PDA

View Full Version : SCOTUS' 2013 "long conference" results in . . .


Paladin
09-17-2013, 3:27 PM
Well, about two weeks ago we were all ticked b/c of all the bad bills Sacto passed. :mad:

About a week ago we were happy b/c of the recall of BOTH anti senators in CO. :chris: :D

This week we're all anxious again b/c some nutcase kills innocents in another "gun-free" zone.... :mad:

The rollercoaster continues when SCOTUS has its "long conference" next week and then announces an initial round of cases it will take in . . . :twoweeks:
(Yeah, I know I'm totally using that CGN "term of art" contrary to its original meaning.)

For newbies, we're hoping they'll take the Woollard carry case and declare that we have a public RKBA and, hopefully, announcing the standard of review for RKBA cases in the future (hoping for "strict scrutiny").

If any of you are the praying type, put this on your list right after Gov. Brown vetoing most/all of the bad bills Sacto sent to him.

stix213
09-17-2013, 3:44 PM
If Woollard is accepted, expect the 2 (3? I forget) CA carry cases that we are waiting on the 9th for judgments to stop in their tracks pending the SCOTUS decision.

press1280
09-18-2013, 1:17 AM
I believe Woollard will be on the conference after the long one-October 11th.

M. D. Van Norman
09-18-2013, 8:07 AM
How do you figure that? I’m not disputing you but just trying to prepare myself for this potentially life-changing moment. :sweatdrop:

Apocalypsenerd
09-18-2013, 4:07 PM
If SCOTUS doesn't take Woolard, we're in trouble. If they do take Woolard, we can only hope they will give a standard of review to fend off the Sacramento corruption.

CCWFacts
09-18-2013, 8:25 PM
If SCOTUS doesn't take Woolard, we're in trouble.

That's what I'm assuming? Or could they say no to Woolard and take some of our 9th circuit cases?

Regardless, either they handle this now (within the next year) or they will never handle it and we will never have CCW here in California. That I am sure of.

Apocalypsenerd
09-18-2013, 10:39 PM
I don't know enough about which cases they would like to take. I'm concerned that they take lots of cases related to many subjects and make rulings that those cases didn't even ask about. They could've have taken any of the prior gun cases and answered them, but chose not to. Some have suggested that this is a "cleaner" case. Not being legally inclined, I can only hope that it is, and it is the case that SCOTUS has been waiting for.

It should be pretty evident right now, though, if they don't take one, Heller and McDonald will become increasingly meaningless.

M. D. Van Norman
09-19-2013, 8:42 AM
Maryland requires a license to carry a handgun in any manner, so Woollard avoids the “dirty” matter of concealment. If the Supreme Court declines to hear this case, then it seems very, very unlikely that it would be willing to review any of the other remaining right-to-carry challenges, and I fear that would have disastrous consequences.

sholling
09-19-2013, 9:35 AM
I tend to agree, if SCOTUS rejects Woolard then the right to bear arms outside your primary place of residence is pretty much dead. At least that's how the lower courts will view the Supreme Court's years long refusal to take anymore cases or clarify a standard of review, and rational basis (dressed up as intermediate scrutiny) will remain the standard of review for all 2nd Amendment cases.

Mulay El Raisuli
09-19-2013, 9:40 AM
Well, about two weeks ago we were all ticked b/c of all the bad bills Sacto passed. :mad:

About a week ago we were happy b/c of the recall of BOTH anti senators in CO. :chris: :D

This week we're all anxious again b/c some nutcase kills innocents in another "gun-free" zone.... :mad:

The rollercoaster continues when SCOTUS has its "long conference" next week and then announces an initial round of cases it will take in . . . :twoweeks:
(Yeah, I know I'm totally using that CGN "term of art" against its original meaning.)

For newbies, we're hoping they'll take the Woollard carry case and declare that we have a public RKBA and, hopefully, announcing the standard of review for RKBA cases in the future (hoping for "strict scrutiny").

If any of you are the praying type, put this on your list right after Gov. Brown vetoing most/all of the bad bills Sacto sent to him.


Not me. I'm hoping for "historical basis" (I.E., decided on the basis of what was "historically understood" to be the Right at the time of adoption).


If Woollard is accepted, expect the 2 (3? I forget) CA carry cases that we are waiting on the 9th for judgments to stop in their tracks pending the SCOTUS decision.


Would we be able to tell the difference?


The Raisuli

M. D. Van Norman
09-19-2013, 9:47 AM
No difference. Only my sectional vanity wanted Richards v. Prieto up first. I’ll happily take Woollard instead, since the timing won’t change a bit at this point.

Paladin
09-19-2013, 10:39 AM
If SCOTUS doesn't take Woollard (CA4), Drake (CA3) has until the end of Nov. to ask for cert.

If SCOTUS declines on both of those, Richards-Peruta (CA9) will be next up. But if Richards-Peruta aren't decided for awhile and then go thru rehearing and/or en banc review, they may not be ready until next year (2014-'15). By that time, even Palmer (D.C. Cir.) may be getting close to asking for cert. .... :rofl2: Or, SCOTUS could take Palmer in their 2015-2016 term....

So, all is not lost if Woollard isn't granted cert. All is not lost even if no Carry cases are heard this term. Not ideal, but far from the end of the world as many think. (Of course, the longer SCOTUS waits, the more likely we'll lose the "Heller 5" and Obama will tip the balance of the Court.)

Too many people here think SCOTUS has refused to take all sorts of Carry cases we were pushing. :willy_nilly: Wrong. SCOTUS only declined in Kachalsky (CA2). We did not ask for cert. in Hightower (CA1). That's it. We asked for cert. in one, and only one, Carry case so far and SCOTUS turned it down. Big deal.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=812950

M. D. Van Norman
09-19-2013, 10:57 AM
There was little reason not to take Kachalsky, and there is even less not to take Woollard. All the cases after that are Hail Mary plays.

If Woollard is declined, I’ll start putting my affairs in order. :(

sholling
09-19-2013, 11:17 AM
So, all is not lost if Woollard isn't granted cert. All is not lost even if no Carry cases are heard this term. Not ideal, but far from the end of the world as many think.
You're leaving out the criminal cases that were denied. But carry is only one aspect of gaining cert. Without a ruling clarifying a standard of review rational basis dressed up as intermediate scrutiny will remain the standard of review for all 2nd Amendment cases leaving California's legislature a free hand to implement FOIDs, ammo taxes, and complete bans on everything other than 22LR revolvers and muzzle loading rifles. The window for stopping such intolerable legislation and keeping the guns we already own (much less the ones we want) is rapidly closing and we may all be disarmed or felons before they wake up and stop this nonsense.

Paladin
09-19-2013, 12:31 PM
You're leaving out the criminal cases that were denied.Intentionally so, since they were NOT brought by SAF, NRA, or CGF -- 2nd A civil rights organizations and SCOTUS, we believed, would rather deal w/this "new" area of law w/o the drama/"color" that often accompanies criminal cases.

But carry is only one aspect of gaining cert. Without a ruling clarifying a standard of review rational basis dressed up as intermediate scrutiny will remain the standard of review for all 2nd Amendment cases leaving California's legislature a free hand to implement FOIDs, ammo taxes, and complete bans on everything other than 22LR revolvers and muzzle loading rifles. The window for stopping such intolerable legislation and keeping the guns we already own (much less the ones we want) is rapidly closing and we may all be disarmed or felons before they wake up and stop this nonsense.Yes, but this thread's focus is on Carry. I only mentioned we were hoping that SCOTUS might also deal w/the standard of review. That wasn't the primary focus of the Carry cases. It is the focus in the NRA's Jackson v. SF case, which, IIRC, has an important date coming up on Oct 7....

press1280
09-19-2013, 2:59 PM
How do you figure that? I’m not disputing you but just trying to prepare myself for this potentially life-changing moment. :sweatdrop:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/casedistribution/casedistributionschedule2013.pdf
After Gura's reply next week, it'll get scheduled for conference. Due date already passed for Woollard to be in the big conference.

If they deny cert, it's not the end of the 2A, although I will be a little worried. Drake is pretty similiar to Woollard, and Richards/Peruta is similiar to Kachalsky. A few reasons they deny to Woollard: They want all these cases resolved at circuit before they take a case, or, they want only a pure inside/outside the home deal and will wait for Palmer(now that Moore is off the table), or, they don't have enough judges interested period.

M. D. Van Norman
09-19-2013, 4:22 PM
I see. Thank you.

flyonwall
09-19-2013, 4:28 PM
I think they pass and wait for the 9th to finish then do a comprehensive review. 9th has 6 carry cases in pipeline.

tacticalcity
09-19-2013, 4:54 PM
I'm so depressed about what is happening in Sacramento that I really can't take another blow to my overall faith in this country. Don't break my heart SCOTUS. Do what you were designed to do. We're all counting on you to save this country.

