It's going to take time but it's moving in the right direction.

Rember the 5th circuit opinion in Emerson (2001)? The court upheld the conviction of a man while simultaneously holding that the 2A right is an individual one. This same year (2001) the Justice Department under Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memorandum opinion (http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/readingroom/emerson.htm) supporting this view. In 2004, the Justice Department under USAG John Ashcroft issued a 107 page memo titled "Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right" (http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf)which supported the individual right view.

It took four more years for SCOUTS to settle the landscape with Heller.

Things are moving in the right direction and a lot faster than people probably probably realize.

I feel so bad for you guys who remain in Commiefornia. I'll bet that these same threads and same discussions will probably be here on this board ten years from now.

I bet you're wrong based on my statements above.


It is sad, that there isn't enough money behind simply forcing their hand. Someone should go out, carry a loaded SELF-DEFENSE firearm into some place that makes the anti's pee in their pants, and then come at them with both barrels, and a slew of lawyers and a BOAT LOAD of money from the gun lobby to finally and for all time b*tch slap these hoplophobes into eternal submission.

That is a terrible idea. And also a great way to get someone hurt or killed.


What a load of crap! It became obvious to me that Commiefornia gun owners are going to spend their entire lives in courts fighting for permission to exercise their 2nd Amendment RIGHT

The front line has to be somewhere and why not in California? It's easy for you to criticize why not help stem the tide with a nice donation to CRPA or CGF?


to keep and bear arms by battling people who should simply be bludgeoned to death in their homes with nail studded baseball bats and crowbars for the good of humanity.

Statements inciting violence must be condemned. Murdering people [a capitol crime] and is surely not the answer.


I am NOT "boasting."

Yes you are. Saying it isn't so does not make it true.


"But Joe! But Joe! We can't just move out of California! My kids go to school here! My parents live here! I have a business here! ..."
.... What other excuses do you have?

No excuses need to be made for living here. Hell, I look at as if I won the geographic lottery by being born and raised here. No. Perhaps the reverse is true. Perhaps your whole post is you self-justifying your actions of moving to KY. :facepalm:

Mesa Tactical
02-27-2012, 8:17 AM
No excuses need to be made for living here. Hell, I look at as if I won the geographic lottery by being born and raised here.

Werd up!

SWalt
02-27-2012, 1:00 PM
Litigation is the one strategy I think has the best chance of restoring 2A rights. Lobbying has its place but it only kept confiscation or draconian law from becoming the law of the land. Gun owners owe those who have been fighting for those rights a huge debt of gratitude. Can you imagine if Heller went the other way? If it was ruled a collective right and 2A only dealt with militia/states? We all be here wondering when States would be rolling in with legislation to collect our sporting goods. It took some brass ones to take that chance and they succeeded. With Mc Donald its now incorporated against the States and throws the doors wide open. It might take time but in reality gun owners have never been in such a good position. Its an individual right now. In my mind we are set up for a favorable ruling for carry outside the home. When that occurs I'll be thankful to the ones who took the chance with litigation.