Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 02-22-2013, 1:21 PM
Born To Glock's Avatar
Born To Glock Born To Glock is offline
Resident Pork Rind Expert
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: SoCal
Posts: 875
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Blog Entries: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billofrights View Post
I always thought it was from that scene in Total Recall when the 'fat lady' mask went haywire:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V17duGlHEYY
Me too. Actually, I'm going to continue thinking it was originated this way, because I really like that scene.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-22-2013, 1:25 PM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,802
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
.......If they can't get an end to FOID and home rule then they should just refuse to pass anything because Chicago will throw up a never ending series of roadblocks, restrictions, and taxes each requiring years of litigation much as they have for those trying to buy a handgun......
Isn't a catch 22 at that point (doing nothing)? Because of Home Rule, Chicago will still make an attempt at the above, requiring more litigation absent an immediate P.I. request by Gura/SAF, (which, reflecting on it further, Posner would most likely grant.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-22-2013, 1:42 PM
ODub ODub is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 474
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Big win! These victories keep the ball rolling, plus they help me rationalize purchasing a compact pistol that I can't even carry yet, hehe.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-22-2013, 1:49 PM
prometa prometa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 549
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drd View Post
If the Supreme Court upholds a ruling granting carry outside the home then they would, in effect, be saying that any law that bars carry outside the home is unconstitutional. I can't imagine the Supreme Court writing an opinion where they find a law unconstitutional and then delaying the ruling for any period of time so those who were in violation of the constitution can continue to violate the constitution while they get their act together.
When they reverse a lower court decision, they remand the case back to the original court with instructions. They may do the same when upholding, and thus the circuit court would have jurisdiction over further stays, if any.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
Thank you IVC. I understand the split and thanks for reminding me. This gives more cause for the Supreme Court to take up the issue.

The Supreme Court can go several ways at this point: (1-5 snipped)
Or: 6. Decide that there is no circuit split, in that Madigan vs Moore ruled that you cannot have "no issue" whereas Kachalsky v. Cacace ruled that "may issue" is valid, circumstances that can be simultaneously true. When IL makes a new law, if it comes up with one that is virtually identical to NY and then the 7th upholds it, there would be no circuit split at all.

I suppose a challenge to the new law that IL comes up with would be a separate case and not a continuance of the one just denied en banc, so a new, random 3 member panel would hear things.

Regardless, even without the IL decision, I would bet that SCOTUS would grant cert. on Kachalsky, as the justices have been giving obvious public hints they'd like to flesh out the scope of the 2nd.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 02-22-2013, 1:52 PM
Wrangler John Wrangler John is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,644
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

My guess, we are all guessing here, is that SCOTUS may not grant review of Moore V. Madigan. One thing that isn't a guess, is that I consider my donations to SAF to be money well spent.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 02-22-2013, 2:04 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,076
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
Isn't a catch 22 at that point (doing nothing)? Because of Home Rule, Chicago will still make an attempt at the above, requiring more litigation absent an immediate P.I. request by Gura/SAF, (which, reflecting on it further, Posner would most likely grant.
Based on their history with the McDonald case and the local district court judge they'll have a lot of room to delay. You'll note that it's almost three years since McDonald v Chicago it's still a major PITA to legally possess a handgun in Chicago. Range time is required to even possess a handgun in Chicago and they're on the the second round of litigation to get a range open so those without cars can get the required range time and I have no doubt that there will have to 3rd or 4th round and they continue to tweak the law to dance around rulings.

They can pass shall-issue with 6 month renewal and 40 hours of training 2x a year requirements at an outdoor range outside of city limits and high fees and forbidden sensitive places defined as 1500 feet from schools, parks, daycare centers and government buildings and that will take 12-18 months to litigate at the district court level. When they lose that they can come back with annual renewal with 20 hours of outdoor live fire training and sky high fees and new sensitive places laws and make printing a crime. That's another 18-24 months of litigation. Then they can declare having a traffic or parking violation a prohibited class for carry like NYC does for gun permits and that's another 12-18 months of litigation. That's why home rule firearm regulation needs to be ended before carry will be a reality in Chicago.