Paladin
09-19-2013, 7:55 PM
If they deny cert, it's not the end of the 2A, although I will be a little worried. Drake is pretty similiar to Woollard, and Richards/Peruta is similiar to Kachalsky. A few reasons they deny to Woollard: They want all these cases resolved at circuit before they take a case, or, they want only a pure inside/outside the home deal and will wait for Palmer(now that Moore is off the table), or, they don't have enough judges interested period.
Repeated for emphasis. This was discussed in another thread a few months ago. This is an important point. SCOTUS likes having as many CAs weigh in w/their reasoning both in support and against any issue. SCOTUS wants the benefit of the brain power, insights and ideas of the lower courts so that SCOTUS' opinion is better, more comprehensive. If SCOTUS' majority comes out against the lower courts, they want to answer as many of the lower courts' contrary reasoning as possible. They can only do this after those CA's have come to a decision.

This alone could have been the reason they skipped taking Kachalsky.

Michael Ehline
09-19-2013, 9:10 PM
If our commie president gets one more justice, the Second Amendment is history. Focus on the mid terms and send money to Rand Paul! At least that is my advice as your attorney for a limited purpose. Semper Fi gents.

M. D. Van Norman
09-19-2013, 9:33 PM
SCOTUS likes having as many CAs weigh in w/their reasoning both in support and against any issue. SCOTUS wants the benefit of the brain power, insights and ideas of the lower courts.…

I hope that you’re right, because if Woollard is declined, I think our odds for getting any ruling on the right to bear arms outside the home will drop to no more than five percent, which is about the same chance of a favorable decision out of the Ninth Circuit.

It’s pretty clear that our legalistic offense is crumbling, and when it finally falls apart, our right-to-arms coalition will disintegrate along with it. We will be left with a Second Amendment that has been read to mean “the right to keep and bear arms [in the home] shall not be [completely] infringed.” That will doom the prohibitionist states.

It may be pointless to dwell on these issues, but I am beside myself with anxiety right now. All the indicators that I can see are negative … and I have no more time to dither. :(

meaty-btz
09-19-2013, 9:39 PM
Repeated for emphasis. This was discussed in another thread a few months ago. This is an important point. SCOTUS likes having as many CAs weigh in w/their reasoning both in support and against any issue. SCOTUS wants the benefit of the brain power, insights and ideas of the lower courts so that SCOTUS' opinion is better, more comprehensive. If SCOTUS' majority comes out against the lower courts, they want to answer as many of the lower courts' contrary reasoning as possible. They can only do this after those CA's have come to a decision.

This alone could have been the reason they skipped taking Kachalsky.
except the lower courts (at least in california) have set the timeline to decades to making a decision in many of these cases, especially delaying at every turn.

It is getting more and more clear as time passes.

Apocalypsenerd
09-19-2013, 11:39 PM
It's pretty despicable if the SCOTUS refused criminal cases because they are "criminal". People should not be going to jail or losing their rights because the SCOTUS is waiting to hear the rest of the CA's.

IMHO the SCOTUS has shirked its responsibility by not answer this sooner. If they don't take Woollard, it should be pretty apparent where our side stands.

Mulay El Raisuli
09-20-2013, 11:28 AM
http://www.supremecourt.gov/casedistribution/casedistributionschedule2013.pdf
After Gura's reply next week, it'll get scheduled for conference. Due date already passed for Woollard to be in the big conference.

If they deny cert, it's not the end of the 2A, although I will be a little worried. Drake is pretty similiar to Woollard, and Richards/Peruta is similiar to Kachalsky. A few reasons they deny to Woollard: They want all these cases resolved at circuit before they take a case, or, they want only a pure inside/outside the home deal and will wait for Palmer(now that Moore is off the table), or, they don't have enough judges interested period.


Or, it could be that none of the Circuits are disagreeing with anything said by SCOTUS. ALL of the cases so far were about concealed carry. This applies even to Kachalsky because even though NY law requires a permit for either, the pleadings were all about carrying concealed. Which SCOTUS has already hinted won't be protected.

Now, if we were to take the damn hint & make it beyond clear that Woollard is just about 'permits for open carry,' then (and ONLY then) would we be placing a case that addresses a Protected Right before them.

Our initial pleading doesn't say this. Maryland's Response mentions only the legality of restrictions on concealed carry (so, maybe they've already taken the hint & so already know the permit requirement for Open Carry won't survive?). That leaves our Response (due in a week) to say whether we have taken the damn hint or not.

If our Response shows that we have taken the hint (I.E., if we make it clear that 'permits for LOC' is the sole issue), & if SCOTUS then turns us down, then (and ONLY then) will we know for sure that the "and bear" part of the Right is basically dead. But, if we continue as before & we get turned down, we won't know anything for sure.


The Raisuli

press1280
09-20-2013, 2:09 PM
Not sure about that. MD's permit is a general permit to carry in public, not concealed,not open(although if you do prepare to have your permit pulled,but I digress). I don't think coming out now and specifically asking for an OC permit will pull any other justices our way. It's easy enough for SCOTUS to rule "good and substantial" unconstitutional while also pointing out the state can regulate the manner of carry. I highly doubt they'll try to impose OC on a state like MD, who would undoubtedly not handle it well.

ziegenbock
09-20-2013, 3:52 PM
I highly doubt they'll try to impose OC on a state like MD, who would undoubtedly not handle it well.

:facepalm:

Constitution no good in MD now or something?

advocatusdiaboli
09-20-2013, 4:02 PM
I'm so depressed about what is happening in Sacramento that I really can't take another blow to my overall faith in this country. Don't break my heart SCOTUS. Do what you were designed to do. We're all counting on you to save this country.
I am with you though I am dismayed that we have reached such a nadir that all we have is just last-ditch hope of largesse from some insular judges who have declined a significant number of firearms cases while the CA legislature piles on.

Kharn
09-20-2013, 4:56 PM
Woollard has not been distributed for conference yet, so I wouldn't expect it to be resolved at the first meeting.

Mulay El Raisuli
09-22-2013, 6:10 AM
Not sure about that. MD's permit is a general permit to carry in public, not concealed,not open(although if you do prepare to have your permit pulled,but I digress). I don't think coming out now and specifically asking for an OC permit will pull any other justices our way. It's easy enough for SCOTUS to rule "good and substantial" unconstitutional while also pointing out the state can regulate the manner of carry. I highly doubt they'll try to impose OC on a state like MD, who would undoubtedly not handle it well.


I'm not suggesting that we go for a permit to carry openly. I'm suggesting that we make open carry the schwerpunct of our effort. Because, no, the state can't regulate the manner of carry. Open carry is the Protected Right. Concealed carry isn't. Heller told us this.

That being the case, & permits to exercise a Protected Constitutional Right being anathema to the Constitution, a properly directed effort will result in permitless LOC becoming the Law of The Land.

Which would be a good thing in a whole lot of ways.


The Raisuli

press1280
09-22-2013, 6:27 AM
Scotus does not like to make massive waves like it has in the past. It's an easier job for them to simply strike down "cause" than it is to strike down cause AND rule OC is the protected right. While there's precedent for CCW bans, the context is important, because the states that did this had OC available. I just don't see this court instituting OC on NYC,LA, and Chicago.

Kharn
09-22-2013, 6:31 PM
I agree with press1280, it is up to the state to decide how they want us to carry, as long as one form (OC or shall-issue) is available to the average Joe. The Court can easily say that Woollard's rights were infringed when his permit was denied, and see how the other may-issue states handle it before deciding if they want to consider any further carry cases.

They do not need to address open vs concealed to resolve Woollard, it is the perfect may vs shall-issue case, but I'd love to see a concurrence from Scalia mocking the state's OC'ed longguns position.

Morning
09-22-2013, 10:08 PM
I agree with press1280, it is up to the state to decide how they want us to carry, as long as one form (OC or shall-issue) is available to the average Joe. The Court can easily say that Woollard's rights were infringed when his permit was denied, and see how the other may-issue states handle it before deciding if they want to consider any further carry cases.

They do not need to address open vs concealed to resolve Woollard, it is the perfect may vs shall-issue case, but I'd love to see a concurrence from Scalia mocking the state's OC'ed longguns position.

what if they give us unloaded open carry back or unloaded conceal carry

krucam
09-23-2013, 9:33 AM
Reminder of the "Question Presented" in the Woollard Petition is Concealed vs Open Neutral. Only "Carry" is spelled out in the question.

QUESTION PRESENTED
This Court has held that the Second Amendment
“guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and
carry weapons in case of confrontation.” District of
Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008). Maryland
generally prohibits the carrying of handguns for
self-defense absent a permit, issued only to individuals
who first prove a “good and substantial reason” for
doing so. Md. Code Ann., Pub. Safety § 3-506(a)(5)(ii).
The question presented is:
Whether state officials violate the Second
Amendment by requiring that individuals wishing to
exercise their right to carry a handgun for selfdefense
first prove a “good and substantial reason” for
doing so.
what if they give us unloaded open carry back or unloaded conceal carry

Aim higher...

meaty-btz
09-23-2013, 9:56 AM
what if they give us unloaded open carry back or unloaded conceal carry

Court has already determined that "unloaded" is not a valid form of carry. It must be ready and in fully working order.

