PDA

View Full Version : CCWs: status of federal civil lawsuits attacking May or No Issue CCW laws


Paladin
08-24-2013, 9:53 AM
This is how things were back in 2011 after we won McDonald (2010 June 28):

http://gun-nuttery.com/maps/2011.gif

Compare that to (from Wikipedia):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/US_Court_of_Appeals_and_District_Court_map.svg/620px-US_Court_of_Appeals_and_District_Court_map.svg.png

Thus, the non-Shall Issue states fell into the following federal CAs:

CA1: MA and RI.
CA2: NY (and CT, but although it is not legislatively Shall Issue, it is judicially since the judges issue permits on a Shall Issue basis.)
CA3: DE and NJ
CA4: MD
CA7: IL
CA9: HI and CA
D.C. Cir.: Washington, D.C.

In CA1, May Issue was challenged in MA with Hightower and we lost (2011 Sept 29) and cert. was not requested by our side.

In CA2, May Issue was challenged in NY with Kachalsky and we lost (2012 Nov 27) and cert. was denied.
May Issue is being challenged with Garrett v. Cuomo/NY, filed by 8 plaintiffs, incl the Libertarian party, and represented by James Ostrowski, a Buffalo lawyer. The case is before U.S. District Judge Frank P. Geraci Jr.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1104646

In CA3, May Issue was challenged in NJ with Drake (SAF-ANJFRPC) and we lost (2013 July 31) and cert. was denied.

Pantano (attny Evan Nappen; ANJRPC) (NJ state case granted cert. 2013 July 19: requires NJ SC to interpret US Con BoR 2nd A, thus can be appealed to SCOTUS): challenge to NJ's "May Issue" law; we lost and NJ SC dismissed case (late May 2014). Israel Albert Almeida (attny Even Nappen; SAF) is a new case on same "justifiable need" issue at state appeals court.
http://www.evannappen.com/
http://www.anjrpc.org/
http://nj2as.com/

In CA4, May issue was challenged in MD with Woollard and we lost (2013 March 21) and cert. was denied.

In CA7, No Issue was challenged in IL with Shepard-Moore and we won (2012 Dec 11) and cert. was not requested by IL.

In CA9:

(1) We won Peruta (San Diego Co.) (NRA-CRPA) (2014 Feb 13). En banc orals were 2015 June 16. My guess: en banc decision before 2016 July 01.
(See: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/faq.php)
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000722
http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/perutavsandiego/
http://ia601703.us.archive.org/11/items/gov.uscourts.ca9.10-56971/gov.uscourts.ca9.10-56971.docket.html
After Peruta and Richards finalized, Gene says we'll revisit CA parks carry lawsuit! See post #450 at: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=352748&page=12

(2) We won Richards (Yolo Co.) (CGF-SAF) (2014 March 05). En banc orals were 2015 June 16. My guess: decision before 2016 July 01.
http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/richardsvprieto/
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Richards_v._Prieto

(3) We won PI in Baker (Honolulu) (2014 March 14), but since the basis of the win (Peruta) was taken en banc on 2015 March 26, it is in limbo.
http://michellawyers.com/baker-v-kealoha/
Related? http://michellawyers.com/young-v-hawaii/

(4) McKay (Orange Co.) (CRPA). We requested a PI, but lost at DC. CA9 is reviewing that loss. Stayed pending a decision in Baker.
http://michellawyers.com/mckay-v-sheriff-hutchens/
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/applications-603207-sheriff-concealed.html
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/county-604236-concealed-decision.html

(5) Scocca (Santa Clara Co.) (CGF): dismissed with leave to amend. It may be mooted once Peruta is final since Sheriff Smith will then accept mere "self-defense" for Good Cause.
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/sheriff/Pages/ccw.aspx
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=352799&page=9

(6) Birdt (v. San Bernardino Co. SO): district/trial court; attacking GMC and standard of review/level of scrutiny; awaiting trial court judgment (my guess: before Oct)
http://michellawyers.com/birdt-v-san-bernardino-sheriffs-department/

(*) Radich et al v. Deleon Guerrero (Marianas handgun & carry ban challenge)
http://michellawyers.com/radich-v-de-leon-guerrero/
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=978948

(*) Nichols v. Harris/Brown et al.: Open Carry case; Nichols, who is not a lawyer, is appealing
http://michellawyers.com/nichols-v-harris/

In the D.C. Cir., No Issue was challenged in Washington, D.C. with Palmer (2009 Aug 06) (Gura & SAF) and we won (2014 July 26), and D.C. chose not to appeal it to the D.C. Circuit.
The follow up case, Wrenn, challenges the new May Issue law. Retrial date yet to be set.
http://michellawyers.com/wrenn-et-al-v-distsrict-of-columbia-et-al/

So, it looks like we have CA9 and D.C. Cir. as the circuits that have yet to have cert. requests re. RKBA in public denied. (CA1 as well, but not sure if we have a new carry case in the pipeline there.) Whether the "Heller 5" will still be on SCOTUS if and when any of those are granted cert. and argued is anyone's guess.

BOTTOM LINE: As of 2015 Sept 19, my guess is our best hope is Peruta is granted cert. (after a loss at CA9 en banc) for the 2016 - 2017 term (with decision before 2017 July 01). Even if granted cert., w/Kennedy and Roberts, it is not a given that we'll win "strict scrutiny" as the standard of review.

The below is a CA counties Good Cause map (not GMC or psych tests or any other hurdle).
http://i1314.photobucket.com/albums/t578/dancincowboy/CA-CCW-Map_zpsljrahgvv.jpg

