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 > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 07-27-2014, 10:48 AM
glockman19 glockman19 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 10,878
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
The cold, hard reality in "the morning after the night before"....

Of all the Carry Cases (3) we're watching (Palmer, Peruta, and Pantano), Palmer is the LEAST important win. Why? (1) D.C. had a total ban ("No Issue"/"No Carry"), on all (OC and CC) carry. This is what our side already prevailed against in CA7 w/Moore (IL case).

(2) This is just a trial/district court decision, not one of the sister federal appeals courts.

(3) Because this was a win against a total ban, the trial court did NOT have to, and thus did not offer, an opinion re. the level of scrutiny that applies to public carry. That is what we need and want. I think reasonably objective observers already knew that No Carry At All is unconstitutional. It is, after all, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms protected by the 2nd A. (Limiting "bear" to inside the home is absurd.) Thus, even if Palmer gets to SCOTUS and we win there, they may not even deal with scrutiny (and if SCOTUS did, other courts could say that was dicta).

Similarly, I think most people would agree that Shall Issue is constitutional. (Except for the most radical on our side who say no state can require a permit to exercise a fundamental, enumerated right that "shall not be infringed" anywhere in the US.)

So, sure, Palmer is a GREAT win, like forcing SF to actually put in place a permitting process was a great win. ("Frickin' a! (SF/DC) has gotta start issuing permits!") But in actual or even legal effect, it is mostly symbolic.

The real issue we need to get settled is whether May Issue is constitutional. Since May Issue is not black (No Issue) or white (Shall Issue), there can be as many shades of gray as there are legislatures, so that requires a decision, once and for all, re. standard of review/"scrutiny". For that we need a win from SCOTUS in a May Issue case. AFAIK, we only have 2 of those left in the pipeline: Pantano and Peruta. (If Kamie is allowed to intervene, but denied appeal by CA9, I don't see CA9 allowing appeal in either Richards or Baker re. the core of the Peruta holding (what's important to us), since those cases' holdings said, basically, "See Peruta.")

Pantano should be asking for cert. before the end of August.

If Kamie is denied standing, Peruta will not get to SCOTUS. (Gore said no more appealing on his part.)
If Kamie is permitted standing, but denied CA9 rehearing, it takes effect and Kamie has to decide whether to ask for cert. from SCOTUS for this coming 2014-2015 SCOTUS term.

Bottom line: the Palmer win is nice, but the real fight is still ahead of us. If SCOTUS denies cert. in Pantano and either Kamie is denied standing by CA9 or wins it, but loses appeal for rehearing and decides not to ask for cert., where are we??? We'll only have Palmer in the pipeline to SCOTUS and that would get us a public RKBA w/o a level of scrutiny!

If other May Issue or non-Carry cases get to SCOTUS later and win a level of scrutiny, that could be only a "inside the home" RKBA scrutiny from an Obama/Hillary packed Court....

Politics still matters, folks. We ALL NEED to ensure that pro-RKBAers hold the House and WIN the US Senate and WIN the presidency, even if that means abandoning your other political/legal issues. We NEED to get our full 2nd A rights established by SCOTUS before anything else! (Dems/Libertarians may have to suck it up and vote for and/or financially support Repubs around the nation.)

If we don't win this fight now, we may NEVER win our full RKBA.
I agree with your views except:

Quote:
(Except for the most radical on our side who say no state can require a permit to exercise a fundamental, enumerated right that "shall not be infringed" anywhere in the US.)
I don't know of any other fundamental, enumerated, Inalienable Right that requires a government issued permit or license. Or one that explicitly states that government shall NOT INFRINGE upon said Right.

And...I don't consider myself of the most radical on our side.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-27-2014, 12:28 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glockman19 View Post
I don't know of any other fundamental, enumerated, Inalienable Right that requires a government issued permit or license. Or one that explicitly states that government shall NOT INFRINGE upon said Right.

And...I don't consider myself of the most radical on our side.
The first amendment is littered with counter examples. Book stores need business licenses, demonstrations and marches need permits, etc.