Anyone want to bet that the next conf 2A gets ignored again?

If they are waiting on the 9th circuit cases intentionally then we have a problem because the 9th will just sit on them indefinitely.

The only other option to see in all of this is that the courts are seeing this battled out in the legislatures and are watching that. Still does not make sense from a civil rights perspective but.. no one cares about our civil rights. They will take an LGBT case in a heartbeat but won't touch the 2A? Very telling.

Mulay El Raisuli
09-23-2013, 12:32 PM
Scotus does not like to make massive waves like it has in the past. It's an easier job for them to simply strike down "cause" than it is to strike down cause AND rule OC is the protected right. While there's precedent for CCW bans, the context is important, because the states that did this had OC available. I just don't see this court instituting OC on NYC,LA, and Chicago.


"Context" is indeed important. In all of the 19th Cent. cases that Heller quoted, it was never a matter of, 'concealed carry could be banned because open carry was available.' It was always a matter of, 'concealed carry could be banned, but that open carry could no be banned because open carry is what the 2A is all about.' That's why the precedents of CCW bans. That's why we keep losing in the Circuit Courts. Because CCW is not, & more importantly, will not be the Protected Right. It just ain't gonna happen.

As for imposing LOC nationwide, I'm not so sure that SCOTUS won't do exactly that. They won't make Shall Issue the Protected Right. That only leaves the issue of permits for LOC. Striking down those will make LOC the Constitutionally Protected Right it used to be, whether SCOTUS says so explicitly or not. So, they may as well say so.


what if they give us unloaded open carry back or unloaded conceal carry


meaty-btz is right. Heller already said that the gun has to be a working condition.

I think he's wrong about SCOTUS ignoring this case. IMHO, Woolard is the case they've been waiting to see.


The Raisuli

Paladin
09-23-2013, 4:06 PM
I believe Woollard will be on the conference after the long one-October 11th.

Woollard has not been distributed for conference yet, so I wouldn't expect it to be resolved at the first meeting.So, assuming both of these are correct, when will they announce their decision?

meaty-btz
09-23-2013, 4:08 PM
"Context" is indeed important. In all of the 19th Cent. cases that Heller quoted, it was never a matter of, 'concealed carry could be banned because open carry was available.' It was always a matter of, 'concealed carry could be banned, but that open carry could no be banned because open carry is what the 2A is all about.' That's why the precedents of CCW bans. That's why we keep losing in the Circuit Courts. Because CCW is not, & more importantly, will not be the Protected Right. It just ain't gonna happen.

As for imposing LOC nationwide, I'm not so sure that SCOTUS won't do exactly that. They won't make Shall Issue the Protected Right. That only leaves the issue of permits for LOC. Striking down those will make LOC the Constitutionally Protected Right it used to be, whether SCOTUS says so explicitly or not. So, they may as well say so.





meaty-btz is right. Heller already said that the gun has to be a working condition.

I think he's wrong about SCOTUS ignoring this case. IMHO, Woolard is the case they've been waiting to see.


The Raisuli

Dunno, I think they are waiting for a California case because California is giving them the middle finger. Not certain though. Very little is certain right now except that the fastest way to achieve change is through the legislature and replacing hard left with right and soft left.

krucam
09-23-2013, 5:05 PM
So, assuming both of these are correct, when will they announce their decision?

IIRC, assuming our Distribution date is this Wednesday (following the forthcoming Woollard Reply brief we should have Tues), that makes a 10/11 Conference date and the results from that Conference will be published the following Monday, 10/14.

press1280
09-24-2013, 3:10 AM
That's Columbus Day, so October 15th we should know.

CitaDeL
09-24-2013, 7:43 AM
"Context" is indeed important. In all of the 19th Cent. cases that Heller quoted, it was never a matter of, 'concealed carry could be banned because open carry was available.' It was always a matter of, 'concealed carry could be banned, but that open carry could no be banned because open carry is what the 2A is all about.' That's why the precedents of CCW bans. That's why we keep losing in the Circuit Courts. Because CCW is not, & more importantly, will not be the Protected Right. It just ain't gonna happen.

As for imposing LOC nationwide, I'm not so sure that SCOTUS won't do exactly that. They won't make Shall Issue the Protected Right. That only leaves the issue of permits for LOC. Striking down those will make LOC the Constitutionally Protected Right it used to be, whether SCOTUS says so explicitly or not. So, they may as well say so.





meaty-btz is right. Heller already said that the gun has to be a working condition.
I think he's wrong about SCOTUS ignoring this case. IMHO, Woolard is the case they've been waiting to see.


The Raisuli

Its a shame that the logic behind having an operable firearm, ready to use in case of confrontation wasnt further fleshed out with also being exposed, displayed or presented for defensive purposes.

Mulay El Raisuli
09-24-2013, 8:19 AM
Dunno, I think they are waiting for a California case because California is giving them the middle finger. Not certain though. Very little is certain right now except that the fastest way to achieve change is through the legislature and replacing hard left with right and soft left.


I wouldn't entirely rule that out. Although, they can also give the 9th the finger via Woollard.


Its a shame that the logic behind having an operable firearm, ready to use in case of confrontation wasnt further fleshed out with also being exposed, displayed or presented for defensive purposes.


Yeah, but Heller didn't really allow that to be done. I think they want to do so. But, they need an 'outside the home' case for that & everything we've sent them so far has been "contaminated" by our trying to make CCW the Right.


The Raisuli

meaty-btz
09-24-2013, 8:51 AM
I wouldn't entirely rule that out. Although, they can also give the 9th the finger via Woollard.





Yeah, but Heller didn't really allow that to be done. I think they want to do so. But, they need an 'outside the home' case for that & everything we've sent them so far has been "contaminated" by our trying to make CCW the Right.


The Raisuli

The thought behind wanting a 9th case is to directly impact the 9th. Just look at how they interpret Heller and McDonald. They would do the same with Woolard and they would be forced to take another case just to say.. yes we really mean this.

However if they rule in the 9th the 7th is likely to cave (Woolard is seventh right?).

Seems more efficient to give the 9th the black eye first otherwise they will dance round it and restrict the ruling to absurd levels. It is much harder when one of your own cases is directly ruled on vs "in that other circuit".

M. D. Van Norman
09-24-2013, 9:01 AM
Or would follow-on cases be required in the bypassed circuits? Assuming a favorable ruling that is.

meaty-btz
09-24-2013, 9:06 AM
Or would follow-on cases be required in the bypassed circuits? Assuming a favorable ruling that is.

In the 9th? Most certainly, the 9th has no desire and little self-control. They think they are the gods gift to circuits and superior to all others. You only have to look at how they twist things into pretzels and bend over in ways that shouldn't be possible to get something to say what they want it to say.. specifically when it goes against their anti-gun goals.

I mean some of the decisions that I have read have been mind-boggling and borderline insane.

Most others seem to go along with SCOTUS, but the 9th thinks it is better. In the Chicago cases the courts found with the State because that was how it was in jurisprudence at the time.. once SCOTUS handed down the corrective they seem to be going in the direction indicated. I may be wrong but it does seem that way.

M. D. Van Norman
09-24-2013, 9:11 AM
There are still active cases in the Ninth Circuit. With Kachalsky dead, for example, how would a favorable ruling in Woollard be incorporated in the Second Circuit? Or would New York just roll over and start issuing? :p

meaty-btz
09-24-2013, 9:28 AM
There are still active cases in the Ninth Circuit. With Kachalsky dead, for example, how would a favorable ruling in Woollard be incorporated in the Second Circuit? Or would New York just roll over and start issuing? :p

Honestly, I have not read any gun related or really any "challenging" case that has gone through the 2nd. So I really don't know the thinking processes of the justices in that circuit.

Really, you need to hand them something they don't like but that is logically correct, even if they don't like it, and then see what kinds of twists and turns they do to be able to stick to their personal dislike over actual justice.

In the 9th we have plenty. Have there been any controversial cases recently in the 2nd? If so I can read them and get back to you on how I feel about the chances of them grudgingly going with a SCOTUS ruling or if they will do the twist and play an epic game of twister to avoid having to "do the right thing".

I think that within a circuit you will still have to have several cases through them in states that are firmly anti if we get a favorable ruling in SCOTUS. But as long as that ruling does not make some of the previous mistakes and does not "hint-at" and does not use terms like "reasonable" we should find the road smoother.