*****

Other important non-CCW cases:
- Bonidy (federal case: USPS parking lot carry) (Nat'l Assoc Gun Rts): we lost at CA10 (2015 June 26), requested cert
http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15-746.htm
http://michellawyers.com/bonidy-v-usps-appeal/
- Kolbe v Hogan (O’Malley) federal case: MD AWB) (NRA): CA4 orals heard on 2015 March 25
www.MarylandShallIssue.org
- NYSRPA v. Cuomo (NY federal case: AWB & hicap ban): loss at CA2 on 2015 Oct 19
http://michellawyers.com/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-v-city-of-new-york/
http://www.nysrpa.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=860&Itemid=199
- Fyock v. Sunnyvale (federal case: Sunnyvale's Measure C 10 rnd mag limit) (NRA): filed 2013 Dec. Request for PI was heard by CA9 judge on 2014 Nov 17. We lost PI on 2015 March 04.
http://michellawyers.com/fyock-v-sunnyvale/
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=867249
- New York State Rifle and Pistol Assn, Inc. v. Cuomo (federal case: NY SAFE Act, incl 7 rnd mag limit) (SAF)
https://www.facebook.com/NYSRPA
- Pena (federal case: CA handgun roster) (Kilmer-Gura-SAF-CGF): case dismissed (we lost) 2015 Feb 25; we appealed to CA9.
http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/penavcid/
- Haynie (Kilmer-SAF-CGF) (federal case: challenging CA's AWB): appealing
http://michellawyers.com/haynie/
- Cook v Hickenlooper (federal case: CO universal background ck and 15 rnd mag limit): case dismissed 2014 June 26; is being appealed in CA10.
http://michellawyers.com/sheriff-cook-v-hickenlooper/
http://coloradoguncase.org/
- Tyler v. Hillsdale Co SD (federal case: restoration of rts after federal mental illness disqualification, strict scrutiny): we won CA6 3 judge panel decision (2014 Dec); en banc orals 2015 Oct 14
http://michellawyers.com/tyler-v-hillsdale-county-sheriffs-department/
https://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-ruling-could-put-gun-case-supreme-111808837.html
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/appeals-court-gun-control-must-meet-toughest-test/
- Lu (CA state case: LASO requiring CCW denial by PD): petition for writ of mandamus won on 2014 Jan 14 LA Co. is appealing.
http://michellawyers.com/lu-v-baca/
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=890429
Next we can enjoin San Mateo SO (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=877321 Posters have said CoCoCo requires PD first denial too. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=352744&page=12
- Heller II (federal case: challenging D.C.'s AWB, mag limit): we lost D.C. DC; awaiting D.C. Cir. decision re. cross MSJs (orals 2015 April 20)
http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/heller/

- NY nunchaku cases (Maloney, Nuccio):
http://michellawyers.com/maloney-v-rice/
https://files.nyu.edu/jmm257/public/nunchakulaw/three-cases.html
- Caetano: MA SC taser and public RKBA case; we lost and cert. discussion on 2015 Sept 28.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles\14-10078.htm
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=980404
- Knife Rights' federal civil rights lawsuit against NYC:
http://www.kniferights.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=235
http://www.kniferights.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=234&Itemid=1

Other Lost Cases:
- Jackson (federal case: SF gun storage, strict scrutiny): we lost CA9 3 judge panel decision on PI on 2014 March 25, and rehearing and rehearing en banc were denied on 2014 July 17; cert. was denied on 2015 June 08. See: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=955363
- NRA v. McCraw (federal case: TX limit on CCWs to those >21): we lost and cert. was denied.
- Embody (federal case: challenging TN requirement of a permit to carry and ban on long gun carry): we lost and cert. was denied on 2014 April 21.

Important threads:
- "Closest Place to SF to get a CCW" thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=12937319
- Where to live to get a CCW if you work in Ala or CoCoCo: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1087342
- CGF's 2013 state-wide survey of CCW issuance: http://calgunsfoundation.org/carry-initiative/reports/cgf_carry-license-report-2013.pdf
- news article re. 2014 CCW stats: https://www.revealnews.org/article/want-to-carry-a-concealed-gun-live-in-sacramento-not-san-francisco/
- For status of Open Carry federal civil lawsuits, see: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=869265
- FRAP 35 CA9 local rules: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=13678593#post13678593
- CA9 en banc procedure flowchart: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=921476

Notes:
* CA9's Peruta panel released decision 9:00 am (PST) Thurs (2014 Feb 13); the en banc decision was announced ~1:00 pm Thurs (2015 March 26).
* SCOTUS' lists w/Denials published 2:00 pm (PST) day of conference or 6:30 am (PST) next court day. Docket's updated later for Relists later. ("Breaking News" banner linked .pdf ~6:45 am on SCOTUSblog)
* If granted cert after 3rd Mon in Jan case will be heard at earliest the following Oct.
* Michel & Assoc Gun Case Tracker: http://michellawyers.com/firearm-litigation-case-tracker/

Paladin
08-24-2013, 5:02 PM
A lot of people on our side are depressed because SCOTUS didn't take a carry case last term. But if you look at my OP, you'll see only 1 of these cases, Kachalsky, asked for cert last year and it was not taken. In another, Hightower, for whatever reason, our side decided against asking cert.

For this upcoming term, we have asked for cert in Woollard, hopefully will have a chance to ask for cert in Drake, and maybe even in Richards and/or Peruta.

So, for me, I won't turn pessimistic unless come next 4th of July, SCOTUS hasn't taken ANY Carry case which asked for cert. This term, IMHO, will really tell us whether SCOTUS is going to amend the Constitution by their inaction on carry cases.

Window_Seat
08-24-2013, 8:06 PM
SCOTUS will take a bear arms outside the home case sometime in the close future. The Chief Justice said it himself, that they grant cert in cases where there has been the striking of a federal statute, and/or a circuit split.

Here, we have multiple circuits going one way, while one (CA7) has gone "our way". The Court would look very awkward if they didn't grant in any case, especially knowing that it has denied cert in at least 2 (putting Williams v. Maryland as well, into that category, but on the other hand, that was to the Supreme Court of Maryland).

It's a matter of when.

Erik.

Paladin
09-03-2013, 9:36 PM
Update:

The OP has, "In CA3, May Issue was challenged in NJ w/Drake and we lost and we haven't asked for cert. yet."

Looks like there was an intermediate step that had not yet been taken: requesting rehearing by the panel or rehearing en banc. Either of those were requested on Aug 14 and both were denied on Aug 27. So, as of the latter date the 90 day clock started running on requesting cert. from SCOTUS.

speedrrracer
09-04-2013, 9:41 AM
An important update to this thread would be the availability of the amicus brief from the NRA supporting cert in the Wollard case (thanks to Al Norris, who has probably also made it available here at CalGuns, but I can't find it here):

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5626447&postcount=303

Paladin
10-15-2013, 6:57 AM
OP has been updated to reflect cert. denial in Woollard.

Next up is Drake, which has to ask for cert. by, IIRC, 2013 Nov 27.

press1280
10-31-2013, 3:42 PM
There is another CA1 case in the pipeline: http://www.comm2a.org/images/PDFs/Davis_v_Grimes_Complaint-FINAL.pdf
Internet Archive: http://www.comm2a.org/images/PDFs/Davis_v_Grimes_Complaint-FINAL.pdf

Looks like it's waiting for the District judge to rule.

