Calguns.net

Calguns.net (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=330)
-   -   Peruta v. County of San Diego (CCW) [CERT *DENIED* 6/26/17] PART II (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1342074)

Librarian 06-05-2017 11:31 AM

Peruta v. County of San Diego (CCW) [CERT *DENIED* 6/26/17] PART II
 
Continuation of thread http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...php?p=20192707

kuug 06-05-2017 12:35 PM

Is there any explanation why the Peruta docket is deleted?

aBrowningfan 06-05-2017 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kuug (Post 20192989)
Is there any explanation why the Peruta docket is deleted?

Indication that cert was denied?

sfpcservice 06-05-2017 1:30 PM

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....les/16-894.htm

Looks like it's just relisted to the 8th.

surfgeorge 06-05-2017 1:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kuug (Post 20192989)
Is there any explanation why the Peruta docket is deleted?

I had the same issue this morning. It originally showed up as usual, then became a blank page (using Opera with VPN).

I opened Epic (with built in VPN) and the page loaded properly.

Still doesn't work in Opera.

Blackhawk556 06-05-2017 2:01 PM

Any bets on which case will be decided first, roster or peruta?

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

ziegenbock 06-05-2017 7:32 PM

Press....Thanks for the answer in the last thread !!!!

lowimpactuser 06-05-2017 8:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackhawk556 (Post 20193382)
Any bets on which case will be decided first, roster or peruta?

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

Roster because it's facing an uncertain court, whereas Peruta is facing what appears to be an insufficient court to give us freedom.

That's not to say roster WILL be decided, but that Peruta is almost certainly going to be denied now, whereas there's still a chance for the roster, as it hasn't made it that far yet.

Markinsac 06-05-2017 9:37 PM

I was looking for a list of cases distributed for the conference meetings, but was unable to find it.

My guess is that they are working through the cases they have before the in terms of deciding if they are going to take them. We won't really know if they will put it on the calendar this year until a decision is posted, or the end of the term, whichever is first.

press1280 06-06-2017 5:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markinsac (Post 20195487)
I was looking for a list of cases distributed for the conference meetings, but was unable to find it.

My guess is that they are working through the cases they have before the in terms of deciding if they are going to take them. We won't really know if they will put it on the calendar this year until a decision is posted, or the end of the term, whichever is first.

Scotusblog might tell you the high profile cases for the next conference, certainly not all, as most cases are denied cert outright.

thorium 06-06-2017 5:16 AM

Chuck Michel on Facebook, yesterday (6/5):

Today there is STILL no SCOTUS decision on whether to take the Peruta case for review.
Can't say for sure, but the odds are now that the Court will not take the case because there are not enough votes to take it (4) or to win it (5).
The delay at this the point likely indicates that there is a dissent being written by the Justices who DO want to take the case.
Even if this happens, we will keep trying, and have multiple cases already filed and lined up that will make their way to SCOTUS eventually.
We need more Trump Justices on SCOTUS to make the difference and set things right. We hoped for the best, but planned for the worst.
The good news: Trump will appoint them. Hillary would have rigged the deck.

stag6.8 06-06-2017 6:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thorium (Post 20195988)
Chuck Michel on Facebook, yesterday (6/5):

Today there is STILL no SCOTUS decision on whether to take the Peruta case for review.
Can't say for sure, but the odds are now that the Court will not take the case because there are not enough votes to take it (4) or to win it (5).
The delay at this the point likely indicates that there is a dissent being written by the Justices who DO want to take the case.
Even if this happens, we will keep trying, and have multiple cases already filed and lined up that will make their way to SCOTUS eventually.
We need more Trump Justices on SCOTUS to make the difference and set things right. We hoped for the best, but planned for the worst.
The good news: Trump will appoint them. Hillary would have rigged the deck.

But nobody knows until the decision has been made... hes speculating the outcome ...so we wait!

sfpcservice 06-06-2017 8:35 AM

Well I'm thinking My Nichols theory is going to be correct. In the words of Jack Ryan: "How do you make them want to give you concealed carry?" "How do you make them want you to carry concealed instead of openly...!!!" "Admiral, I know how were going to get concealed carry".