If you leave an open door the 9th will use it, and they have. "Hinting at" carry out side the home was pointless unless it was to tell us to deliver them a carry case. Most notably in activist judge terms means "only" because we don't like your damned rights. Also leaving the door open to "reasonable" regulations in a climate where "reasonable" gun control as a legislative metaphor means "total bans". Which of course SCOTUS said was illegal. Assault weapon bans are illegal by the ruling but that "reasonable" door is what they use to overrule the "arms in common use".

Same thing goes for the "list". "Arms in common use" mean NO LIST is legal unless it includes all "arms in common use". Which outside of California includes off roster hand-guns and non-bullet buttoned rifles, therefor, by logic, the laws are unjust... but to the 9th.. "reasonable regulation" means bans ok. Which is to say our circuit does not use reason or logic only an unjust attitude of their ideology is right and above all others.

Sakiri
09-25-2013, 10:21 PM
That's what I'm assuming? Or could they say no to Woolard and take some of our 9th circuit cases?

Regardless, either they handle this now (within the next year) or they will never handle it and we will never have CCW here in California. That I am sure of.

Our cases in the 9th right now need to get THROUGH the 9th, and most of them are years old.

9th circuit isn't moving them along in an orderly fashion. They couldn't care less about our gun rights.

Sakiri
09-25-2013, 10:31 PM
what if they give us unloaded open carry back or unloaded conceal carry

That would defeat the purpose of carrying for self defense, which is also what the case is about.

Sakiri
09-25-2013, 10:39 PM
Court has already determined that "unloaded" is not a valid form of carry. It must be ready and in fully working order.

Anyone want to bet that the next conf 2A gets ignored again?

If they are waiting on the 9th circuit cases intentionally then we have a problem because the 9th will just sit on them indefinitely.

The only other option to see in all of this is that the courts are seeing this battled out in the legislatures and are watching that. Still does not make sense from a civil rights perspective but.. no one cares about our civil rights. They will take an LGBT case in a heartbeat but won't touch the 2A? Very telling.

9th sitting on them indefinitely is a violation of due process.

And right now, for me, it doesn't matter if we do end up going "shall issue" for anything.

If I need a permit, I won't be able to afford it. I can't afford the current one, even though I live in a state that issues. That's how they'll stop you. Open carry will go shall issue, permit, and cost 500 bucks.

Mulay El Raisuli
09-26-2013, 7:53 AM
The thought behind wanting a 9th case is to directly impact the 9th. Just look at how they interpret Heller and McDonald. They would do the same with Woolard and they would be forced to take another case just to say.. yes we really mean this.

However if they rule in the 9th the 7th is likely to cave (Woolard is seventh right?).

Seems more efficient to give the 9th the black eye first otherwise they will dance round it and restrict the ruling to absurd levels. It is much harder when one of your own cases is directly ruled on vs "in that other circuit".


Woollard is out of the 4th Circuit.

It doesn't matter which Circuit case SCOTUS takes. A proper case will do the trick regardless. "Proper" being defined below.


There are still active cases in the Ninth Circuit. With Kachalsky dead, for example, how would a favorable ruling in Woollard be incorporated in the Second Circuit? Or would New York just roll over and start issuing? :p


If properly done, Woollard will make "issuing" not-an-issue.


Honestly, I have not read any gun related or really any "challenging" case that has gone through the 2nd. So I really don't know the thinking processes of the justices in that circuit.

Really, you need to hand them something they don't like but that is logically correct, even if they don't like it, and then see what kinds of twists and turns they do to be able to stick to their personal dislike over actual justice.

In the 9th we have plenty. Have there been any controversial cases recently in the 2nd? If so I can read them and get back to you on how I feel about the chances of them grudgingly going with a SCOTUS ruling or if they will do the twist and play an epic game of twister to avoid having to "do the right thing".

I think that within a circuit you will still have to have several cases through them in states that are firmly anti if we get a favorable ruling in SCOTUS. But as long as that ruling does not make some of the previous mistakes and does not "hint-at" and does not use terms like "reasonable" we should find the road smoother.

If you leave an open door the 9th will use it, and they have. "Hinting at" carry out side the home was pointless unless it was to tell us to deliver them a carry case. Most notably in activist judge terms means "only" because we don't like your damned rights. Also leaving the door open to "reasonable" regulations in a climate where "reasonable" gun control as a legislative metaphor means "total bans". Which of course SCOTUS said was illegal. Assault weapon bans are illegal by the ruling but that "reasonable" door is what they use to overrule the "arms in common use".

Same thing goes for the "list". "Arms in common use" mean NO LIST is legal unless it includes all "arms in common use". Which outside of California includes off roster hand-guns and non-bullet buttoned rifles, therefor, by logic, the laws are unjust... but to the 9th.. "reasonable regulation" means bans ok. Which is to say our circuit does not use reason or logic only an unjust attitude of their ideology is right and above all others.


We have to not just deliver a carry case, but we have to deliver the right kind of carry case. "Hinting" was required in Heller because "and bear" wasn't part of the discussion. "And bear" WAS part of all the other cases, but none survived because they were wrong kind of "and bear" case. In that all of them tried to make CCW the Protected Right. Which, taking the hint given in Heller, just ain't gonna happen.


9th sitting on them indefinitely is a violation of due process.

And right now, for me, it doesn't matter if we do end up going "shall issue" for anything.

If I need a permit, I won't be able to afford it. I can't afford the current one, even though I live in a state that issues. That's how they'll stop you. Open carry will go shall issue, permit, and cost 500 bucks.


And this is why Wollard (IF properly fought) will be the game-changer. Permits, even if Shall Issue, & even if issued "fairly," are still going to cost more than a lot of people can afford. Which is why permits are anathema to the Constitution. So, a proper Ruling in Woollard would give unlicensed LOC the Constitutional protection it used to have.


The Raisuli

M. D. Van Norman
09-26-2013, 8:22 AM
If properly done, Woollard will make “issuing” not-an-issue.

Though I like where you’re going with this, I still highly doubt that the Supreme Court will strike licensing altogether (at this time anyway). ;)

Kharn
09-26-2013, 9:44 AM
Woollard is simply asking if he must prove good and substantial reason to be issued a permit, he is not asking the permit requirement be voided. That means Scalia won't concur with any opinion to void the requirement to have a permit, can you name a new 5th Justice that would side with the remaining 4?

ddestruel
09-26-2013, 11:51 AM
Our cases in the 9th right now need to get THROUGH the 9th, and most of them are years old.

9th circuit isn't moving them along in an orderly fashion. They couldn't care less about our gun rights.

Im starting to think they are tired of getting slapped around. they'll issue opinions on prop 8 faster than fire arms challenges because though contentious its un charted territory.... with firarms land mines of conflicting popinions from various courts are starting to appear and the 9th seems to lately want to steer clear of wading into those until the air clears..

press1280
09-26-2013, 4:30 PM
There are still active cases in the Ninth Circuit. With Kachalsky dead, for example, how would a favorable ruling in Woollard be incorporated in the Second Circuit? Or would New York just roll over and start issuing? :p

I think the judges(who issue the permits in NY and NJ) would have to roll over. NY, MD, and NJ have made no bones that their "good and substantial", "justifiable need", and "good cause" requirements are all the same. It would defy reality that somehow after a Woollard win at SCOTUS that all of a sudden, they're not the same. They'll all sink or swim together.
What the states do afterward, like add all sorts of other requirements, is another matter.

stix213
09-26-2013, 4:49 PM
There are still active cases in the Ninth Circuit. With Kachalsky dead, for example, how would a favorable ruling in Woollard be incorporated in the Second Circuit? Or would New York just roll over and start issuing? :p

I'd expect a new case would have to be filed with expectation that the district court would follow the guidelines set out in a Woollard SCOTUS ruling.

Sakiri
09-27-2013, 1:32 AM
All I know is that I'd like to be able to carry without breaking my budget and before I'm 40.

I have a HELL of a lot of more pressing things to purchase with the ~400 bucks that comes with getting a permit in Humboldt county.

You know, things like buying food, paying bills, putting overpriced gas in the truck so we can get places, paying for the vet.

I'm lucky to have 20 bucks at the end of the month these days and they expect me to pay that much?

That's how they deter you. Making it cost so damned much that the people that quite possibly need it the most(living in the cheaper but sh*ttier neighborhoods) can't afford to.

Great idea. Keeps guns out of filthy Joe Citizen's hands though.

Mulay El Raisuli
09-27-2013, 6:54 AM
Though I like where you’re going with this, I still highly doubt that the Supreme Court will strike licensing altogether (at this time anyway). ;)


A distinct possibility. However, if (a BIG if) SCOTUS treats the 2A the same as every other part of the Constitution, then requiring a permit cannot be sanctioned by the Court. Just as permits cannot be required to exercise any other Right guaranteed by the Constitution.

But, yes, I know I'm hoping for a lot. :)


Woollard is simply asking if he must prove good and substantial reason to be issued a permit, he is not asking the permit requirement be voided. That means Scalia won't concur with any opinion to void the requirement to have a permit, can you name a new 5th Justice that would side with the remaining 4?