Of course it is Chicago and the Chief of police can just put out the word that anyone discovered with a gun, even with a permit, is to be assumed to be reaching for it. After all superintendent Garry McCarthy has already pretty much said as much.

http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/20...-citizens.html
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association

Last edited by sholling; 02-22-2013 at 2:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 02-22-2013, 2:12 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,224
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
It'll be interesting to see what comes out of the state legislature. I'm sure that democrats will demand high licencing fees, massive expansion of defined sensitive places to include 80% of Chicago, keeping the FOID law intact, and continuation of Chicago's home rule. The question is whether the Republicans there will hang tough or cave. If they can't get an end to FOID and home rule then they should just refuse to pass anything because Chicago will throw up a never ending series of roadblocks, restrictions, and taxes each requiring years of litigation much as they have for those trying to buy a handgun. The real key to Illinois politics is "what's in it for me" and from local officials to the state house it's as corrupt as Mexico.
Except the Pro-2A side kinda has the anti's by the balls on this one. The clock is ticking. All the Pro side has to do is keep saying no, and when the clock runs out the state goes unrestricted carry. So if they anti's want any kind of controls they're gonna hafta play ball.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 02-22-2013, 2:29 PM
Zer0's Avatar
Zer0 Zer0 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 36
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Great job SAF !!!
California next up...
__________________
NRA Life Member
SAF Life Member

CRPA Member
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 02-22-2013, 2:37 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,076
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
Except the Pro-2A side kinda has the anti's by the balls on this one. The clock is ticking. All the Pro side has to do is keep saying no, and when the clock runs out the state goes unrestricted carry. So if they anti's want any kind of controls they're gonna hafta play ball.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought when the time runs out the state's current ban on carry in any form is out. The state and/or city of Chicago can still come back before or after the 180 days is finished with a shall issue concealed only carry law or an open carry by permit only law and any "reasonable" requirements and/or restrictions they place on it would be a new case.

That's what happened in McDonald v Chicago. Once the US Supreme Court applied Heller to the states (and Chicago) Chicago went from the complete ban on owning handguns that they lost on to tough licensing requirements that included range time and then banned all public ranges from operating within the city. Since then the city has been playing moving target with litigation against the ban with the result that people still have no place within the city to satisfy the training requirement and 3 years after McDonald V Chicago - Chicago residents without transportation are still effectively barred from having handguns with no end in sight.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association

Last edited by sholling; 02-22-2013 at 2:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 02-22-2013, 3:57 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,871
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The Kalchalsky ruling just quivered at the knees. I predict a B'slap and a Scalia-sized bootprint on it's soddy behind.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 02-22-2013, 4:40 PM
Tyrone's Avatar
Tyrone Tyrone is offline
Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: East Bay, SF Bay Area
Posts: 266
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
The Kalchalsky ruling just quivered at the knees. I predict a B'slap and a Scalia-sized bootprint on it's soddy behind.
That has to be QOTD (quote of the day). Nice!
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 02-22-2013, 6:43 PM
Wildhawk66's Avatar
Wildhawk66 Wildhawk66 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,985
iTrader: 179 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billofrights View Post
I always thought it was from that scene in Total Recall when the 'fat lady' mask went haywire:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V17duGlHEYY
Haha, never made that connection but it's a fitting one. "Two weeks, two weeks... get ready for a surprise!"
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-22-2013, 6:50 PM
ZNinerFan's Avatar
ZNinerFan ZNinerFan is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Turlock, CA
Posts: 973
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

It's nice to see some good news in the midst of everything that has been thrown at us lately.

Congrats to the folks at the SAF who fought and won this fight.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-22-2013, 7:27 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

There are three likely outcomes and then I'll explain how this impacts California.

1. Madigan doesn't apply for Cert. There are lots of politics and even the other side knows we can count to 5. I haven't thought enough to be able to handicap this, but if that happens a Kachalsky has a near certainty of grant.

2. Upon a cert application, SCOTUS relists and holds Kachalsky until they grant both. Of #2 and #3, I only give this about a 10% chance.

3. Kachalsky is granted in the early April timeframe and Moore's cert petition gets relist/hold until the decision in Kachalsky is delivered. I give this about a 90% chance.