Gray Peterson
11-01-2013, 8:27 AM
There is another CA1 case in the pipeline: http://www.comm2a.org/images/PDFs/Davis_v_Grimes_Complaint-FINAL.pdf
Internet Archive: http://www.comm2a.org/images/PDFs/Davis_v_Grimes_Complaint-FINAL.pdf

Looks like it's waiting for the District judge to rule.

They have one plaintiff in that case with an LTC Class B and isn't seeking a Class A LTC. In Mass parlance, an Class B LTC only allows OC.

Paladin
11-12-2013, 10:55 PM
revised the OP to update it w/latest info.

fizux
01-11-2014, 6:12 AM
There is some good language in the Morris decision (D. Idaho):
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=878227

Like Bonidy, the USG is the losing defendant in the district court. If the decision holds through the 9th Cir., there is a greater chance of cert being granted when the petitioner is the USG.

Paladin
01-12-2014, 8:11 PM
There is some good language in the Morris decision (D. Idaho):
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=878227

Like Bonidy, the USG is the losing defendant in the district court. If the decision holds through the 9th Cir., there is a greater chance of cert being granted when the petitioner is the USG.Thx. If it goes to the 9th and our side prevails, I'll add it to my OP to monitor.

fizux
01-31-2014, 9:48 AM
NRA v. McGraw has the potential to do it, if the opinion relies on "2A bear" instead of only "equal protection."
That case is probably next in line from SCOTUS*.

* yada, yada disclaimer.

Edit: NRA v. Mc *C* raw. Its autocorrect's fault, and I'm sticking to that story.

Paladin
01-31-2014, 11:29 AM
NRA v. McGraw has the potential to do it, if the opinion relies on "2A bear" instead of only "equal protection."
That case is probably next in line from SCOTUS*.

* yada, yada disclaimer.
Thx, added it to my "important related cases" list below Concealed Carry list

Paladin
02-21-2014, 9:42 PM
OP updated with latest info. re. Peruta

Paladin
05-05-2014, 6:45 AM
Updated OP to reflect denial of cert. in Drake.

Next up will be Pantano (CA3 via the NJ state court), or Peruta (CA9) with Palmer (D.C.Cir.) bringing up the rear....

Jared1981
05-05-2014, 11:14 AM
RI does have a shall issue law, it's just widely ignored, such a lawsuit would be ruled upon the operation of the law, not necessarily the constitutionality of the law.

We have 3 cases pending in the RI Supreme Court right now.

CT is shall issue more so than most shall issue states. CT has 11 disqualifiers.... MI has 47.

I've always said the CT classification is wrong. They do issue if you meet the criteria.

Also, American Samoa, Mariana's Islands are no-issue, and the Virgin Islands is still may-issue.

Paladin
05-05-2014, 12:46 PM
Thx for all the additional info.

RI does have a shall issue law, it's just widely ignored, such a lawsuit would be ruled upon the operation of the law, not necessarily the constitutionality of the law.

We have 3 cases pending in the RI Supreme Court right now.
Plz post updates on these 3 cases (oral arguments, decisions) when they occur even though they can't directly help us (not being in fed ct and not using the US Con 2nd A).

CCWFacts
05-05-2014, 12:47 PM
I've always said the CT classification is wrong. They do issue if you meet the criteria.

Yes, CT should definitely be in the shall-issue category. Same with RI.

Paladin
05-05-2014, 12:49 PM
Yes, CT should definitely be in the shall-issue category. Same with RI.And DE is supposed to be not far behind. :chris:

ryan_j
05-05-2014, 4:55 PM
Yes, CT should definitely be in the shall-issue category. Same with RI.


RI is complicated. AG and local authorities issue permits but local authorities are shall issue, AG permits are May issue.

Jared1981
05-05-2014, 10:36 PM
RI is complicated. AG and local authorities issue permits but local authorities are shall issue, AG permits are May issue.

My wonderful native state of Rhode Island....

RI has 3 cases pending in Supreme Court over town permits. It's not all over gun forums because the cases have to do with the operation of law, not the constitutionality of it.

My friends have town permits, one paved the way a decade ago with a lawsuit in Smithfield, RI.

I have an AG license from RI, they are hard to get but anyone who really wants one from a town can push the issue and obtain one.

Jared1981
05-05-2014, 10:39 PM
Thx for all the additional info.


Plz post updates on these 3 cases (oral arguments, decisions) when they occur even though they can't directly help us (not being in fed ct and not using the US Con 2nd A).

They aren't going to help because no statute is being challenged or struck down, many chiefs just feel they can ignore the law.

We also have complicated issues over the Administrative Procedures Act being that the Supreme Court said to appeal gun permit denials straight to them and to skip over Superior Court.

I will post anything when they move along, they are in limbo right now for different reasons.

fizux
05-29-2014, 9:35 AM
Pantano was DIG'ed.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=938940

Paladin
05-29-2014, 10:11 AM
Pantano was DIG'ed.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=938940
Thx. OP updated.

Looks like Pantano will be appealing to SCOTUS first (my guess is cert. will be decided in "long conference" in late Sept), and then, Peruta (timing depends upon en banc appeal, which in turn decides upon intervenor request.... :rolleyes:); and then last is Palmer.... :facepalm:

Paladin
07-02-2014, 10:02 AM
Looks like Pantano will be appealing to SCOTUS first (my guess is cert. will be decided in "long conference" in late Sept), and then, Peruta (timing depends upon en banc appeal, which in turn decides upon intervenor request.... :rolleyes:); and then last is Palmer.... :facepalm:
SCOTUS is out for summer.

I just cked http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx and it looks like Pantano (out of NJ), has NOT asked for cert. yet. I believe they have until Aug 28th to ask for cert.

Q: What is the deadline for submitting cert requests so they can be reviewed during the "long conference" (the last full week in Sept)?

ryan_j
07-02-2014, 10:24 AM
I don't know the answer to your question, but I am positive that Evan will request cert. for Pantano. He's having his law seminar at Gun for Hire next week as well.

You might want to add this other NJ case to the list - "In the matter of I. Albert Almeida, permit to carry a handgun" or simply "Almeida." Albert Almeida is the plaintiff in this case and is a friend of mine. Almeida was denied at the NJ Superior Court, and Judge Conforti basically parrotted everything the county prosecutor said. However, Almeida is appealing and SAF has agreed to pick up the case.

ryan_j
07-02-2014, 10:31 AM
See attached. The prosecutor and judge basically said:

Having a handgun makes you more of a target
Your employment is voluntary, so get another job
Hire a security firm/bodyguard (who will have a gun?)

