PDA

View Full Version : Dickens V Ryan, 9th Cir, Aug 2012 - "Carrying a gun, ... a Second Amendment right"


Librarian
08-04-2012, 11:23 AM
Just put up by Eugene Volokh, http://www.volokh.com/2012/08/04/judge-reinhardt-carrying-a-gun-is-a-second-amendment-right/

Didn't start as a 2A case, and the opinion isn't about 2A.

Case: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/08/03/08-99017.pdf

wash
08-04-2012, 11:40 AM
Wow, I like that quote.

I have no idea if it will help up (I'm not optimistic on this one), but it's good to see a 9'th circuit judge thinking this way.

It's too bad that this judge could only acknowledge the right to carry for a killer instead of a law abiding citizen seeking a license.

speedrrracer
08-04-2012, 11:43 AM
For us legally-impaired, is that beneficial in that it can be "cited" or somehow used in other cases?

OleCuss
08-04-2012, 11:47 AM
It can be cited. It can be influential.

However, as you know, it is not precedential.

SilverTauron
08-04-2012, 11:47 AM
Perhaps my understanding of legal theory is too flawed to support this statement, but consider the location of the court in question.

Now, lets compare that to judicial rulings in California and NY. In theory the law is supposed to be equal regardless of where one's state is. The observed reality of matters appears that judges rule as their cultural norms dictate. The norm in Arizona is permissive exercise of the RKBA to all, thus a ruling supporting that. The norm in NY and CA is that only connected agents of the state carry, and thus rulings echo that cultural reality.

This explains the persistence of anti RKBA courts in denying recognition of the RKBA by any means necessary, even if the justices must warp the law to support their cultural biases.

HowardW56
08-04-2012, 12:08 PM
The quote is interesting: "Carrying a gun, which is a Second Amendment right, also cannot legally lead to a finding that the individual is likely to murder someone; if it could, half or even more of the people in some of our states would qualify as likely murderers."

What I find more intrieguing, is that the quote comes from Judge Reinhardt's dissent.

Dreaded Claymore
08-04-2012, 12:12 PM
It's important to note that this is in a dissent.

HowardW56
08-04-2012, 12:23 PM
It's important to note that this is in a dissent.

Absolutely but I see it as a shift in the Judges position on the Second Amendment..

Dreaded Claymore
08-04-2012, 12:28 PM
Oh, it's definitely a good thing. The judge is reminding everyone that, even if someone commits a crime, carrying a firearm isn't always something to punish them for.

dustoff31
08-04-2012, 12:43 PM
Absolutely but I see it as a shift in the Judges position on the Second Amendment..

It is a change in his position, but is it a change in heart? And is it permanent?

Does he now really believe the 2A means what it says? Or is he simply mouthing the words to justify his dissent in the case?

Gray Peterson
08-04-2012, 1:03 PM
Listen to the oral arguments to in Fisher v. City of San Jose. Reinhardt indicated the 2A to be an individual right.

He's changed his mind for real.

dustoff31
08-04-2012, 1:04 PM
Listen to the oral arguments to in Fisher v. City of San Jose. Reinhardt indicated the 2A to be an individual right.

He's changed his mind for real.

Well, that's good.

HowardW56
08-04-2012, 1:08 PM
Listen to the oral arguments to in Fisher v. City of San Jose. Reinhardt indicated the 2A to be an individual right.

He's changed his mind for real.

:shock:

OleCuss
08-04-2012, 1:16 PM
Again, not precedential, but influential.

This really may not reflect the position of a judge. It may reflect a changing mindset for at least a minority of the court. And such statements (assuming the judge is well-respected) can help to change the minds of other judges.

No precedent, but it could lead to helpful precedents in the future.

Gray Peterson
08-04-2012, 1:39 PM
Well, that's good.

:shock:

Considering his original decision in Silveira, many of you are probably shocked.

Oral Arguments for Fisher v. City of San Jose (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000000283)

Reinhardt extensively spoke in the oral arguments. I believe he was one of the dissent, too, in that case.

I would love Reinhardt to be on the panel, and for him of all people to wrote a majority opinion striking down good cause and good moral character. That would send shockwaves throughout the country, and if you know anything about the decision Reinhardt has written, you know why.

ziegenbock
08-04-2012, 1:45 PM
Relax people....he doesn't think of the second like you do.....it says bear and that is all he is saying...just wait for his restrictions.

Gray Peterson
08-04-2012, 2:17 PM
Relax people....he doesn't think of the second like you do.....it says bear and that is all he is saying...just wait for his restrictions.

Luckily with Richards, facial restrictions on the license are not the issue, but the decision will be dealing with the facial challenge to good cause and good moral character.

Unless you can speak with authority on the matter other than his written word, and not tainted by his other dissenting opinions on school prayer or the Prop 8 decision, put up your actual evidence.

the_quark
08-05-2012, 6:29 PM
Considering his original decision in Silveira, many of you are probably shocked.


I have long been of the opinion that Reinhardt is the rarest of animals, of either political party - an intellectually honest judge. He may not be the most enthusiastic proponent of the Second Amendment, but he does recognize that the Supreme Court has directly said "you were wrong in Silveira about the nature of the right", and isn't going to simply ignore that. I'm glad to see more evidence of this.

-TQ

vantec08
08-06-2012, 6:10 AM
http://www.volokh.com/2012/08/05/what-judge-reinhardt-missed/

and more

RuskieShooter
08-06-2012, 8:15 AM
See my title and look at my signature quote.

Maybe the 9th isn't as hostile as people sometimes make it out to be...

-Ruskie