As long as a carry case gets granted before June 2Xish 2013, we will have a decision on carry 5 (maybe 6) 4 (maybe 3) by the end of June 2014. Oral arguments are likely to take place in October/November. A decision could come as early as January, but the betting money is on late June 2014. That means that in July and August of 2014 we will be able to force almost all sheriffs to issue carry licenses in California and with a small amount of very quick mop up litigation, get them all issuing. The lines will be long and it will take a while to get past the initial crush, but buy June 2015, getting a carry license will be like getting a parade permit - even in California.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02-22-2013, 7:44 PM
advocatusdiaboli's Avatar
advocatusdiaboli advocatusdiaboli is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rural North Calizuela
Posts: 5,034
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ll-Rafael-ll View Post
Real talk, how soon will California have shall issue CCW?
Not in my lifetime and I am a young man still. I have faith in dedication and zeal of Gene and the rest of the CGF and the others in this fight and I love their optimism, but they are underestimating California's overwhelming liberal executive, legislative, and executive branches and how much "cheat and retreat" they can do. The California Legislature will find every loop hole and drag this out for decades. Look at their docket now—full of the most restrictive legislation I have ever seen that they know will mostly fail in the courts.
__________________
Benefactor Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran


"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
-- John Dean "Jeff" Cooper, The Art of the Rifle

Last edited by advocatusdiaboli; 02-22-2013 at 7:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02-22-2013, 8:08 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,627
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kharn View Post
I would expect a Supreme Court ruling on carry in June 2014. Depending on the exact wording, shall-issue could start the next day, but I would assume more likely 90-180 days after that.
Make it more like 2-3 years after a second round of "did you really mean what you said?" lawsuits, denials and the District and CA level and the resulting appeals.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 02-22-2013, 9:06 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,076
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
As long as a carry case gets granted before June 2Xish 2013, we will have a decision on carry 5 (maybe 6) 4 (maybe 3) by the end of June 2014. Oral arguments are likely to take place in October/November. A decision could come as early as January, but the betting money is on late June 2014. That means that in July and August of 2014 we will be able to force almost all sheriffs to issue carry licenses in California and with a small amount of very quick mop up litigation, get them all issuing. The lines will be long and it will take a while to get past the initial crush, but buy June 2015, getting a carry license will be like getting a parade permit - even in California.
Based on my observations of this fight (as a layman) for a few years now and Scalia's statements about the court being ready for more 2nd Amendment cases I feel like that's probably the most realistic estimate that I've heard yet. The only place that I differ is I think SCOTUS would be more likely to take on a government challenge to Moore v Madigan than Kachalsky because of the total ban on carry in any form. That's just based on the recent history of Heller (total ban) and McDonald (total ban) and their reluctance to take any may-issue carry cases so far. But think you're right and we have a better than even chance that they will take Kachalsky if nothing better comes along.

One other hopeful point. If we get shall-issue with an objective standards requirement then that eliminates the need for the interview process which exists only as a secondary good cause and subjective moral character filter and eliminates the need for sworn office to be involved. That and interviewing friends and neighbors are what sucks up manpower. Once those two requirements are out then there is no reason for it to take any longer or have any more complexity than getting a drivers license. Present your training certificate and they run a DROS instead of a DMV check and it arrives in the mail 4 weeks later. Just keep that in the back of your mind for the post SCOTUS clean up cases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by advocatusdiaboli View Post
Not in my lifetime and I am a young man still. I have faith in dedication and zeal of Gene and the rest of the CGF and the others in this fight and I love their optimism, but they are underestimating California's overwhelming liberal executive, legislative, and executive branches and how much "cheat and retreat" they can do. The California Legislature will find every loop hole and drag this out for decades. Look at their docket now—full of the most restrictive legislation I have ever seen that they know will mostly fail in the courts.
If Gene is correct about a SCOTUS victory in mid 2014, and I have high hopes that he is, then I think shall-issue carry will probably be a reality within a few months in all but the 3-4 most recalcitrant counties. But you're right as well that our Progressive fanatics in Sacramento won't go down without a fight. They'll throw every turd of a bill at us that their pea brains can think up. The good news is that if we get strict scrutiny out of SCOTUS then Gene and the legal team should be able to swat those down just as fast as they come up. For now let's just hope for cert this year and for a victory and strict scrutiny in 2014.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 02-22-2013, 9:13 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,391
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
..., we will have a decision on carry 5 (maybe 6) 4 (maybe 3) by the end of June 2014.
6 = Kagan?
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-23-2013, 1:21 AM
Baja Daze Baja Daze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Peoples Democratic Republik of Kaliforniastan
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
6 = Kagan?
Yep....Kagan The Deerhunter!
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02-23-2013, 4:24 AM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,197
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
Make it more like 2-3 years after a second round of "did you really mean what you said?" lawsuits, denials and the District and CA level and the resulting appeals.
The George Wallace school of political footdragging hasn't had a very high success rate lately.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 02-23-2013, 11:57 AM
The Shadow's Avatar
The Shadow The Shadow is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,213
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
There are three likely outcomes and then I'll explain how this impacts California.