Almeida's threats that he received were very real. He would fit perfectly in the NJAC definition of justifiable need.

wireless
07-02-2014, 11:07 AM
He definitely has good cause. Outside of maybe four or five counties in CA, I could see him qualifying for a permit.

"Get a new job"...these statists disgust me.

71MUSTY
07-02-2014, 11:14 AM
These Maps are apples and oranges and as such they are making my head hurt.

press1280
07-04-2014, 5:08 AM
SCOTUS is out for summer.

I just cked http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx and it looks like Pantano (out of NJ), has NOT asked for cert. yet. I believe they have until Aug 28th to ask for cert.

Q: What is the deadline for submitting cert requests so they can be reviewed during the "long conference" (the last full week in Sept)?

Once cert is requested, the other party usually has a month to reply, then the party requesting cert has 2 weeks or so for an optional reply. This is assuming everyone goes by that. While SCOTUS is out for the summer, many parties will also ask for the cert window to be extended. SCOTUS almost always allows this. The replying party (the state in this case) always ask for extensions too so my money is on Pantano NOT being at the long conference, but one of the next ones after.

press1280
07-04-2014, 5:20 AM
He definitely has good cause. Outside of maybe four or five counties in CA, I could see him qualifying for a permit.

"Get a new job"...these statists disgust me.

One thing the NJ courts are doing is really painting themselves into a corner each time they deny someone like Almeida. By telling people actually threatened or attacked to 1) Move (maybe out of state for that matter) 2) get another job 3) You're a bigger target by carrying 4) Hire armed security (AKA retired/off-duty cops), that essentially means no one outside the statutory exemptions can possibly qualify, since you can ALWAYS move, quit, or hire armed security.

But of course someone has to call them on it. The NJ courts won't and neither will CA3. That only leaves 1 court left.

epilepticninja
07-04-2014, 6:11 AM
English, do you people speak it? Don't make me bring Tincon in here to translate all this mess.

marcusrn
07-04-2014, 5:14 PM
See attached. The prosecutor and judge basically said:

Having a handgun makes you more of a target
Your employment is voluntary, so get another job
Hire a security firm/bodyguard (who will have a gun?)

Almeida's threats that he received were very real. He would fit perfectly in the NJAC definition of justifiable need.

Thank you Ryan for the attached plea from Israel Almeida.

What kind of a planet do we live on?

Who are the savages that would not grant a request such as Almeida's?

CNC_Apps_Guy
07-06-2014, 12:02 AM
New Jersey.... What a joke of a state. Not many states are worse than Kommiefornia, NJ is one of them.

Helmut Shmacher Space Chimp
07-06-2014, 12:52 PM
The answer is clear for Cal. Take Harris to court.

Paladin
07-07-2014, 10:24 AM
You might want to add this other NJ case to the list - "In the matter of I. Albert Almeida, permit to carry a handgun" or simply "Almeida." Albert Almeida is the plaintiff in this case and is a friend of mine. Almeida was denied at the NJ Superior Court, and Judge Conforti basically parrotted everything the county prosecutor said. However, Almeida is appealing and SAF has agreed to pick up the case.
Thx for bringing this to my attention, but I'll wait until it's ready for the NJ SC before adding it. Until then it doesn't have a chance of getting into the fed ct system where it can then affect us in CA. (CGN wants 2nd A ct cases that cannot affect CA to be put into the National 2nd A RKBA forum, not the Litigation forum.)

Paladin
07-07-2014, 10:33 AM
English, do you people speak it? Don't make me bring Tincon in here to translate all this mess.
I just added a line of asterisks to divide the main text re. the Carry Cases from the supplemental info/resources.

I just added "BOTTOM LINE" to make it easier to find out where things stand.

There are only 5 federal CCW Carry Cases that are important now. (They're the ones w/info in red.) Of those 5, 2 of them (Richards and Baker), are dependent upon Peruta, so they're unimportant for now. We only need to watch Peruta, Pantano and Palmer (the 3 Ps), and since Palmer is still at the district (i.e., trial) court level, we can ignore that for a year or two until the D.C. appeals court rules on it. So, for the next year, as far as Carry Cases, you really need only concern yourself w/Peruta, Richards, and Baker (all in CA9 and all before the same panel), and Pantano (before SCOTUS).

ETA: changed my mind since Yolo Co and HI have asked en banc in their cases and CA AG Harris may be denied standing.

If anything changes, I'll update the OP of this thread.

Paladin
07-26-2014, 7:42 PM
Updated OP re. district court win of MSJ in Palmer carry case in Wash D.C.

Paladin
07-27-2014, 11:07 AM
The cold, hard reality in "the morning after the night before"....

Of all the Carry Cases (3) we're watching (Palmer, Peruta, and Pantano), Palmer is the LEAST important win. Why? (1) D.C. had a total ban ("No Issue"/"No Carry"), on all (OC and CC) carry. This is what our side already prevailed against in CA7 w/Moore (IL case).

(2) This is just a trial/district court decision, not one of the sister federal appeals courts.

(3) Because this was a win against a total ban, the trial court did NOT have to, and thus did not offer, an opinion re. the level of scrutiny that applies to public carry. That is what we need and want. I think reasonably objective observers already knew that No Carry At All is unconstitutional. It is, after all, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms protected by the 2nd A. (Limiting "bear" to inside the home is absurd.) Thus, even if Palmer gets to SCOTUS and we win there, they may not even deal with scrutiny (and if SCOTUS did, other courts could say that was dicta).

Similarly, I think most people would agree that Shall Issue is constitutional. (Except for the most radical on our side who say no state can require a permit to exercise a fundamental, enumerated right that "shall not be infringed" anywhere in the US.)

So, sure, Palmer is a GREAT win, like forcing SF to actually put in place a permitting process was a great win. ("Frickin' a! (SF/DC) has gotta start issuing permits!") But in actual or even legal effect, it is mostly symbolic. (ETA: Of course, finally getting a SCOTUS decision on public RKBA is a good thing.)

The real issue we need to get settled is whether May Issue is constitutional. Since May Issue is not black (No Issue) or white (Shall Issue), there can be as many shades of gray as there are legislatures, so that requires a decision, once and for all, re. standard of review/"scrutiny". For that we need a win from SCOTUS in a May Issue case. AFAIK, we only have 2 of those left in the pipeline: Pantano and Peruta. (If Kamie is allowed to intervene, but denied appeal by CA9, I don't see CA9 allowing appeal in either Richards or Baker re. the core of the Peruta holding (what's important to us), since those cases' holdings said, basically, "See Peruta.")