While there is certainly an argument that not every expression of the second amendment can require permits or licensing time, manner, and place permits or licenses are likely to be constitutional, including "in public" being a designated place. Remember also that firearms are not the be all, end all, of second amendment expression either, the Supreme Court was quite clear about this in GVR'ing Maloney when they published Heller. So it is possible that carrying a knife or walking/fighting stick in public may be done without a license but a firearm needs one.

I'm not suggesting that I would support such a policy choice but I suspect it would be constitutional. Of course, many states will wonder WHY they would bother with licenses when every person not prohibited from possession just be issued a permit on demand.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-27-2014, 2:10 PM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,179
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

I don’t disagree, but the obvious counterargument is that while I may need a business license to operate a bookshop, I don’t need a license to buy a book, to carry one on my person, or to read one at home or in public.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-27-2014, 2:37 PM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 2,638
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
The first amendment is littered with counter examples. Book stores need business licenses, demonstrations and marches need permits, etc.

While there is certainly an argument that not every expression of the second amendment can require permits or licensing time, manner, and place permits or licenses are likely to be constitutional, including "in public" being a designated place. Remember also that firearms are not the be all, end all, of second amendment expression either, the Supreme Court was quite clear about this in GVR'ing Maloney when they published Heller. So it is possible that carrying a knife or walking/fighting stick in public may be done without a license but a firearm needs one.

I'm not suggesting that I would support such a policy choice but I suspect it would be constitutional. Of course, many states will wonder WHY they would bother with licenses when every person not prohibited from possession just be issued a permit on demand.
However the Second Amendment is the only one that ends with "Shall not be infringed"


Sent from somewhere in time & space...
__________________
Quote:
The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
- Thomas Jefferson -
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-27-2014, 3:47 PM
riftol riftol is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 443
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
However the Second Amendment is the only one that ends with "Shall not be infringed"


Infringe - Merriam‑Webster

to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US ). : to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights).



Infringement is a matter of degree because the meaning of the adverb "wrongly," as it applies to the definition of "infringe," is not always absolutely determinable.


Compare the words of the Second Amendment with the words of the First Amendment:


The Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" wording lacks the absoluteness of the First Amendment's prohibition of Congress passing a law that establishes a religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is absolutely proscriptive whereas "shall not be infringed" is not.

Last edited by riftol; 07-27-2014 at 4:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-27-2014, 4:14 PM
JoshuaS's Avatar
JoshuaS JoshuaS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,617
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riftol View Post
Infringe - Merriam‑Webster

to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US ). : to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights).



Infringement is a matter of degree because the meaning of the adverb "wrongly," as it applies to the definition of "infringe," is not always absolutely determinable.


Compare the words of the Second Amendment with the words of the First Amendment:


The Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" wording lacks the absoluteness of the First Amendment's prohibition of Congress passing a law that establishes a religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is absolutely proscriptive whereas "shall not be infringed" is not.
It seems clear to me that if we recognize a right to BEAR arms, then there must be the ability to actually do so without unnecessary burdens. It is a necessary "burden" that I be able to afford a gun or knife or mace, since they must be produced through labor and materials which require economic transacton, even though the cost might prevent some people

It is arguably a necessary burden to have a permit for a protest that will use a public street or park, insofar as by being there they prevent the use of a street for its designed purpose or cause some cost to accrue to the public authority. But one would find it "wrongly limiting" if such a few were more than the actual cost that is born by the public authority, or if such a fee were assessed even when no such draw on public resources occurred.

In my mind, unless what I am doing, by its nature, causes an expense or draw on the public coffers, then it is "wrongly limiting" to add any cost, since that cost will only serve limit the right.

Maybe you could argue that there exists a public necessity to have some regulations, the same as we do with some protests. But then you would have to argue that carriage of arms necessarily intersects areas legitimately under the government's power. The carriage of arms itself cannot be so claimed with basing that claim on something the state actually is empowered over. Maybe you could argue that, give say the concrete circumstances, the open carriage of arms causes public harm, and hence only concealed is allowed. Or perhaps you could argue that conceal carry imposes a greater burden on the state than open, and that justifies the permits for it, while open carry remains generally legal.

