PDA

View Full Version : Central district magistrate denies sbso mtd


flyonwall
09-30-2013, 3:51 PM
Interesting discussion about impact of open carry ban.
Also assumes that some right exists outside the home.

teg33
09-30-2013, 3:53 PM
Link is not work

flyonwall
09-30-2013, 4:05 PM
Will try mobile one more time or upload tonight. I just have an email link that requires pacer:
https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/doc1/031017617639?caseid=559410&de_seq_num=61&magic_num=15514506&pdf_toggle_possible=1

flyonwall
09-30-2013, 4:47 PM
Here you go. I like that the opinion acknowledges the open carry interplay andIi think it clearly states there is a right that must be recognized outside the home, so overall it is a win and it neutralizes peterson and a lot of the other California authority to the contrary.

stix213
09-30-2013, 5:16 PM
Since this is a Birdt case, I'm not sure if this is a good thing or not...

stix213
09-30-2013, 5:28 PM
Interesting that the penal codes cited are all the old codes prior to the renumbering, and I like how the ruling seems to pretty well crush the idea that the SCOTUS said that all concealed weapons bans are constitutional.

ToldYouSo
09-30-2013, 6:01 PM
Here you go. I like that the opinion acknowledges the open carry interplay andIi think it clearly states there is a right that must be recognized outside the home, so overall it is a win and it neutralizes peterson and a lot of the other California authority to the contrary.

I'm not sure a recommendation by a magistrate judge can be claimed to "neutralize" Peterson v. Martinez. A Tenth Circuit appellate court decision is going to weigh more heavily in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the 10th Circuit left no doubt that:

"In light of our nation's extensive practice of restricting citizens' freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment's protections."

The 10th Circuit also said this:

"[A] statute regulating concealed carry may be unconstitutional if it fails the rational basis test regardless of the scope of the Second Amendment."

Moore v. Madigan is a better case to hang your hat on.

ToldYouSo
09-30-2013, 6:07 PM
Interesting that the penal codes cited are all the old codes prior to the renumbering, and I like how the ruling seems to pretty well crush the idea that the SCOTUS said that all concealed weapons bans are constitutional.

The Supreme Court did not say that all concealed weapons bans are constitutional. The court incorporated prohibitions on the carrying of concealed weapons that existed in 1868.

There were many exceptions to these prohibitions on concealed carry. They did not apply to women, they did not apply to travelers. In California common law, the prohibitions did not even apply to persons out after dark or to persons carrying large sums of money, in addition to exempting travelers.

The problem with the powers that be is that they have adopted an all or nothing approach to concealed carry.

fizux
10-01-2013, 1:52 AM
Here you go. I like that the opinion acknowledges the open carry interplay andIi think it clearly states there is a right that must be recognized outside the home, so overall it is a win and it neutralizes peterson and a lot of the other California authority to the contrary.
It also recommends dismissing the complaint (with leave) sua sponte, in spite of an apparently defective 12b(6) motion. Hopefully for JB, he can identify the required elements of SBSO's policy and analyze whether he meets each one in order to draft his FAC.