Pantano should be asking for cert. before the end of August.

If Kamie is denied standing, Peruta will not get to SCOTUS. (Gore said no more appealing on his part.)
If Kamie is permitted standing, but denied CA9 rehearing, it takes effect and Kamie has to decide whether to ask for cert. from SCOTUS for this coming 2014-2015 SCOTUS term.

Bottom line: the Palmer win is nice, but the real fight is still ahead of us. If SCOTUS denies cert. in Pantano and either Kamie is denied standing by CA9 or wins it, but loses appeal for rehearing and decides not to ask for cert., where are we??? We'll only have Palmer in the pipeline to SCOTUS and that would get us a public RKBA w/o a level of scrutiny! :mad:

If other May Issue or non-Carry cases get to SCOTUS later and win a level of scrutiny, that could be only a "inside the home" RKBA scrutiny from an Obama/Hillary packed Court.... :mad:

Politics still matters, folks. We ALL NEED to ensure that pro-RKBAers hold the House and WIN the US Senate and WIN the presidency, even if that means abandoning your other political/legal issues. We NEED to get our full 2nd A rights established by SCOTUS before anything else! (Dems/Libertarians may have to suck it up and vote for and/or financially support Repubs around the nation.)

If we don't win this fight now, we may NEVER win our full RKBA.

wireless
07-27-2014, 11:44 AM
Politics still matters, folks. We ALL NEED to ensure that pro-RKBAers hold the House and WIN the US Senate and WIN the presidency, even if that means abandoning your other political/legal issues. We NEED to get our full 2nd A rights established by SCOTUS before anything else! (Dems/Libertarians may have to suck it up and vote for and/or financially support Repubs around the nation.)

If we don't win this fight now, we may NEVER win our full RKBA.

As a registered libertarian, I completely after. The chances of me voting red and blue after RKBA is settled is almost zero. This is a huge time for liberty and if we the people want to retain control we need to do everything in out power to fight authoritarian government.

glockman19
07-27-2014, 11:48 AM
The cold, hard reality in "the morning after the night before"....

Of all the Carry Cases (3) we're watching (Palmer, Peruta, and Pantano), Palmer is the LEAST important win. Why? (1) D.C. had a total ban ("No Issue"/"No Carry"), on all (OC and CC) carry. This is what our side already prevailed against in CA7 w/Moore (IL case).

(2) This is just a trial/district court decision, not one of the sister federal appeals courts.

(3) Because this was a win against a total ban, the trial court did NOT have to, and thus did not offer, an opinion re. the level of scrutiny that applies to public carry. That is what we need and want. I think reasonably objective observers already knew that No Carry At All is unconstitutional. It is, after all, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms protected by the 2nd A. (Limiting "bear" to inside the home is absurd.) Thus, even if Palmer gets to SCOTUS and we win there, they may not even deal with scrutiny (and if SCOTUS did, other courts could say that was dicta).

Similarly, I think most people would agree that Shall Issue is constitutional. (Except for the most radical on our side who say no state can require a permit to exercise a fundamental, enumerated right that "shall not be infringed" anywhere in the US.)

So, sure, Palmer is a GREAT win, like forcing SF to actually put in place a permitting process was a great win. ("Frickin' a! (SF/DC) has gotta start issuing permits!") But in actual or even legal effect, it is mostly symbolic.

The real issue we need to get settled is whether May Issue is constitutional. Since May Issue is not black (No Issue) or white (Shall Issue), there can be as many shades of gray as there are legislatures, so that requires a decision, once and for all, re. standard of review/"scrutiny". For that we need a win from SCOTUS in a May Issue case. AFAIK, we only have 2 of those left in the pipeline: Pantano and Peruta. (If Kamie is allowed to intervene, but denied appeal by CA9, I don't see CA9 allowing appeal in either Richards or Baker re. the core of the Peruta holding (what's important to us), since those cases' holdings said, basically, "See Peruta.")

Pantano should be asking for cert. before the end of August.

If Kamie is denied standing, Peruta will not get to SCOTUS. (Gore said no more appealing on his part.)
If Kamie is permitted standing, but denied CA9 rehearing, it takes effect and Kamie has to decide whether to ask for cert. from SCOTUS for this coming 2014-2015 SCOTUS term.

Bottom line: the Palmer win is nice, but the real fight is still ahead of us. If SCOTUS denies cert. in Pantano and either Kamie is denied standing by CA9 or wins it, but loses appeal for rehearing and decides not to ask for cert., where are we??? We'll only have Palmer in the pipeline to SCOTUS and that would get us a public RKBA w/o a level of scrutiny! :mad:

If other May Issue or non-Carry cases get to SCOTUS later and win a level of scrutiny, that could be only a "inside the home" RKBA scrutiny from an Obama/Hillary packed Court.... :mad:

Politics still matters, folks. We ALL NEED to ensure that pro-RKBAers hold the House and WIN the US Senate and WIN the presidency, even if that means abandoning your other political/legal issues. We NEED to get our full 2nd A rights established by SCOTUS before anything else! (Dems/Libertarians may have to suck it up and vote for and/or financially support Repubs around the nation.)

If we don't win this fight now, we may NEVER win our full RKBA.

I agree with your views except:

(Except for the most radical on our side who say no state can require a permit to exercise a fundamental, enumerated right that "shall not be infringed" anywhere in the US.)


I don't know of any other fundamental, enumerated, Inalienable Right that requires a government issued permit or license. Or one that explicitly states that government shall NOT INFRINGE upon said Right.

And...I don't consider myself of the most radical on our side.

dantodd
07-27-2014, 1:28 PM
I don't know of any other fundamental, enumerated, Inalienable Right that requires a government issued permit or license. Or one that explicitly states that government shall NOT INFRINGE upon said Right.

And...I don't consider myself of the most radical on our side.

The first amendment is littered with counter examples. Book stores need business licenses, demonstrations and marches need permits, etc.

While there is certainly an argument that not every expression of the second amendment can require permits or licensing time, manner, and place permits or licenses are likely to be constitutional, including "in public" being a designated place. Remember also that firearms are not the be all, end all, of second amendment expression either, the Supreme Court was quite clear about this in GVR'ing Maloney when they published Heller. So it is possible that carrying a knife or walking/fighting stick in public may be done without a license but a firearm needs one.