But I haven't see a convincing argument there that passes strict scrutiny.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-27-2014, 4:25 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,183
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glockman19 View Post
I agree with your views except:



I don't know of any other fundamental, enumerated, Inalienable Right that requires a government issued permit or license. Or one that explicitly states that government shall NOT INFRINGE upon said Right.

And...I don't consider myself of the most radical on our side.
Can we stop the threadjack already???

This thread is about the push for Shall Issue around the country. If you believe you should not need a permit to carry, CC or OC, please start your own thread to debate that. Thank you.


The point of my post earlier today is that Palmer will NOT help us in May Issue CA, even if we win it at SCOTUS. (Of course, if we were to lose Palmer at SCOTUS that could hurt us.)

Thus, our best hope is for Pantano and/or Peruta. Pantano will be asking for cert before the end of August. Peruta may be asking for cert either for 2014-15 or 2015-16, depending upon intervention. (Of course, if Kamie is allowed to, but doesn't ask for cert, Yolo or HI may take their cases and the holding of Peruta up to SCOTUS....)
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

215+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 07-28-2014 at 5:53 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-27-2014, 4:27 PM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,372
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riftol View Post

Compare the words of the Second Amendment with the words of the First Amendment:


The Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" wording lacks the absoluteness of the First Amendment's prohibition of Congress passing a law that establishes a religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is absolutely proscriptive whereas "shall not be infringed" is not.
I would argue that "shall make no law..." is less absolute than "Shall no to Infringed" Because You can infringe in more ways than just make a law. For example I could Infringe my running anti propaganda swaying public opinion against it without making a law.

But my arguments don't really matter.
__________________
We stand for the Anthem, we kneel for the cross


We already have the only reasonable Gun Control we need, It's called the Second Amendment and it's the government it controls.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-27-2014, 4:36 PM
SonofWWIIDI's Avatar
SonofWWIIDI SonofWWIIDI is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Santa Clara county
Posts: 20,475
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Thanks for the updates!
__________________
•=iii=<(
🎺

Dear autocorrect, I'm really getting tired of your shirt!
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugerDevil666 View Post
No more stupid threads. you have my word
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugerDevil666 View Post
Rule 1 I'll admit I'm a jerk when I post stupid thread.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmut Shmacher View Post
I'll do the picking.. Name wise .. if you don't mind...
Helmut Shmacher- Formerly lugerdevil666
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-28-2014, 8:57 AM
RobertMW's Avatar
RobertMW RobertMW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 707
Posts: 2,119
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
The point of my post earlier today is that Palmer will NOT help us in May Issue CA, even if we win it at SCOTUS. (Of course, if we were to lose Palmer at SCOTUS that could hurt us.)

Thus, our best hope is for Pantano and/or Peruta. Pantano will be asking for cert before the end of August. Peruta may be asking for cert either for 2014-15 or 2015-16, depending upon intervention. (Of course, if Kamie is allowed to, but doesn't ask for cert, Yolo or HI may take their cases and the holding of Peruta up to SCOTUS....)
If SCOTUS somehow made a positive ruling on Palmer before Peruta (or Richards or the other one) it would most definitely be a help to us. It may not actually effect the outcome of those other cases, but it still gives other litigation some kind of framework to build cases around, as well as showing that right to bear arms/CCW cases are still up for discussion inside SCOTUS.

For example: SCOTUS passes positive judgement in Palmer because an absolute ban is not acceptable, but refuses to grant cert for Peruta. That would mean that SCOTUS determines that some form of carry is necessary, but that an issuance scheme is ok. The cases then just have to show that the issuance scheme is an absolute ban, point to Palmer and the case never has to reach the higher courts again, and that forces the issuance scheme to be opened up to the point that it is shall issue. Not a problem in 3/4ths the USA, but the select areas (NJ,NY,CA) that DO have may/no issue will get reformed.

If I made myself clear, I feel like if Palmer was affirmed in SCOTUS, we would never have to fight in federal courts for CCW again. You would have a decision that would be effective in every court that would have to make judges seriously consider the details of an issuance scheme, whether it is an effective ban in its current form or not, rather than just passing it over, saying that it's ok because there legally is a method to get a CCW, even though nobody gets one.

