View Single Post
  #362  
Old 02-09-2018, 4:33 PM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,613
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by butchy_boy View Post
Does SCOTUS look at cases in a dynamic setting? What I mean is taking the sequence of events into consideration. To me- Nichols is more enticing now post Peruta as the 9th has established that there is no right to CC. ---> Given no right to CC makes the ban of OC more devasting that before.

Yes, it does. Further, the AG for the PRK said (in Peruta) that there is a Right to bear arms, but not concealed. Well, there's only two ways to bear arms, and if one (concealed) is out, the other (open) MUST be in.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Not quite. Nichols does not claim a general right to carry, but only a right to carry (loaded or unloaded not specified) in "nonsensitive" areas, i.e., not in any governmental buildings, and not in any gun free school zone. He concedes that he is not contesting the validity of the GFSZA 1000' exclusionary zone.

This is indeed a very narrow right he seeks to establish with respect to urban areas (and is irrelevant in unincorporated areas where second amendment rights exist). In fact, it is so narrow that it is almost entirely useless. Now maybe Mr. Nichols lives in a neighborhood where he can walk around the block carrying a rifle, but the vast majority of people living in cities and towns cannot because they live within 1000 feet of a school.

Of course he doesn't challenge the GFSZs. They aren't a part of his effort. His effort is only about "and bear" outside the home. For all the reasons rplaw mentioned.

And "narrow" isn't the word to use. In case you haven't noticed, the "right people" have wasted the last eight years NOT getting "outside the home" established. AT ALL. Because they went with the fallacy that Heller allowed states to choose which manner of "and bear" they would allow.

And, if "outside the home" is established by Mr Nichols, that would be all the ammo needed to overturn the GFSZs, which, you may have noticed, are only barely hanging in there as it is. When balanced against a Constitutional Right, GFSZs have no chance of remaining. At least, not in a fair court. Which, as you pointed out before, we may not get.

But, there is another group attacking the GFSZs. There are sentence enhancements for dealing drugs in a school zone. YEARS get added on for that. Which has resulted in 'People of Color' being imprisoned for a lot longer than would otherwise be the case. This in spite of the fact that most of the defendants didn't even know that they were in a school zone. Since the people getting slamed are POC, there are now liberals looking to have them shot down. So, if Mr Nichols succeeds, we'd have liberals and a Constitutional Right working to get those legal abominations tossed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
<snip>

As things stand, it's more likely that Flanagan will prevail than Nichols, but only because of the timing of when it hits the Supreme Court. Both are guaranteed to fail in the 9th Circuit. Flanagan will come in behind Nichols. That the Supreme Court (as one should have logically expected based on preceding events) denied cert to Norman means it will most certainly deny cert to Nichols unless its composition changes. That would leave only Flanagan.

Flanagan will be coming to the 9th Circuit under circumstances where the 9CA has destroyed the entire right to carry. I'll be watching with great interest what arguments it raises that could possibly prevail under those circumstances. But again, make no mistake: Nichols will not be the cause of that. The outcome for Flanagan would be exactly the same regardless.

Keeping things brief, and not believing that things are as bad as you say, I'll stick to the last two paragraphs.


There HAS been a change in the composition of SCOTUS. Neil Gorsuch is now firmly settled in. He wasn't for Norman. While the 9th Circus is hostile to this Constitutional Right, Flanagan isn't really an Open Carry case, so it'll die the death it deserves.

Since Mr Nichols is CLEAR on what he's going for, I think it will be granted cert (losing at the 9th Circus is just about guranteed).


Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
I have read his briefs. Have you read some of the briefs by "the right people"? Let me tell you, there isn't ANY difference. At least in his case he has the excuse of not being trained or experienced.

All that aside, the thing is, I remember the beginning of his case. The part where he was asking for legal help but got snubbed by all the "experts" here and by "the right people" elsewhere. The part where he was personally attacked and told to go F himself because he was a lunatic. That he needed to dismiss his case because it was a sure loser and that Peruta was the winning course of action.

Amazing how the world turns. All that is over. The vain attempts at resurrecting it have failed, the alternative options have disappeared and SCOTUS refused to hear the question. And here's Nichols, heading for arguments next spring on a clear question of whether we have the right to bear arms in public or not. And yet you and others STILL refuse to support him.

It's pathetic. Really, it is.

Especially since the attacks are all based on what is NOT true: That states can choose the manner of "and bear." They can't. Heller was as clear as it could be (given that "and bear" wasn't a part of the case) that Open Carry, and NOT Concealed Carry, is the protected manner of "and bear." Every case to come before the Circuits (including and ESPECIALLY Peruta) was shot down (as I predicted) for the same reason: Concealed Carry isn't the Protected Right. Now here we have a guy who, for all his many faults, has at least stuck with the actual words of Heller, and the people here do nothing but attack him.

SIGH!


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
Reply With Quote