If we win an open carry case, it will likely be pretty unrestricted. The CA Legislature will then rush through a very restrictive shall issue system in hopes that people choose that method of carry Vs open carry. In my opinion, we want Nichols, not Norman because Nichols deals with a "de facto" ban based on semantic word games. If SCOTUS takes Norman and we win, CA would just say Norman dealt with an all out ban. Here in CA we don't have an all out ban.

surfgeorge 06-06-2017 8:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thorium (Post 20195988)
Chuck Michel on Facebook, yesterday (6/5):

Today there is STILL no SCOTUS decision on whether to take the Peruta case for review.
Can't say for sure, but the odds are now that the Court will not take the case because there are not enough votes to take it (4) or to win it (5).
The delay at this the point likely indicates that there is a dissent being written by the Justices who DO want to take the case.
Even if this happens, we will keep trying, and have multiple cases already filed and lined up that will make their way to SCOTUS eventually.
We need more Trump Justices on SCOTUS to make the difference and set things right. We hoped for the best, but planned for the worst.
The good news: Trump will appoint them. Hillary would have rigged the deck.

May I take that as verification of the "win by losing" strategy?

And they want people to send them more money so they can continue the streak?

:facepalm:

CandG 06-06-2017 9:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sfpcservice (Post 20196677)
If we win an open carry case, it will likely be pretty unrestricted. The CA Legislature will then rush through a very restrictive shall issue system in hopes that people choose that method of carry Vs open carry.

That's pretty optimistic thinking... CA will be required to loosen gun restrictions, so they'll react by further relaxing even more gun restrictions?

butchy_boy 06-06-2017 9:48 AM

If Norman or Nichols include in their argument loaded open carry, would CA have a hard time only allowing unloaded OC.

CandG 06-06-2017 9:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrrabbit (Post 20196962)
Under the pressure of scrutiny by SCOTUS, IF that happens...

...California politicians of the suit variety and robe variety will ensure the following:

1. May Issue CCW
2. Neutering of an already neutered form of Open Carry know as Unloaded Open Carry.

The progressives, and that iincludes the NRA, SAF, GOA, CRPA, etc...do not want YOU under any circumstances

- Loaded Open Carrying
- Unmolested Unloaded Open Carrying

The progressive "lite" will continue to fight for Shall Issue CCW against an entrenched progressive "hardcore" otherwise know as elitist commies for whom "only the right people" should be able to bear arms.

LEO, Feinstein, DeLeon, Hollywood actors and actresses and Sheriff Laurie Smith's CEO campaign donors.

=8-|

That's pretty much my expectation, as well.

It seems unrealistic to expect that CA will try to discourage one form of legal carry by loosening restrictions on a different (and more useful, for most people) form of legal carry.

press1280 06-06-2017 1:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by butchy_boy (Post 20197044)
If Norman or Nichols include in their argument loaded open carry, would CA have a hard time only allowing unloaded OC.

Pretty sure both of them have that covered. A win will not allow UOC as a satisfactory solution.
I do worry about may issue OC though, hopefully, a strongly worded opinion makes that disappear. We didn't get may issue on keeping arms after Heller, so maybe the same will hold on Norman or Nichols.

bkvonkriegelstein 06-06-2017 7:46 PM

I refuse to believe they won't take the case... mostly because i'm a moron and believe that justice will prevail.

MarCat 06-06-2017 10:24 PM

Since we are officially on to Part II, I will double down with my original prediction

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarCat
...I will take the wildly ill-advised and irrational position that cert is granted. Time to play ball and feel a little of that "tired of winning" for a change.


thorium 06-07-2017 7:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stag6.8 (Post 20196152)
But nobody knows until the decision has been made... hes speculating the outcome ...so we wait!

Yes and 90% of the 1000s of posts long Peruta thread is speculation, opining, editorializing, whining, etc.

Speculation from the head of NRAs CA legal team, arguably the foremost expert in CA firearms laws/litigation, carries more weight than "some guy on the interwebz" (no offense to Librarian), so I thought I'd pass it along as a public service

surfgeorge 06-07-2017 8:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thorium (Post 20201164)
Yes and 90% of the 1000s of posts long Peruta thread is speculation, opining, editorializing, whining, etc.

Speculation from the head of NRAs CA legal team, arguably the foremost expert in CA firearms laws/litigation, carries more weight than "some guy on the interwebz" (no offense to Librarian), so I thought I'd pass it along as a public service

Maybe. Maybe not.

His "speculation" as to how to construct a lawsuit that would be successful appears to likely/quite possibly have been wrong.

CandG 06-07-2017 8:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarCat (Post 20200274)
Since we are officially on to Part II, I will double down with my original prediction

You going in on Lorax's $100 bet, too? So far I'm the only taker I think.

The bet, in case you missed it, was $100 (donated to a charity of the winner's choice) that cert is granted and oral arguments are heard. Lorax is betting it won't happen, I'm betting that it will. Last I heard, he was still open to other people taking the bet.