No, he's saying that he cannot be forced to provide a "good & substantial" to be issued a permit. Which would necessarily void the permit process itself. Scalia isn't likely to have a problem treating the 2A the same as the rest of the Constitution.


The Raisuli

Kharn
09-27-2013, 7:24 AM
No, he's saying that he cannot be forced to provide a "good & substantial" to be issued a permit. Which would necessarily void the permit process itself. Scalia isn't likely to have a problem treating the 2A the same as the rest of the Constitution.


The RaisuliYou are incorrect. Voiding G&S would convert MD from may-issue to shall-issue, not Constitutional carry. The prayer for relief does not call for the permit itself to be eliminated.

M. D. Van Norman
09-27-2013, 8:15 AM
But if the high court can declare the Affordable [sic] Care Act’s individual mandate constitutional as a tax, then it can certainly declare the licensing of an enumerated right unconstitutional.

I just doubt that the Supreme Court will do so.

Kharn
09-27-2013, 11:01 AM
But if the high court can declare the Affordable [sic] Care Act’s individual mandate constitutional as a tax, then it can certainly declare the licensing of an enumerated right unconstitutional.

I just doubt that the Supreme court will do so.Scalia will only strike a law if the prevailing party asked for its demise. It has screwed previous parties (on non-gun cases) when he's written opinions saying he would've voted that way if they'd asked him to, giving them a limited, instead of total, victory. That's why you will see some cases explicitly say they want a law overturned if that is an associated goal, but that is not Woollard's goal here.

hardlyworking
09-27-2013, 2:02 PM
Scalia will only strike a law if the prevailing party asked for its demise. It has screwed previous parties (on non-gun cases) when he's written opinions saying he would've voted that way if they'd asked him to, giving them a limited, instead of total, victory. That's why you will see some cases explicitly say they want a law overturned if that is an associated goal, but that is not Woollard's goal here.

You think this may be intentional "baby steps" so Gura et. al. can keep the ball rolling? Keep licensing alive to get liberal buy-in, and then come back later to hammer it down altogether?

Sakiri
09-28-2013, 12:23 AM
And this is why Wollard (IF properly fought) will be the game-changer. Permits, even if Shall Issue, & even if issued "fairly," are still going to cost more than a lot of people can afford. Which is why permits are anathema to the Constitution. So, a proper Ruling in Woollard would give unlicensed LOC the Constitutional protection it used to have.


The Raisuli

Problem is, even if they say that LOC is the protected right, they'll argue that "reasonable restriction" requires it to be done via permit. If there's a permit required that costs more than the background check, it's out of the reach of most of this state.

I'm on disability. I'm lucky to have 20 bucks to my name at the end of the month, and people want me to put out several hundred to exercise a fricking RIGHT?

Kharn
09-28-2013, 5:30 AM
You think this may be intentional "baby steps" so Gura et. al. can keep the ball rolling? Keep licensing alive to get liberal buy-in, and then come back later to hammer it down altogether?

Yes, Gura is a strong believer in baby steps.

Mulay El Raisuli
09-28-2013, 7:10 AM
You are incorrect. Voiding G&S would convert MD from may-issue to shall-issue, not Constitutional carry. The prayer for relief does not call for the permit itself to be eliminated.


That presumes that CCW is the focus of our effort. That may be how things shake out. But that would be a mistake.

If however we focus on restoring LOC as the Right (which is what my comments are based on), then striking G&S would strike the permit process itself.


Problem is, even if they say that LOC is the protected right, they'll argue that "reasonable restriction" requires it to be done via permit. If there's a permit required that costs more than the background check, it's out of the reach of most of this state.

I'm on disability. I'm lucky to have 20 bucks to my name at the end of the month, and people want me to put out several hundred to exercise a fricking RIGHT?


There's not a doubt in my mind that this exactly what they'll try to do. But, I don't see this happening. Could the Times be forced to obtain a permit before bring us "All the news that fits to print"? Do churches or preachers need permits? Permits are OK when it comes to CCW, because CCW is NOT the Protected Right. But LOC is & that makes it a whole different ballgame.


Yes, Gura is a strong believer in baby steps.


One problem here is that The Left doesn't want us carrying at all. Not even with permits.

Which leads to the other problem: Negotiating with tyrants is a waste of time. Tyrants NEVER give up power voluntarily, & the 2A is all about power. The only winning hand is to FORCE a method of "and bear" upon them that they cannot have any say over.


The Raisuli

Sakiri
09-28-2013, 12:46 PM
There's not a doubt in my mind that this exactly what they'll try to do. But, I don't see this happening. Could the Times be forced to obtain a permit before bring us "All the news that fits to print"? Do churches or preachers need permits? Permits are OK when it comes to CCW, because CCW is NOT the Protected Right. But LOC is & that makes it a whole different ballgame.



If DiFi had her way, yes, they would(the Times). She's the kook that wants only salaried journalists to have 1st Amendment protections.

Churches also need to fit certain requirements for tax exempt status, which gives a legal definition to "church". It's asinine.

There are some states you can LOC without issues now, but there are others that require permits.

For example, PA doesn't require a permit for open carry unless you're in "a city of the first class", of which there is only one(Philadelphia). You do not need to be a resident.

Other states require permits for open carry. Last I checked, AZ residents and concealed carry permit holders do not need a permit for open carry, but non residents without CCW cannot open carry there. Maybe they've changed it since then.

CA might not be *as* bad in the CCW department if it was uniform across the state and not as bloody expensive. Letting each IA determine what they require before issuing was stupid. "May issue" without a statewide requirement that they all follow the same exact criteria was stupid.

I'd prefer concealed. I've made enemies. Not that I care about that, but I'd rather not end up making myself more of a target. Especially from people that hate guns. Got a few friends that hate them... One I turned to an indifferent, another turned to a pro gun, the rest still can't stand the thought of them, despite one having a gf that grew up around them.

I *could* get one here. I'm in a county that issues. Problem is, they're too expensive. Getting one here is almost as much as I paid for my gun in the first place.. and it took the better part of a year to get the cash together for it.

I can guarantee you one or more of the following will happen if LOC is the protected right:

Shall issue open carry permits
"No guns" signs being legally required to be abided by, making it essentially pointless to carry because you won't be able to carry ANYWHERE but on the public streets
The open carry permits will be prohibitively expensive

They'll get away with permits, because permitting for carry(open and concealed) already exists. You *can* get open carry permits good in the county if your county fits certain requirements. Many states have open carry permits.

SCOTUS would need to mandate that the signs do not hold weight and that they cannot ask you to leave unless you're actually disturbing people; ie: carrying the gun is not a valid cause for asking someone to leave the premises, otherwise open carrying would have no point in states like California. This is where concealed carry is more convenient, because currently, signs hold no weight in law, and they shouldn't even see your gun. They don't know it's there, making it easier for you.

Since there will be permits, since existing laws already exist, and permits have been deemed lawful in the past, they'll give them to you... if you can afford them. This essentially means that most people living in the ghetto side of town likely won't be able to afford them, the elderly on fixed incomes and the disabled won't be able to afford them.... then again, the UN wants to disarm anyone over 55 anyways.

It's just stupid. All of it. I fully believe in Darwinism. If you're stupid with a gun, or a damned criminal, getting taken out of the gene pool improves it greatly. Yes, accidents are tragic, but humans learn from experience. If that kid you know shoots himself, you're not going to want to do what he did.

/rant

Kharn
09-28-2013, 4:27 PM
That presumes that CCW is the focus of our effort. That may be how things shake out. But that would be a mistake.

If however we focus on restoring LOC as the Right (which is what my comments are based on), then striking G&S would strike the permit process itself.It doesn't matter what you think should be the right, or what you think the 2A community should focus on achieving at the moment. The plaintiff in Woollard is seeking invalidation of the requirement he provide a G&S reason to be issued a permit, and that is what the Supreme Court will consider.

Mulay El Raisuli
09-29-2013, 7:06 PM
If DiFi had her way, yes, they would(the Times). She's the kook that wants only salaried journalists to have 1st Amendment protections.

Churches also need to fit certain requirements for tax exempt status, which gives a legal definition to "church". It's asinine.

There are some states you can LOC without issues now, but there are others that require permits.

For example, PA doesn't require a permit for open carry unless you're in "a city of the first class", of which there is only one(Philadelphia). You do not need to be a resident.

Other states require permits for open carry. Last I checked, AZ residents and concealed carry permit holders do not need a permit for open carry, but non residents without CCW cannot open carry there. Maybe they've changed it since then.

CA might not be *as* bad in the CCW department if it was uniform across the state and not as bloody expensive. Letting each IA determine what they require before issuing was stupid. "May issue" without a statewide requirement that they all follow the same exact criteria was stupid.