1. Madigan doesn't apply for Cert. There are lots of politics and even the other side knows we can count to 5. I haven't thought enough to be able to handicap this, but if that happens a Kachalsky has a near certainty of grant.

2. Upon a cert application, SCOTUS relists and holds Kachalsky until they grant both. Of #2 and #3, I only give this about a 10% chance.

3. Kachalsky is granted in the early April timeframe and Moore's cert petition gets relist/hold until the decision in Kachalsky is delivered. I give this about a 90% chance.

As long as a carry case gets granted before June 2Xish 2013, we will have a decision on carry 5 (maybe 6) 4 (maybe 3) by the end of June 2014. Oral arguments are likely to take place in October/November. A decision could come as early as January, but the betting money is on late June 2014. That means that in July and August of 2014 we will be able to force almost all sheriffs to issue carry licenses in California and with a small amount of very quick mop up litigation, get them all issuing. The lines will be long and it will take a while to get past the initial crush, but buy June 2015, getting a carry license will be like getting a parade permit - even in California.

-Gene
I'll believe it when I see it.

Sent from my MOTWX435KT using Tapatalk 2
__________________
Speaking about the destruction of the United States. "I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all times, or die by suicide. Abraham Lincoln Speech at Edwardsville, IL, September 11, 1858

Godwin's law
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 02-23-2013, 12:17 PM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,802
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
There are three likely outcomes and then I'll explain how this impacts California.

1. Madigan doesn't apply for Cert. There are lots of politics and even the other side knows we can count to 5. I haven't thought enough to be able to handicap this, but if that happens a Kachalsky has a near certainty of grant.

2. Upon a cert application, SCOTUS relists and holds Kachalsky until they grant both. Of #2 and #3, I only give this about a 10% chance.

3. Kachalsky is granted in the early April timeframe and Moore's cert petition gets relist/hold until the decision in Kachalsky is delivered. I give this about a 90% chance.

As long as a carry case gets granted before June 2Xish 2013, we will have a decision on carry 5 (maybe 6) 4 (maybe 3) by the end of June 2014. Oral arguments are likely to take place in October/November. A decision could come as early as January, but the betting money is on late June 2014. That means that in July and August of 2014 we will be able to force almost all sheriffs to issue carry licenses in California and with a small amount of very quick mop up litigation, get them all issuing. The lines will be long and it will take a while to get past the initial crush, but buy June 2015, getting a carry license will be like getting a parade permit - even in California.

-Gene
Would not these scenarios compel Grey to file for enbanc review or cert in the 10th to keep his case alive pending the outcome and ruling from SCOTUS? I would think so, no?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 02-23-2013, 2:18 PM
Baja Daze Baja Daze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Peoples Democratic Republik of Kaliforniastan
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
Would not these scenarios compel Grey to file for enbanc review or cert in the 10th to keep his case alive pending the outcome and ruling from SCOTUS? I would think so, no?
I think we can all bet on this and surely there is some serious strategy being contemplated about either going en banc or cert.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 02-23-2013, 2:22 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Shadow View Post
I'll believe it when I see it.
Gun Owners will be an odd lot. You'll be able to find one that will tell you that their county is not shall issue for at least 5 years after they are. People really would not believe us that Sacramento County went virtually shall issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
Would not these scenarios compel Grey to file for enbanc review or cert in the 10th to keep his case alive pending the outcome and ruling from SCOTUS? I would think so, no?
I can't comment just yet, but that's certainly a valid analysis.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 02-23-2013, 2:41 PM
joe_sun's Avatar
joe_sun joe_sun is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Future Member of the Quitters Club Nampa, ID in July 2016!
Posts: 1,773
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Gun Owners will be an odd lot. You'll be able to find one that will tell you that their county is not shall issue for at least 5 years after they are. People really would not believe us that Sacramento County went virtually shall issue.

-Gene
But the'll believe every little piece of FUD from a gun shop or someone who claims he's the friend of a Navy Seal that heard that blah blah blah blah.