Metal God 06-07-2017 10:04 AM

tag

clunkmess 06-07-2017 4:29 PM

the Supremes must feel pressure to accept the case due to the national reciprocity bills pending in congress? Tomorrow, they will announce that the case will be heard.

lowimpactuser 06-07-2017 5:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clunkmess (Post 20203692)
the Supremes must feel pressure to accept the case due to the national reciprocity bills pending in congress? Tomorrow, they will announce that the case will be heard.

To be denied cert.

MarCat 06-07-2017 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked (Post 20201531)
You going in on Lorax's $100 bet, too? So far I'm the only taker I think.

The bet, in case you missed it, was $100 (donated to a charity of the winner's choice) that cert is granted and oral arguments are heard. Lorax is betting it won't happen, I'm betting that it will. Last I heard, he was still open to other people taking the bet.

It gives me pause simply because I am uncertain of Lorax's universe of preferred charities. It would be painful to lose $100 knowing that it went to the Hillary Clinton Defense Fund, on top of being denied cert. If I had assurances that the choices were alligned with the NRA-ILA, CRPA, or similar then I would be inclined to jump in and match your unfounded and overly optimistic prognostication.

Lonestargrizzly 06-08-2017 7:17 AM

Today we will see what is true, correct?

sfpcservice 06-08-2017 7:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonestargrizzly (Post 20205898)
Today we will see what is true, correct?

Monday.

surfgeorge 06-08-2017 8:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonestargrizzly (Post 20205898)
Today we will see what is true, correct?

I don't really think the term "what is true" can properly be applied to lawyers, litigation and the legal/court system.

But, yeah, next Monday we will find out what the lawyers/justices decided today about Peruta.

lowimpactuser 06-08-2017 12:31 PM

I appreciate your more balanced post Mrrabbit, which includes the possibility of the courts screwing us out of nowhere and ignoring case law and history.

Much more complete post than what many others post here.

CandG 06-08-2017 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarCat (Post 20205233)
It gives me pause simply because I am uncertain of Lorax's universe of preferred charities. It would be painful to lose $100 knowing that it went to the Hillary Clinton Defense Fund, on top of being denied cert.

:rofl2: similar thoughts crossed my mind, but I doubt he'd pick an "enemy" charity... more likely, if it isn't 2a, it'll be something off the wall like Helping Hands Monkey Helpers or maybe the Critter Connection guinnea pig rescue :D

press1280 06-08-2017 1:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrrabbit (Post 20206435)
Or they could deny cert and in doing so reminding Congress that they meant what they said in Heller - prohibitions on CCW by States can pass Constitutional muster - affirming CA9 in the process.

However, let's be honest . . . they are several reasons for why they could deny cert - and several reasons they could take up the case.

It's pure speculation as to what reasons they will go with either way.

=8-|

Possible Reasons to Deny:

- Heller was right - CA9 got it right
- Plaintiff failied to exericse certain avenues/options
- "We're just tired of this ****!"

Possible Reasons to Accept:

- CA9 didn't address the plaintiff's claim
- CA9 didn't address equal proctection issues

- Reaffirm SCOTUS meant what it meant in Heller - (preempt Norman and Nichols) - and hit CA and FL hard.

or do a complete 180 and...

- Toss Heller (change mind) and toss 600 years of tradition, Colonial law, and precendent thereby allowing banning of Open Carry, declaring CCW to be the mode for exercising the right - AND still allowing States to regulate via permit as an exericse in privilege.

^ The progressive "elites" who believe they run the country want exactly that last one...including the NRA.


Of course, they could give us something no one here has thought of...

=8-|

Looks like they dropped the equal protection argument from their petition.

press1280 06-09-2017 7:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrrabbit (Post 20208016)
And why would they do that...

:confused:

Guess they don't think it's a winner, and want to use the allotted word limits towards the 2A argument.

BlackReef 06-09-2017 11:48 AM

Hopefully, as a San Diego resident, we are closer to legal CCW carry in SD county

gunsmith 06-09-2017 2:02 PM

I'm really tired of the waiting game, however I am cautiously optimistic, we do have the smarter lawyers and even more importantly, honesty and integrity.
The elite Progressives/socialist know that they are wrong, know they are prevaricating - poor working people have absolutely the same rights as the wealthy, they know this yet stall and deny.
I believe honesty and integrity will prevail.

Southwest Chuck 06-09-2017 2:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackReef (Post 20212109)
Hopefully, as a San Diego resident, we are closer to legal CCW carry in SD county

Watch it there bub. :chris:


"Hoping" could draw an Obstruction of Justice Charge if you're not careful. :p

Just saying ......


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.