I'm not suggesting that I would support such a policy choice but I suspect it would be constitutional. Of course, many states will wonder WHY they would bother with licenses when every person not prohibited from possession just be issued a permit on demand.

M. D. Van Norman
07-27-2014, 3:10 PM
I donít disagree, but the obvious counterargument is that while I may need a business license to operate a bookshop, I donít need a license to buy a book, to carry one on my person, or to read one at home or in public. :)

gobler
07-27-2014, 3:37 PM
The first amendment is littered with counter examples. Book stores need business licenses, demonstrations and marches need permits, etc.

While there is certainly an argument that not every expression of the second amendment can require permits or licensing time, manner, and place permits or licenses are likely to be constitutional, including "in public" being a designated place. Remember also that firearms are not the be all, end all, of second amendment expression either, the Supreme Court was quite clear about this in GVR'ing Maloney when they published Heller. So it is possible that carrying a knife or walking/fighting stick in public may be done without a license but a firearm needs one.

I'm not suggesting that I would support such a policy choice but I suspect it would be constitutional. Of course, many states will wonder WHY they would bother with licenses when every person not prohibited from possession just be issued a permit on demand.

However the Second Amendment is the only one that ends with "Shall not be infringed"


Sent from somewhere in time & space...

riftol
07-27-2014, 4:47 PM
However the Second Amendment is the only one that ends with "Shall not be infringed"





Infringe - Merriam‑Webster

to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US ). : to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights).


Infringement is a matter of degree because the meaning of the adverb "wrongly," as it applies to the definition of "infringe," is not always absolutely determinable.


Compare the words of the Second Amendment with the words of the First Amendment:



The Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" wording lacks the absoluteness of the First Amendment's prohibition of Congress passing a law that establishes a religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is absolutely proscriptive whereas "shall not be infringed" is not.

JoshuaS
07-27-2014, 5:14 PM
Infringe - Merriam‑Webster

to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US ). : to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights).


Infringement is a matter of degree because the meaning of the adverb "wrongly," as it applies to the definition of "infringe," is not always absolutely determinable.


Compare the words of the Second Amendment with the words of the First Amendment:



The Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" wording lacks the absoluteness of the First Amendment's prohibition of Congress passing a law that establishes a religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is absolutely proscriptive whereas "shall not be infringed" is not.

It seems clear to me that if we recognize a right to BEAR arms, then there must be the ability to actually do so without unnecessary burdens. It is a necessary "burden" that I be able to afford a gun or knife or mace, since they must be produced through labor and materials which require economic transacton, even though the cost might prevent some people

It is arguably a necessary burden to have a permit for a protest that will use a public street or park, insofar as by being there they prevent the use of a street for its designed purpose or cause some cost to accrue to the public authority. But one would find it "wrongly limiting" if such a few were more than the actual cost that is born by the public authority, or if such a fee were assessed even when no such draw on public resources occurred.

In my mind, unless what I am doing, by its nature, causes an expense or draw on the public coffers, then it is "wrongly limiting" to add any cost, since that cost will only serve limit the right.

Maybe you could argue that there exists a public necessity to have some regulations, the same as we do with some protests. But then you would have to argue that carriage of arms necessarily intersects areas legitimately under the government's power. The carriage of arms itself cannot be so claimed with basing that claim on something the state actually is empowered over. Maybe you could argue that, give say the concrete circumstances, the open carriage of arms causes public harm, and hence only concealed is allowed. Or perhaps you could argue that conceal carry imposes a greater burden on the state than open, and that justifies the permits for it, while open carry remains generally legal.

But I haven't see a convincing argument there that passes strict scrutiny.

Paladin
07-27-2014, 5:25 PM
I agree with your views except:



I don't know of any other fundamental, enumerated, Inalienable Right that requires a government issued permit or license. Or one that explicitly states that government shall NOT INFRINGE upon said Right.

And...I don't consider myself of the most radical on our side.
Can we stop the threadjack already???

This thread is about the push for Shall Issue around the country. If you believe you should not need a permit to carry, CC or OC, please start your own thread to debate that. Thank you.

The point of my post earlier today is that Palmer will NOT help us in May Issue CA, even if we win it at SCOTUS. (Of course, if we were to lose Palmer at SCOTUS that could hurt us.)

Thus, our best hope is for Pantano and/or Peruta. Pantano will be asking for cert before the end of August. Peruta may be asking for cert either for 2014-15 or 2015-16, depending upon intervention. (Of course, if Kamie is allowed to, but doesn't ask for cert, Yolo or HI may take their cases and the holding of Peruta up to SCOTUS....)

71MUSTY
07-27-2014, 5:27 PM
Compare the words of the Second Amendment with the words of the First Amendment:



The Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" wording lacks the absoluteness of the First Amendment's prohibition of Congress passing a law that establishes a religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is absolutely proscriptive whereas "shall not be infringed" is not.

I would argue that "shall make no law..." is less absolute than "Shall no to Infringed" Because You can infringe in more ways than just make a law. For example I could Infringe my running anti propaganda swaying public opinion against it without making a law.

But my arguments don't really matter.

SonofWWIIDI
07-27-2014, 5:36 PM
Thanks for the updates!

RobertMW
07-28-2014, 9:57 AM
The point of my post earlier today is that Palmer will NOT help us in May Issue CA, even if we win it at SCOTUS. (Of course, if we were to lose Palmer at SCOTUS that could hurt us.)

Thus, our best hope is for Pantano and/or Peruta. Pantano will be asking for cert before the end of August. Peruta may be asking for cert either for 2014-15 or 2015-16, depending upon intervention. (Of course, if Kamie is allowed to, but doesn't ask for cert, Yolo or HI may take their cases and the holding of Peruta up to SCOTUS....)

If SCOTUS somehow made a positive ruling on Palmer before Peruta (or Richards or the other one) it would most definitely be a help to us. It may not actually effect the outcome of those other cases, but it still gives other litigation some kind of framework to build cases around, as well as showing that right to bear arms/CCW cases are still up for discussion inside SCOTUS.

For example: SCOTUS passes positive judgement in Palmer because an absolute ban is not acceptable, but refuses to grant cert for Peruta. That would mean that SCOTUS determines that some form of carry is necessary, but that an issuance scheme is ok. The cases then just have to show that the issuance scheme is an absolute ban, point to Palmer and the case never has to reach the higher courts again, and that forces the issuance scheme to be opened up to the point that it is shall issue. Not a problem in 3/4ths the USA, but the select areas (NJ,NY,CA) that DO have may/no issue will get reformed.