I'd prefer concealed. I've made enemies. Not that I care about that, but I'd rather not end up making myself more of a target. Especially from people that hate guns. Got a few friends that hate them... One I turned to an indifferent, another turned to a pro gun, the rest still can't stand the thought of them, despite one having a gf that grew up around them.

I *could* get one here. I'm in a county that issues. Problem is, they're too expensive. Getting one here is almost as much as I paid for my gun in the first place.. and it took the better part of a year to get the cash together for it.

I can guarantee you one or more of the following will happen if LOC is the protected right:

Shall issue open carry permits
"No guns" signs being legally required to be abided by, making it essentially pointless to carry because you won't be able to carry ANYWHERE but on the public streets
The open carry permits will be prohibitively expensive

They'll get away with permits, because permitting for carry(open and concealed) already exists. You *can* get open carry permits good in the county if your county fits certain requirements. Many states have open carry permits.

SCOTUS would need to mandate that the signs do not hold weight and that they cannot ask you to leave unless you're actually disturbing people; ie: carrying the gun is not a valid cause for asking someone to leave the premises, otherwise open carrying would have no point in states like California. This is where concealed carry is more convenient, because currently, signs hold no weight in law, and they shouldn't even see your gun. They don't know it's there, making it easier for you.

Since there will be permits, since existing laws already exist, and permits have been deemed lawful in the past, they'll give them to you... if you can afford them. This essentially means that most people living in the ghetto side of town likely won't be able to afford them, the elderly on fixed incomes and the disabled won't be able to afford them.... then again, the UN wants to disarm anyone over 55 anyways.

It's just stupid. All of it. I fully believe in Darwinism. If you're stupid with a gun, or a damned criminal, getting taken out of the gene pool improves it greatly. Yes, accidents are tragic, but humans learn from experience. If that kid you know shoots himself, you're not going to want to do what he did.

/rant


But DiFi hasn't succeeded yet, nor is she likely to. Permits to exercise Constitutional Rights are anathema to the Constitution. You say this has been the case in the past, but I know of no instances. Could you share where this has been true?

And what is preferred doesn't matter. CCW isn't going to be the Right in any flavor. Which is not a bad thing. The worry of yours that is real then is the one that businesses will put up signs. But, real as that fear is, it won't be as bad as you fear, in that it won't be every business.


It doesn't matter what you think should be the right, or what you think the 2A community should focus on achieving at the moment. The plaintiff in Woollard is seeking invalidation of the requirement he provide a G&S reason to be issued a permit, and that is what the Supreme Court will consider.


Really? They're pushing for Shall Issue concealed permits as the Constitutional Right? I didn't see that anywhere in the Filings. Could you share where you see this?

And of course, what I think matters a great deal when it comes to your ability to follow along with what I'm talking about, doesn't it?


The Raisuli

Sakiri
09-29-2013, 10:39 PM
Raisuli, you're entirely too optimistic. I have a more realistic vision of how bad we're going to be hosed.

As far as the church thing, in order to qualify as a religion, and thus receive tax exempt status, you need to fit certain criteria. There is actually a legal definition of "religion". If that's what you're confused about.

"To define churches and other religious entities, some of the IRS guidelines consider whether or not an institution has:

a distinct legal existence and religious history,
a recognized creed and form of worship,
established places of worship
a regular congregation and regular religious services, and
an organization of ordained ministers

Most mainstream religions such as Catholicism, Judaism, and common Protestant sects fit easily within the IRS guidelines. However, churches that are less traditional sometimes face difficulty in meeting the federal government's definition."

And that's not all inclusive. But it's irrelevant. If you're referring to permits to carry being deemed lawful, I'll need a bit more time when I'm not dog tired to dig for those again, because I was *just* looking into them. It stemmed from a bunch of searches when I was looking through the papers associated with Woollard, if that's anything to start with.

While you might think that signs won't be an issue, I do not inconvenience myself often because of things like signs. I live in Arcata(obvious if you look at my join date and location). As it is, starting in like Feb I have to do most of my shopping outside town because the city board just approved a plastic bag ban that I refuse to abide by out of principle(have you ever tried to haul a month's worth of groceries in paper bags? And reusable ones are just gross). Cutting out every single store that has a "no firearms" sign on them prevents me from going just about everywhere. Chain stores have "no firearms" signs on them as part of corporate policy(for example, Safeway - the sign was a pain in the rear to find no less) because it's easier to do a blanket than it is to specify locally. Most of the stores that "allow" concealed carry very much likely would NOT allow open carry because they're afraid of losing customers.

As I said, there would have to be a stipulation on the law that prevents open to the public businesses from making asinine no firearms restrictions.

The only places that I've seen that can get away with limiting Constitutional rights are "clubs" so to speak. You pay a fee to use their services, venue. Think cover charge at a bar, or a subscription fee to play a video game(yes, it applies here. It's hilarious. I have a few stories about that, most involving MMO players whining about "free speech" being infringed when posting on the forums belonging to the game company is a privilege, not a right, and they can censor you all they want), or pay dues to join a gentleman's club.

But a grocery store? No, they shouldn't be able to restrict open carry any more than they can restrict non disturbing free speech. Public parks without day use fees? Public beaches? Coffee shops? Diners? Unless you're paying to enter, there should be no legal right to boot people simply because there's a gun on them and some panty waist is all bunched up.

Kharn
09-30-2013, 2:57 AM
Really? They're pushing for Shall Issue concealed permits as the Constitutional Right? I didn't see that anywhere in the Filings. Could you share where you see this?

And of course, what I think matters a great deal when it comes to your ability to follow along with what I'm talking about, doesn't it?


The RaisuliA victory in Woollard would make shall-issue permits the minimum accepted level of carry in each state that chooses to issue permits. If some states want unlicensed OC or CC, that's their choice, but the may-issue states would have to stop denying people for lack of good cause.

Just like Heller pushed for a license to have a gun in his home, Woollard is doing the same thing here for rights outside the home. Future cases can dispute the cost of the license, and if the license is even justified.

LoneYote
09-30-2013, 12:45 PM
Future cases can dispute the cost of the license, and if the license is even justified.

This is the source of so much of our frustration. The courts stall cases into eternity. Trying to move onto "and bear" when we don't even have "keep" locked down(probably 5 or 6 more cases required....) I'm sure by the time the sun explodes in a few hundred million years we may have most of this locked up...

RobertMW
09-30-2013, 2:09 PM
This is the source of so much of our frustration. The courts stall cases into eternity. Trying to move onto "and bear" when we don't even have "keep" locked down(probably 5 or 6 more cases required....) I'm sure by the time the sun explodes in a few hundred million years we may have most of this locked up...

I think what Kharn meant by "If the license is even justified", was "Should concealed carry be constitutional, rather than needing a license to do so, even if it is 'Shall Issue'."

If we have a shall issue right to carry nationwide, I think we are past the point of "Keeping" since you must have a firearm in order to CCW/Bear it.

I think that what would be more important at that point would be on restrictions on what could be "kept and beared" like we have to deal with currently in Cali.

Mulay El Raisuli
09-30-2013, 2:38 PM
Raisuli, you're entirely too optimistic. I have a more realistic vision of how bad we're going to be hosed.

As far as the church thing, in order to qualify as a religion, and thus receive tax exempt status, you need to fit certain criteria. There is actually a legal definition of "religion". If that's what you're confused about.

"To define churches and other religious entities, some of the IRS guidelines consider whether or not an institution has:

a distinct legal existence and religious history,
a recognized creed and form of worship,
established places of worship
a regular congregation and regular religious services, and
an organization of ordained ministers

Most mainstream religions such as Catholicism, Judaism, and common Protestant sects fit easily within the IRS guidelines. However, churches that are less traditional sometimes face difficulty in meeting the federal government's definition."


Ah, but that's not a permit to be a church. That's the IRS deciding if a church is allowed a tax exemption. I can establish a church w/o a permit from anybody. Stand on a soapbox on a corner & preach to my heart's content, if that's all I want. The govt cannot stop me or have any say into what I preach about. Whether I pay taxes on whatever income comes my way is entirely separate issue.


And that's not all inclusive. But it's irrelevant. If you're referring to permits to carry being deemed lawful, I'll need a bit more time when I'm not dog tired to dig for those again, because I was *just* looking into them. It stemmed from a bunch of searches when I was looking through the papers associated with Woollard, if that's anything to start with.

Not a problem. I can wait.


While you might think that signs won't be an issue, I do not inconvenience myself often because of things like signs. I live in Arcata(obvious if you look at my join date and location). As it is, starting in like Feb I have to do most of my shopping outside town because the city board just approved a plastic bag ban that I refuse to abide by out of principle(have you ever tried to haul a month's worth of groceries in paper bags? And reusable ones are just gross). Cutting out every single store that has a "no firearms" sign on them prevents me from going just about everywhere. Chain stores have "no firearms" signs on them as part of corporate policy(for example, Safeway - the sign was a pain in the rear to find no less) because it's easier to do a blanket than it is to specify locally. Most of the stores that "allow" concealed carry very much likely would NOT allow open carry because they're afraid of losing customers.