I have to admit I waited until one of my Friends in Sacramento got their permit before I applied over 2 years ago
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 02-23-2013, 3:14 PM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,408
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
The good news is that if we get strict scrutiny out of SCOTUS then Gene and the legal team should be able to swat those down just as fast as they come up. For now let's just hope for cert this year and for a victory and strict scrutiny in 2014.
Split that last one down the middle -- we'll get intermediate scrutiny.

Can't say any more than that...still stunned by Gene's hairy-eyed, anarchistic optimism...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 02-23-2013, 6:55 PM
Rail's Avatar
Rail Rail is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 215
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
One other hopeful point. If we get shall-issue with an objective standards requirement then that eliminates the need for the interview process which exists only as a secondary good cause and subjective moral character filter and eliminates the need for sworn office to be involved. That and interviewing friends and neighbors are what sucks up manpower. Once those two requirements are out then there is no reason for it to take any longer or have any more complexity than getting a drivers license. Present your training certificate and they run a DROS instead of a DMV check and it arrives in the mail 4 weeks later. Just keep that in the back of your mind for the post SCOTUS clean up cases.
You bring up a very valid point: Without a change in the wording of the existing carry law to eliminate all discretion, you'll wind up like my state of Alabama... where it's "de facto" shall-issue, but sheriffs use what discretion they have (since we're still legally a may-issue state) to put in BS hurdles like 6-month residency requirements and additional off-limits places/restrictions that are not in state law. California, IIRC, also requires that each handgun that you wish to carry be listed on your permit: I hear some sheriffs put in silly restrictions like "no SAO pistols" and "X-lbs minimum trigger pull" crap. Watch for many sheriffs (even in counties that are virtually shall-issue today) to do this. That's stuff that CGF will need to try and clean up should the need arise.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 02-23-2013, 8:02 PM
Fate's Avatar
Fate Fate is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Proud Member of the Quitter Club. Moscow, ID
Posts: 9,000
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceofreason View Post
TWO WEEKS

is a running joke on Calguns meaning pretty much never or a really, really long time

from the Tom Hanks movie "The Money Pit"
Nope. That's not the source of the reference here at Calguns. This is:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ojisan View Post
"Two weeks" is a old joke around here.

It was originally said by an anti-gun LEO who did not like the idea of Off List Lowers for ARs...when he found out about them he promised they would be added to the ban list in two weeks...which never happened.

It currently means an indeterminate amount of time (with a dash of both humor and exasperation implied).
__________________
"On bended knee is no way to be free." - Eddie Vedder, "Guaranteed"

"Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." -Thomas Jefferson
, in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr dated August 19, 1785
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 02-23-2013, 8:18 PM
vector16's Avatar
vector16 vector16 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Above the bridge
Posts: 684
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by not-fishing View Post
Sometimes I'm a little slow, it just hit me.

Free speech but only in the home.

Freedom of religion but only in the home.

Freedom to assemble but only in the home.

Due Process but only in the home.

Ruling against Judge Posner's Decision would have a few hurdles (unless they are ignored like in Chicago and DC).
Free speech but only in the home unless you are a criminal alien or muslim

Freedom of religion but only in the home unless you are a criminal alien or muslim

Freedom to assemble but only in the home unless you are a criminal alien or muslim

Due Process but only in the home unless you are a criminal alien or muslim
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 02-23-2013, 9:13 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,076
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
Split that last one down the middle -- we'll get intermediate scrutiny.

Can't say any more than that...still stunned by Gene's hairy-eyed, anarchistic optimism...
It's possible but we are discussing an enumerated right which generally means strict scrutiny. That doesn't mean that the lower courts' judicial revolt against the 2nd Amendment will end and I'm sure that some circuits will continue to apply a weak form of rational basis and just call it strict scrutiny.

I'm not sure Kalchalsky is the case that SCOTUS has been waiting for but if we don't get cert on something this year or next then I think carry is likely a dead issue with SCOTUS and here in California - I just don't put much faith in the 9th Circus. Obomunist is likely to get one more court appointment and that is likely to slam the window shut in our face and they know it. What gives me hope is the idea that the justices are taking note of the left's orgy of anti-rights legislation and the backlash brewing and are ready to step in with a loud and clear message that the 2nd Amendment is a right not a privilege to be legislated out of existence. My hope is that they grant cert on carry soon and wrap magazine capacity into the ruling because President Hillary Clinton will appoint a string of antis during her 8 years and if we don't have a solid body of precedents before then they'll just start rolling back our rights until we're left with nothing.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association

Last edited by sholling; 02-23-2013 at 9:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 02-23-2013, 9:26 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,627
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Gun Owners will be an odd lot. You'll be able to find one that will tell you that their county is not shall issue for at least 5 years after they are. People really would not believe us that Sacramento County went virtually shall issue.