If I made myself clear, I feel like if Palmer was affirmed in SCOTUS, we would never have to fight in federal courts for CCW again. You would have a decision that would be effective in every court that would have to make judges seriously consider the details of an issuance scheme, whether it is an effective ban in its current form or not, rather than just passing it over, saying that it's ok because there legally is a method to get a CCW, even though nobody gets one.

Yes, I know some people feel that any issuance scheme is infringing on our 2A rights, I agree, but baby steps please. Lets get shall issue in all states, then we can work on reciprocity, and then any non-constitutional carry states to remove licensing schemes.

thorium
07-28-2014, 10:16 PM
Paladin thank you for curating this content so well. Somebody make this guy a moderator.

I agree it's mostly circles until SCOTUS rules on "bear" outside the home (circles = courts knocking laws down, anti 2A legislatures putting something back that is 99% as restrictive as what got knocked down just to see if it will fly in the next round).

taperxz
07-29-2014, 7:39 AM
Can we stop the threadjack already???

This thread is about the push for Shall Issue around the country. If you believe you should not need a permit to carry, CC or OC, please start your own thread to debate that. Thank you.

The point of my post earlier today is that Palmer will NOT help us in May Issue CA, even if we win it at SCOTUS. (Of course, if we were to lose Palmer at SCOTUS that could hurt us.)

Thus, our best hope is for Pantano and/or Peruta. Pantano will be asking for cert before the end of August. Peruta may be asking for cert either for 2014-15 or 2015-16, depending upon intervention. (Of course, if Kamie is allowed to, but doesn't ask for cert, Yolo or HI may take their cases and the holding of Peruta up to SCOTUS....)

The entire country basically already has "shall issue".

DC, Maryland, NJ, NY,Mass, CA and Hawaii are all thats left.

IVC
07-29-2014, 10:17 AM
The point of my post earlier today is that Palmer will NOT help us in May Issue CA, even if we win it at SCOTUS.

Palmer WILL help us in May Issue in CA because a big part of Peruta ruling is based on analysis that, with OC gone and Gore not issuing for "self defense," there is a virtual no issue in San Diego.

In a way, AB 144 closed the escape hatch Irma Gonzales at District Court level used against us and Peruta concentrated precisely on the "no issue" as the core of the question in front of the court (without having to consider whether OC satisfies "carry" in the first place.)

Also note that the Thomas' dissent in Peruta is not about Heller or 2A, but about what the question in front of the court was. He claimed that the court was addressing only "may issue," while the majority said they were addressing a complete licensing scheme and the virtual no-issue.

A SCOTUS decision in our favor in Palmer would be *extremely* relevant to Peruta because even the dissent couldn't escape on technicality of artificially limiting the question in front of the court, while there is obvious no-issue in San Diego that the SCOTUS (presumably) just ruled unconstitutional.

PhillyGunner
07-29-2014, 11:21 AM
The entire country basically already has "shall issue".

DC, Maryland, NJ, NY,Mass, CA and Hawaii are all thats left.

You make it sound like this is a "small" part.

While those states and one district 'only' represent just under 26% of the U.S. population as far as population centers the story is a little different.

Your list includes:

4 of the top 10 most populous cities in the U.S., including #'s 1 & 2 representing 57.9% of these residents. It's easy to see how these have become our battlegrounds. (N.Y.C., L.A., Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas & San Jose) Only Chicago on this list represents any sort of a "win" or even positive change in recent decades.

(If you add Philadelphia, which, while technically issuing, seems to be playing a lot of the games L.A., N.Y.C., Newark, Baltimore, Boston, &, until yesterday D.C., play to turn 'issue' into 'low or no issue', you have 6 of 10 and add #5, representing 64%. Remember P.A. shares long borders with N.Y, N.J. & Maryland.)

The numbers begin to be a little less impressive-6 of 34 with populations ≥ 500,000 population. (~ 17.5%)

26 of 113 with populations ≥ 200,000. (23%)

130 of 293 with populations ≥ 100,000 residents. (49 in CA alone!) That's almost 44.5% of all residents in 'urban' America. 70 of these cities are in California.

I don't, personally, feel like the battle has been won.

CG of MP
07-29-2014, 12:52 PM
Would we have been happy if Germany or Japan had been able to cordon off and deprive 15-25 percent of America its liberties?

CZ man in LA
07-29-2014, 1:15 PM
You make it sound like this is a "small" part.

While those states and one district 'only' represent just under 26% of the U.S. population as far as population centers the story is a little different.

Your list includes:

4 of the top 10 most populous cities in the U.S., including #'s 1 & 2 representing 57.9% of these residents. It's easy to see how these have become our battlegrounds. (N.Y.C., L.A., Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas & San Jose) Only Chicago on this list represents any sort of a "win" or even positive change in recent decades.

(If you add Philadelphia, which, while technically issuing, seems to be playing a lot of the games L.A., N.Y.C., Newark, Baltimore, Boston, &, until yesterday D.C., play to turn 'issue' into 'low or no issue', you have 6 of 10 and add #5, representing 64%. Remember P.A. shares long borders with N.Y, N.J. & Maryland.)

The numbers begin to be a little less impressive-6 of 34 with populations ≥ 500,000 population. (~ 17.5%)

26 of 113 with populations ≥ 200,000. (23%)

130 of 293 with populations ≥ 100,000 residents. (49 in CA alone!) That's almost 44.5% of all residents in 'urban' America. 70 of these cities are in California.

I don't, personally, feel like the battle has been won.

Also need to look at LA as a County as a whole rather than just the city itself. It's not just the City of LA, the entire LA County is restrictive as the LASD has jurisdiction in all of LA County.

LA County alone just passed the population mark of 10 million December of last year. There are more people living in LA County than the entire country of Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, or Israel. That makes LA County the most populous county in the US. At 10 million, that means 1/5th of CAnians live in Los Angeles, and close to 3.5% of the entire population of the US.

taperxz
07-29-2014, 2:01 PM
You make it sound like this is a "small" part.

While those states and one district 'only' represent just under 26% of the U.S. population as far as population centers the story is a little different.

Your list includes:

4 of the top 10 most populous cities in the U.S., including #'s 1 & 2 representing 57.9% of these residents. It's easy to see how these have become our battlegrounds. (N.Y.C., L.A., Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas & San Jose) Only Chicago on this list represents any sort of a "win" or even positive change in recent decades.