As I said, there would have to be a stipulation on the law that prevents open to the public businesses from making asinine no firearms restrictions.


That should be the ideal we fight for. They can't keep out a political slogan on my shirt. I don't see why they should be allowed to keep heat off my hip.


The only places that I've seen that can get away with limiting Constitutional rights are "clubs" so to speak. You pay a fee to use their services, venue. Think cover charge at a bar, or a subscription fee to play a video game(yes, it applies here. It's hilarious. I have a few stories about that, most involving MMO players whining about "free speech" being infringed when posting on the forums belonging to the game company is a privilege, not a right, and they can censor you all they want), or pay dues to join a gentleman's club.

But a grocery store? No, they shouldn't be able to restrict open carry any more than they can restrict non disturbing free speech. Public parks without day use fees? Public beaches? Coffee shops? Diners? Unless you're paying to enter, there should be no legal right to boot people simply because there's a gun on them and some panty waist is all bunched up.


Yes, I'll have to disarm for Costco. But, do you really think that things will stay this way forever? Don't you think it likely that things will change once the Right is restored?


A victory in Woollard would make shall-issue permits the minimum accepted level of carry in each state that chooses to issue permits. If some states want unlicensed OC or CC, that's their choice, but the may-issue states would have to stop denying people for lack of good cause.

Just like Heller pushed for a license to have a gun in his home, Woollard is doing the same thing here for rights outside the home. Future cases can dispute the cost of the license, and if the license is even justified.


The problem is that pushing for Shall Issue CCW in Woollard would be a mistake. The effort would be as wasted as it was in Kalchalsky & Peterson.

But, taking the hint from the 10th Circuit in Peterson, a push for unlicensed LOC has an excellent chance of success.


The Raisuli

Kharn
09-30-2013, 3:23 PM
The problem is that pushing for Shall Issue CCW in Woollard would be a mistake. The effort would be as wasted as it was in Kalchalsky & Peterson.

But, taking the hint from the 10th Circuit in Peterson, a push for unlicensed LOC has an excellent chance of success.


The RaisuliWas pushing for licensed possession in the home in Heller and McDonald "a mistake" as well? What goals would you have preferred those cases pursue instead?

Apocalypsenerd
09-30-2013, 10:34 PM
Well, my skepticism aside, I hope Raisuli is right. LOC will be culture changing phenomenon.

Sakiri
10-01-2013, 12:03 AM
Ah, but that's not a permit to be a church. That's the IRS deciding if a church is allowed a tax exemption. I can establish a church w/o a permit from anybody. Stand on a soapbox on a corner & preach to my heart's content, if that's all I want. The govt cannot stop me or have any say into what I preach about. Whether I pay taxes on whatever income comes my way is entirely separate issue.




Not a problem. I can wait.





That should be the ideal we fight for. They can't keep out a political slogan on my shirt. I don't see why they should be allowed to keep heat off my hip.





Yes, I'll have to disarm for Costco. But, do you really think that things will stay this way forever? Don't you think it likely that things will change once the Right is restored?





The problem is that pushing for Shall Issue CCW in Woollard would be a mistake. The effort would be as wasted as it was in Kalchalsky & Peterson.

But, taking the hint from the 10th Circuit in Peterson, a push for unlicensed LOC has an excellent chance of success.


The Raisuli

You see, I'm a wee bit on the selfish side.

As I've mentioned before, I'm in my early 30s. I'd like to be able to carry daily, for a few decades, before I die. My family's all dead before 70.

I also don't have kids. I don't care to wait and preserve the right for my kids. Won't affect them, because I don't have them. I couldn't care less if folks' kids and grandkids eventually get the right to carry because of our work to get to that point. I care about me, myself, and I being able to carry.

And no, I don't believe that'll change once the right will be restored(the Costco thing, despite me seeing people open carry in Costco outside the People's Democratic Republic of Kommifornistan). This state will throw it's hands in the air and flail and scream and everything else, because SCOTUS isn't going to say something and immediately nullify any laws on the books. They'll pull an Illinois.

And what I mean by that, IL still doesn't have a working carry provision. Not enough instructors, nor an approved course, for the hundreds of thousands of people that are trying to apply.

I'll get to finding that stuff for you again. Need to find the Woollard stuff again.

Sakiri
10-01-2013, 12:20 AM
@Raisuli

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/165/275/case.html

Dicta from this case(involved maritime law) stated that laws restricting the concealed carry of a pistol did not violate the Second Amendment of the United States. This was a Supreme Court ruling in 1897.

The laws in question prohibited concealed carry. A law restricting the right via requiring a permit could also arguably fall into this realm.

Open carrying has never been brought to SCOTUS. Concealed has.

kf6tac
10-01-2013, 8:43 AM
First order from the long conference issued today; SCOTUSblog summary:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/10/court-grants-eight-cases/#more-169874

It's not entirely clear, but it seems that this list is the list of cert grants that are coming out of the long conference, and the Court will issue an additional order next Monday relating to everything else that isn't a grant. No carry case among the eight cases that were granted cert today.

Kukuforguns
10-01-2013, 10:44 AM
The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider whether to grant cert. in Woollard v. Gallagher on October 11.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-42.htm
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/petitions-were-watching/
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/woollard-v-gallagher-
2/

kf6tac
10-01-2013, 12:27 PM
The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider whether to grant cert. in Woollard v. Gallagher on October 11.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-42.htm
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/petitions-were-watching/
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/woollard-v-gallagher-
2/

Good to know, thanks. The waiting continues...

readysetgo
10-01-2013, 12:37 PM
I care about me, myself, and I being able to carry.


:ban: :cuss: :banghead:

M. D. Van Norman
10-01-2013, 1:21 PM
As Sakiri illustrates, patience has its limits.

readysetgo
10-01-2013, 2:24 PM
As Sakiri illustrates, patience has its limits.

I'm going to disagree. Patience is an emotion/feeling. You feel impatient... then you tell yourself to STFU and stay the course until the job is done or the goal is attained. Also, lack of patience is mostly an excuse for self indulgence e.g. "I couldn't wait any longer so I just..."

Mulay El Raisuli
10-01-2013, 3:43 PM
Was pushing for licensed possession in the home in Heller and McDonald "a mistake" as well? What goals would you have preferred those cases pursue instead?


Yes, it was a mistake. What should have been pushed was the fullest, freeist expression of the Right that is possible: UNLICENSED possession in the home. Instead, we made a mistake (see, in bold below).


Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.


This isn't a criticism of Gura though. There wasn't any real precedent before Heller. But now there is precedent: Heller itself. Which tells us that any/all effort to make concealed carry the Right is going to fail.

However, being a case of first impression, mistakes can like this can be fixed: The Court goes on to say that licensing is not addressed. Which means that this isn't the last word on licensing in the home. Or even in DC.


You see, I'm a wee bit on the selfish side.

As I've mentioned before, I'm in my early 30s. I'd like to be able to carry daily, for a few decades, before I die. My family's all dead before 70.

I also don't have kids. I don't care to wait and preserve the right for my kids. Won't affect them, because I don't have them. I couldn't care less if folks' kids and grandkids eventually get the right to carry because of our work to get to that point. I care about me, myself, and I being able to carry.

And no, I don't believe that'll change once the right will be restored(the Costco thing, despite me seeing people open carry in Costco outside the People's Democratic Republic of Kommifornistan). This state will throw it's hands in the air and flail and scream and everything else, because SCOTUS isn't going to say something and immediately nullify any laws on the books. They'll pull an Illinois.

And what I mean by that, IL still doesn't have a working carry provision. Not enough instructors, nor an approved course, for the hundreds of thousands of people that are trying to apply.

I'll get to finding that stuff for you again. Need to find the Woollard stuff again.


Well, I'm not that selfish. I want the Right for those that follow as well as for myself. The practical effect of this is that making the Right thoroughly protected for the future, makes it all the stronger NOW as well.

And you comment about Costco only makes my argument stronger. If Costco doesn't have a problem with carry (outside of the PRK) now, then I'm pretty sure they'll be OK with carry everywhere once the 2A is restored. Along with other stores. Because....


Well, my skepticism aside, I hope Raisuli is right. LOC will be culture changing phenomenon.


Having LOC as the Protected Right IS going to change the culture. For the better.

Which is (just one more reason) why we have to stop wasting time on worthless efforts like trying to make CCW the Right. This culture NEEDS changing, & the freedom from fear that the 2A provides will go a long to doing just that. See, also:

http://www.catb.org/esr/guns/gun-ethics.html


@Raisuli

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/165/275/case.html

Dicta from this case(involved maritime law) stated that laws restricting the concealed carry of a pistol did not violate the Second Amendment of the United States. This was a Supreme Court ruling in 1897.