I can't comment just yet, but that's certainly a valid analysis.

-Gene
Due respect Gene (and I really do mean that) but given that Sac doesn't even give appointments for interviews / application drop off( a process that isn't even legal to require in the first place) - if that's virtual shall issue we really don't need any more wins of that nature.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 02-23-2013, 9:35 PM
Tmckinney Tmckinney is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 233
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

There is precedent for the SCOTUS to say we find your system entirely unconstitutional, but we will give you time to fix it. They once ruled that the bankruptcy system in the US (as it stood then, not now) gave too much power to Bankruptcy judges and that congress had to make a choice and either make those judges article III judges with congressional approval and life time appointment or change the system is some big ways. It also meant that every decision they had made was technically unconstitutional. But to enforce that on the system would have meant such destruction and chaos on people's lives and on the system, the court said they would have time to make a new system.


Given the ostensible dangers of carry with out restrictions of any kind, I doubt the court would open the flood gates. Rather, they would say, you have so long to come up with a system that meets these requirements. Even our most fundamental rights have constitutionally valid restrictions like obscenity laws or libel laws restricting free speech because those types of unrestrained speech are harmful. SCOTUS can t ignore the legislative findings that there's is a need for some level of restriction on carry. Not to say that it won't mean shall issue, only that I think permits are likelY within the bounds of the constitution. How they are issued is were the rubber meet the road.




Quote:
Originally Posted by drd View Post
I've been wondering about this quite a bit. It's easy to understand why a lower court would stay their own decision to give time to appeal or even time to implement.

It's difficult for me to understand how the Supreme Court would go about such a stay or delay.

If the Supreme Court upholds a ruling granting carry outside the home then they would, in effect, be saying that any law that bars carry outside the home is unconstitutional. I can't imagine the Supreme Court writing an opinion where they find a law unconstitutional and then delaying the ruling for any period of time so those who were in violation of the constitution can continue to violate the constitution while they get their act together.

On when shall-issue starts, I expect the very first case to be filed will be one that challenges the time it takes to get a permit. Every delay in getting a permit, for whatever reason, is prior restraint of the right.

I don't think the Supreme Court is going to come out and say "shall-issue" but you states take as long as you need to process the back-log or sudden influx of permit applications you receive tomorrow.

Assuming a Supreme Court ruling goes our way, and I expect it will, it's not going to be just the discretionary-issue states that will have a serious problem. Any state that doesn't allow unlicensed carry of some sort and has a delay in issuing licenses will have an issue.

Those states that allow unlicensed carry will have no issue if they take time to issue a license because the people still have the ability to carry in some manner.

Those states that don't allow some type of unlicensed carry and have a waiting period for a license will be restraining the right. Perhaps there will be a "balance" struck with strict scrutiny that a small delay is permissible but that's kind of a stretch.

When comparing to permits for a demonstration remember that such permits are applied for in advance, i.e., I want to hold a demonstration at some future date.

Licensing for carrying a firearm is for now, not because I want to be licensed in the future.

This will get very interesting and even more so for non-residents. Will California require California-issued licenses for out-of-state residents? What happens then when I have a personal emergency and have to be in the state before California can issue me my license - do I lose my right to carry a weapon in California?
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 02-23-2013, 9:49 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,483
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
Due respect Gene (and I really do mean that) but given that Sac doesn't even give appointments for interviews / application drop off( a process that isn't even legal to require in the first place) - if that's virtual shall issue we really don't need any more wins of that nature.
I've heard this before. Is this something you've had direct experience with? A friend of mine who is a jeweler in the city of Sacramento tried for several years to get a permit after being robbed in 2008. He moved his business last year to another country and was issued a permit within 12 months. He complained about red tape meant so you can't get through the system in Sacramento county but I don't know specifics.