(If you add Philadelphia, which, while technically issuing, seems to be playing a lot of the games L.A., N.Y.C., Newark, Baltimore, Boston, &, until yesterday D.C., play to turn 'issue' into 'low or no issue', you have 6 of 10 and add #5, representing 64%. Remember P.A. shares long borders with N.Y, N.J. & Maryland.)

The numbers begin to be a little less impressive-6 of 34 with populations ≥ 500,000 population. (~ 17.5%)

26 of 113 with populations ≥ 200,000. (23%)

130 of 293 with populations ≥ 100,000 residents. (49 in CA alone!) That's almost 44.5% of all residents in 'urban' America. 70 of these cities are in California.

I don't, personally, feel like the battle has been won.

None of that really matters in the courts though. The Ninth Circuit represents some of the most liberal gun states in the union. Legislatively, Each state is given 2 senators and so many congressman based on population. Ironically its the house that is in our favor even though the majority of congress people from CA are in the minority house.

Peruta and Richards are a huge win for this state and the entire Ninth circuit. Moore was a huge win for Illinois. The numbers of states that are resisting the 2A are shrinking rapidly.

Not to mention that Peruta as it sits right now is responsible for many sheriffs to have already changed their stance and start issuing. The overwhelming majority of sheriffs in this state issue for "self defense" currently. Move up north here, you'll have yours in no time.

Paladin
08-16-2014, 3:07 PM
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A 25-year-old Bristol man is suing that town’s police chief over the denial of a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Jarren R. Gendreau is challenging Bristol’s permitting policy in federal court, arguing it violates his constitutional right to bear arms by conditioning approval on a “proper showing of need” to carry a handgun in self defense.

He asks U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. to direct Chief Josue D. Canario to issue the permit and to bar the police chief from denying future permits on the similar grounds, namely that an applicant has not shown “good reason to fear an injury.”

<snip>

Rhode Island law dictates that authorities in any city or town “shall” issue a license or permit to carry a loaded handgun to a person 21 or older “if it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear an injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol or revolver, and that he or she is a suitable person to be so licensed.”

<snip>

Fabisch said he opted to file suit in federal court because appeals courts have been split on Second Amendment issues. “It was really an opportunity to create some good precedent in the First Circuit,” Fabisch said.

The case has gotten financial support from the Citizens’ Rights Action League and the Rhode Island Firearm Owners’ League, he said.
(bolding and underlining added)

More at:
http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20140729-federal-lawsuit-challenges-bristol-police-chiefs-denial-of-weapon-permit-poll.ece

and:
http://www.rifol.org/litigation.php

I'll add this case to the OP once it gets to CA1.

Looks like the federal judge hearing the case is an Obama appointee and that Dems used a cloture vote to get him on the bench (used only 3 times prior to him in US history). He's also a Dem financial supporter to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._McConnell,_Jr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_judicial_appointment_controversies#Su ccessfully_appointed_nominees_2

Paladin
08-28-2014, 2:19 PM
So, August 28th is over as far as SCOTUS normal work hours (EST). Does anyone know if cert. was requested in Pantano?

Paladin
03-26-2015, 7:18 PM
Giving this a bump for newbies who don't know the history of recent federal Carry Case litigation. The OP gives a good overview.

rlc2
03-26-2015, 8:05 PM
Giving this a bump for newbies who don't know the history of recent federal Carry Case litigation. The OP gives a good overview.

Many Thanks! Lots of misinformation out there, and not many detailed chronological resources, like this. If its ok, I will post a link back here on other firearms forums, and suggest others do the same to counter the defeatism of some POTG, and the deliberate paid agitprop and disinformatzia in forums or comments sections of the MSM.

Here is an article at Scotusblog- interpreting Tyler v Hillsdale, the 6th CA view on strict scrutiny application to 2A.
While it is on your supplemental list, and strictly speaking - is on 922, the discussion in the decision starting at page 20 is invaluable,
to the point of the OPs purpose describing evolution of laws bearing on CCW, in particular the widely differing definitions of "scrutiny".

"Judge Boggs’s opinion summoned a series of arguments to support the conclusion that the most demanding standard should be used — including his interpretation of the Heller decision as at least hinting at that, and his view that a “heightened scrutiny” standard has no place in the Constitution."

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/appeals-court-gun-control-must-meet-toughest-test/

+1 on posters resisting the urge to go OT here. :D

Paladin
10-19-2015, 8:10 AM
Peruta update:

when the CA9 en banc decision comes down, it won't help us even if we win Peruta since Kammie and Yolo said they will appeal it to SCOTUS and CA9 will most likely issue a stay of the decision until SCOTUS decides whether to grant cert or not.

IIRC, after an en banc decision the loser has 90 days to ask for cert, then there's time for reply and amici briefs, etc., factor in that they'll probably have it on their calendar for discussion for a month or two, so that's probably another 6 months right there and then there's SCOTUS' summer 2016 break and you're looking at next fall (2016) for just a decision re. cert. or not.

1) If we win the en banc decision and there's no cert., expect most of the remaining 15 anti sheriffs to change their policies immediately and accept SD = GC.

2) If we lose the en banc decision and there's no cert., we're right where we are: having to fight it out politically at the county level, trying to get sheriffs in anti counties to liberalize issuance or to replace those sheriffs. Sacto won't try to go to No Issue, but will try to find other hurdles to throw in our way. Best to get as many folks in issuing counties in CA to get CCWs now so that they've got a vested interest in politically protecting their ability to carry. :oji:

If cert. is granted, we're probably looking at late spring 2017 for a SCOTUS decision.

3) If we win at SCOTUS, great for the remaining 8 non-SI states, they'll all have to go SD = GC. :party:

4) If we lose at SCOTUS, antis in "liberal" states that are SI may introduce May Issue bills. In CA, we'll be in the same position as #2 above.

BOTTOM LINE: Do NOT expect anything to change for at least 1 year.... Sucks, but that's reality (assuming I haven't made a mistake).

But ...

If SCOTUS takes Friedman (an AWB and mag limit challenge), will CA9 stay Peruta's en banc decision on CA's GC requirement for a CCW? If so, that means Peruta will be on ice until 2016 June. It will push any possible win in Peruta out that much further (cert decision Sp or Fall 2017 and a decision in 2018).... :wheelchair:

rlc2
11-11-2015, 3:42 PM
Mods, can we make this a sticky? Easy way to point newbs to the history, and current status for "how much longer" questions,
including those coming in cold, new to Calguns, after interest in Friedman and Caetano.