The laws in question prohibited concealed carry. A law restricting the right via requiring a permit could also arguably fall into this realm.

Open carrying has never been brought to SCOTUS. Concealed has.


Well, this is pre-Heller, but I agree is still valuable. Especially when combined with what SCOTUS said in Heller itself.


The Raisuli

Apocalypsenerd
10-01-2013, 11:09 PM
So if Castleman is granted, and it looks like it has, is that a good vehicle to discuss scrutiny?

Sakiri
10-02-2013, 12:18 AM
:ban: :cuss: :banghead:

Why?

Because I'd rather have it done while I'm still alive?

You must be dense.

Sakiri
10-02-2013, 12:20 AM
I'm going to disagree. Patience is an emotion/feeling. You feel impatient... then you tell yourself to STFU and stay the course until the job is done or the goal is attained. Also, lack of patience is mostly an excuse for self indulgence e.g. "I couldn't wait any longer so I just..."

Which have limits.

When I hit mine, I'm moving to a free state again.

I came here from Washington. I was born in PA. This state's gun laws are asinine. I'm trying to work to change it, but seriously, I want to personally benefit from it.

And if it doesn't get moving soon, I'm leaving, and dealing with it from there.

Already looking at Oregon, only because my other half refuses to move too far from family. Even if I *can* get an entire farm for the cost of his dad's house back east...

Sakiri
10-02-2013, 12:29 AM
Yes, it was a mistake. What should have been pushed was the fullest, freeist expression of the Right that is possible: UNLICENSED possession in the home. Instead, we made a mistake (see, in bold below).


This isn't a criticism of Gura though. There wasn't any real precedent before Heller. But now there is precedent: Heller itself. Which tells us that any/all effort to make concealed carry the Right is going to fail.

However, being a case of first impression, mistakes can like this can be fixed: The Court goes on to say that licensing is not addressed. Which means that this isn't the last word on licensing in the home. Or even in DC.



Well, I'm not that selfish. I want the Right for those that follow as well as for myself. The practical effect of this is that making the Right thoroughly protected for the future, makes it all the stronger NOW as well.

And you comment about Costco only makes my argument stronger. If Costco doesn't have a problem with carry (outside of the PRK) now, then I'm pretty sure they'll be OK with carry everywhere once the 2A is restored. Along with other stores. Because....


Having LOC as the Protected Right IS going to change the culture. For the better.

Which is (just one more reason) why we have to stop wasting time on worthless efforts like trying to make CCW the Right. This culture NEEDS changing, & the freedom from fear that the 2A provides will go a long to doing just that. See, also:

http://www.catb.org/esr/guns/gun-ethics.html



Well, this is pre-Heller, but I agree is still valuable. Especially when combined with what SCOTUS said in Heller itself.


The Raisuli

When I say "selfish", I'm more referring to wanting it done NOW rather than later. I personally don't care if it gets done later. Doesn't affect me when I'm dead. I want it done *now* when it *does* affect me.

Doesn't mean we can't lay the ground work for later. And honestly, there is no good reason this whole thing should take 100 years. The right was taken from us in less time than that.

And I still think you're wrong on the Costco thing.

Then again, as I've mentioned, I live in Arcata(see: location tag). This is a college town. Home of Humboldt State. Home of loads of potheads, yuppies and smelly hippies. Between this and Eureka, we're a Mecca for the homeless and voluntary transients. Free food, free showers, free clothes. They're putting a public toilet in Arcata Plaza apparently. Sheltered people, paranoid people and indoctrinated liberal college students. The only actual chain store we have here that isn't a gas station(Arcata itself) is Safeway, and that happened because it's been here for over 60 years. We have a city ordinance that forbids large chains because it crowds out mom and pop shops.... so we have even more sensitive twits.

Culture isn't going to change. Unless they flat out rule that you can NOT have a 'no guns' policy, then there will be one anywhere they can get away with it. Especially in this miserable place. :/

Oh, and apparently Eureka PD just got an MRAP. Great. I forsee them using it as a riot tank....

/sigh

press1280
10-02-2013, 2:31 AM
Castleman isn't a 2A case

M. D. Van Norman
10-02-2013, 10:37 AM
I’m not that selfish. I want the Right for those that follow as well as for myself.…

If we lose, I could console myself with defiance and simply carry “illegally,” but I’m not so selfish that I would subject my child to that decision. That said, I need a victory now … or else I have to remove her from this toxic environment before it’s too late.

If Woollard is declined, I have to proceed under the assumption that we will see no judicial victory for the right to carry.

Mulay El Raisuli
10-03-2013, 8:39 AM
When I say "selfish", I'm more referring to wanting it done NOW rather than later. I personally don't care if it gets done later. Doesn't affect me when I'm dead. I want it done *now* when it *does* affect me.

Doesn't mean we can't lay the ground work for later. And honestly, there is no good reason this whole thing should take 100 years. The right was taken from us in less time than that.

And I still think you're wrong on the Costco thing.

Then again, as I've mentioned, I live in Arcata(see: location tag). This is a college town. Home of Humboldt State. Home of loads of potheads, yuppies and smelly hippies. Between this and Eureka, we're a Mecca for the homeless and voluntary transients. Free food, free showers, free clothes. They're putting a public toilet in Arcata Plaza apparently. Sheltered people, paranoid people and indoctrinated liberal college students. The only actual chain store we have here that isn't a gas station(Arcata itself) is Safeway, and that happened because it's been here for over 60 years. We have a city ordinance that forbids large chains because it crowds out mom and pop shops.... so we have even more sensitive twits.

Culture isn't going to change. Unless they flat out rule that you can NOT have a 'no guns' policy, then there will be one anywhere they can get away with it. Especially in this miserable place. :/

Oh, and apparently Eureka PD just got an MRAP. Great. I forsee them using it as a riot tank....

/sigh


I understand, brother. Times are tough in the PRK, & even tougher where you are. I think I would go mad if I lived where you do.

Still, I also think that being surrounded by madness on a constant basis has given you a severe case of BGOS. Costco has no problem with carrying outside the PRK now. When (not if) the Right is restored, carry will be a fact of life here. Even in Arcata, because being a chain, the decision will be made by people who do not live in Arcata.

As for "now" vs "then," I want now even more than you do. I'm a lot older than you & wanting the Right restored before I die is even more urgent. What I'm getting at is that making the Right STRONG now, will also make it STRONG for our progeny. One accomplishes the other. Which means that we shouldn't allow 'we can yield on subject "A" now because it only affects the future' kind of thinking to seep into our strategy. We have to keep all 'subjects' strong.


If we lose, I could console myself with defiance and simply carry “illegally,” but I’m not so selfish that I would subject my child to that decision. That said, I need a victory now … or else I have to remove her from this toxic environment before it’s too late.

If Woollard is declined, I have to proceed under the assumption that we will see no judicial victory for the right to carry.


I would agree. Still, there's always ConCon II.


The Raisuli

M. D. Van Norman
10-03-2013, 12:28 PM
And to help make such a thing happen would mean taking my vote to someplace it could matter.

Sunday
10-03-2013, 1:51 PM
The fight will always be on because what needs to be done isn't. How many gun owners Voted for Obama and the lot ?

pastureofmuppets
10-04-2013, 4:07 AM
Dunno, I think they are waiting for a California case because California is giving them the middle finger.

Man, I hope you're right. Getting things to how they should be is the aim.

Seeing willfully ignorant politicians like Feinstein et al getting smacked down would be pure gravy.

Thanks everyone for clarity, I'm having trouble keeping on top of what's going on, let alone wrapping my head around how it all is working and what it all means.

Big Ben
10-14-2013, 4:17 PM
We're looking for results on this one way or the other tomorrow, correct?

CCWFacts
10-14-2013, 9:23 PM
We're looking for results on this one way or the other tomorrow, correct?

Yeah. This thread will get a lot of clicks. I personally have a bad feeling. I feel like CCW is something SCOTUS just doesn't want to touch. I could be wrong - there is a circuit split, which generally does give a very strong chance of cert. I'm just not feeling that confident feeling.

M. D. Van Norman
10-14-2013, 10:04 PM
It is the inflection point.

safewaysecurity
10-14-2013, 10:06 PM
We've got the Lane case and the Woolard case. Cross your fingers for both to be granted cert so we can get the ball rolling.

Paladin
10-15-2013, 6:45 AM
In case anyone missed it in the other thread, Cert was DENIED in the Woollard case....

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

Kharn
10-15-2013, 7:45 AM
Abramski v US was granted today, a case regarding a "straw purchase" when the defendent used an FFL to sell a firearm to his father.

Lane was not resolved in today's orders. That means it could be reconsidered at a future conference, held for resolution under Abramski, or a GVR (Grant, Vacate, Remand, basically amounts to "You missed something big, here is the right way to do it") later this week.