Last edited by rootuser; 02-23-2013 at 9:53 PM.. Reason: I think it took him a year to get a permit actually.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 02-24-2013, 3:35 AM
Tyrone's Avatar
Tyrone Tyrone is offline
Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: East Bay, SF Bay Area
Posts: 266
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

This Note from Cornell Law Review was posted in another thread by Rossi357 and provides the analysis/result I think may ultimately shake out from the carry cases. Although there does not seem to another right with similar analysis, given history of prohibition on concealed carry, the articles posits that a state cannot completely prohibit the right to carry outside of the home for self-defense like CA, IL, and certain other states do. Rather, they must either allow either open carry and/or concealed carry so the right is not unduly burdened but can restrict and/or prohibit the other "alternative." If this happens I can see CA repealing the ban on open carry but keeping concealed carry much more difficult if not impossible to obtain. Even if legal, many will not want to open carry potentially creating a target for themselves to dirtbags and inviting police stops/interviews. The article's analysis comports with the rationale behind the recent refusal for en banc in 7th Circuit by Posner. Here is the link: http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/res...shop-final.pdf. With that said, I try to remain optimistic and continue to support all that Gene, CalGuns, NRA, and 2nd Amendment Foundation are doing for us on this front. The author of the article supports shall issue concealed carry over open carry as both more practical and in line with the modern trend.

Last edited by Tyrone; 02-24-2013 at 3:39 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 02-24-2013, 6:37 AM
The Shadow's Avatar
The Shadow The Shadow is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,213
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Gun Owners will be an odd lot. You'll be able to find one that will tell you that their county is not shall issue for at least 5 years after they are. People really would not believe us that Sacramento County went virtually shall issue.

-Gene
That may be, but that one person would not be me.

I'm keeping track of the "virtual shall issue" counties, but even those counties still require things that are in violation of the law, San Bernardino being the example. And while those counties are issuing, it seems that they are still slow to issue but quick to take a permit with the slightest reason.

I'm not going to get all giddy about this until I see a new regulation in our favor that says an LEA MUST issue unless they have a compelling reason not to issue. And then I will only be happy AFTER I have the permit in my hand, because, like "good cause", "compelling reason" is subjective and in my experience LE has a tendency to lean toward an interpretation of the law that satisfies them and is restrictive to the general public.
__________________
Speaking about the destruction of the United States. "I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all times, or die by suicide. Abraham Lincoln Speech at Edwardsville, IL, September 11, 1858

Godwin's law
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 02-24-2013, 7:29 AM
joe_sun's Avatar
joe_sun joe_sun is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Future Member of the Quitters Club Nampa, ID in July 2016!
Posts: 1,773
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
Due respect Gene (and I really do mean that) but given that Sac doesn't even give appointments for interviews / application drop off( a process that isn't even legal to require in the first place) - if that's virtual shall issue we really don't need any more wins of that nature.
It's a flawed system and they could probably make it better. I don't understand why they make you drop off the app in person.

The demand for permits far exceeds their capability of processing them. When I first got my permit over 2 years ago I had to call and hope someone answered the phone then I had to request an appointment. Even then before everyone knew they were shall issue the wait was over a month.

Eventually they evolved to an online system and rapidly all the appointments filled up for over a year.

I think they are doing pretty good considering how inundated they are but yes they could really improve on the process.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 02-24-2013, 9:23 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,391
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone View Post
Rather, they must either allow either open carry and/or concealed carry so the right is not unduly burdened but can restrict and/or prohibit the other "alternative." If this happens I can see CA repealing the ban on open carry but keeping concealed carry much more difficult if not impossible to obtain.
Open carry was UOC, i.e., unloaded. This would not pass the muster since it's akin to having to keep a disassembled and/or locked gun at home, which has been stricken down. So, CA would have to allow LOC (loaded open carry) in order to avoid issuing concealed carry licenses.

In addition, the reasoning that CA would prefer OC is flawed. For the antis this is a cultural war. They don't want normalization of guns and gun culture at all, let alone in such a visible manner as LOC.

There were enough activists to go around while UOC-ing to upset the refined sensibilities of our betters. There would be much more people doing LOC if it was allowed. And, if the legislators willingly forced LOC over CC, there would be no legislative recourse once soccer moms started calling in.

If anything, allowing LOC would be the most counterproductive path for the CA anti gun legislators to achieve their goal of cultural unacceptance of guns.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 02-24-2013, 9:28 AM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
Due respect Gene (and I really do mean that) but given that Sac doesn't even give appointments for interviews / application drop off( a process that isn't even legal to require in the first place) - if that's virtual shall issue we really don't need any more wins of that nature.
Sacramento is issuing about 1100 new permits a year and is just starting to add the crush of renewals to the process. That's pretty good for "before we have a case on point." However, once we have a case on point, even that's not acceptable.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:46 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.