Yes, I know some people feel that any issuance scheme is infringing on our 2A rights, I agree, but baby steps please. Lets get shall issue in all states, then we can work on reciprocity, and then any non-constitutional carry states to remove licensing schemes.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 07-28-2014, 9:16 PM
thorium thorium is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: OC
Posts: 679
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Paladin thank you for curating this content so well. Somebody make this guy a moderator.

I agree it's mostly circles until SCOTUS rules on "bear" outside the home (circles = courts knocking laws down, anti 2A legislatures putting something back that is 99% as restrictive as what got knocked down just to see if it will fly in the next round).
__________________
-------------------------

Last edited by thorium; 07-28-2014 at 9:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 07-29-2014, 6:39 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,588
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Can we stop the threadjack already???

This thread is about the push for Shall Issue around the country. If you believe you should not need a permit to carry, CC or OC, please start your own thread to debate that. Thank you.


The point of my post earlier today is that Palmer will NOT help us in May Issue CA, even if we win it at SCOTUS. (Of course, if we were to lose Palmer at SCOTUS that could hurt us.)

Thus, our best hope is for Pantano and/or Peruta. Pantano will be asking for cert before the end of August. Peruta may be asking for cert either for 2014-15 or 2015-16, depending upon intervention. (Of course, if Kamie is allowed to, but doesn't ask for cert, Yolo or HI may take their cases and the holding of Peruta up to SCOTUS....)
The entire country basically already has "shall issue".

DC, Maryland, NJ, NY,Mass, CA and Hawaii are all thats left.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 07-29-2014, 9:17 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,685
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
The point of my post earlier today is that Palmer will NOT help us in May Issue CA, even if we win it at SCOTUS.
Palmer WILL help us in May Issue in CA because a big part of Peruta ruling is based on analysis that, with OC gone and Gore not issuing for "self defense," there is a virtual no issue in San Diego.

In a way, AB 144 closed the escape hatch Irma Gonzales at District Court level used against us and Peruta concentrated precisely on the "no issue" as the core of the question in front of the court (without having to consider whether OC satisfies "carry" in the first place.)

Also note that the Thomas' dissent in Peruta is not about Heller or 2A, but about what the question in front of the court was. He claimed that the court was addressing only "may issue," while the majority said they were addressing a complete licensing scheme and the virtual no-issue.

A SCOTUS decision in our favor in Palmer would be *extremely* relevant to Peruta because even the dissent couldn't escape on technicality of artificially limiting the question in front of the court, while there is obvious no-issue in San Diego that the SCOTUS (presumably) just ruled unconstitutional.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 07-29-2014, 10:21 AM
PhillyGunner PhillyGunner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Back East
Posts: 751
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
The entire country basically already has "shall issue".

DC, Maryland, NJ, NY,Mass, CA and Hawaii are all thats left.
You make it sound like this is a "small" part.

While those states and one district 'only' represent just under 26% of the U.S. population as far as population centers the story is a little different.

Your list includes:

4 of the top 10 most populous cities in the U.S., including #'s 1 & 2 representing 57.9% of these residents. It's easy to see how these have become our battlegrounds. (N.Y.C., L.A., Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas & San Jose) Only Chicago on this list represents any sort of a "win" or even positive change in recent decades.

(If you add Philadelphia, which, while technically issuing, seems to be playing a lot of the games L.A., N.Y.C., Newark, Baltimore, Boston, &, until yesterday D.C., play to turn 'issue' into 'low or no issue', you have 6 of 10 and add #5, representing 64%. Remember P.A. shares long borders with N.Y, N.J. & Maryland.)

The numbers begin to be a little less impressive-6 of 34 with populations ≥ 500,000 population. (~ 17.5%)

26 of 113 with populations ≥ 200,000. (23%)

130 of 293 with populations ≥ 100,000 residents. (49 in CA alone!) That's almost 44.5% of all residents in 'urban' America. 70 of these cities are in California.

I don't, personally, feel like the battle has been won.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 07-29-2014, 11:52 AM
CG of MP's Avatar
CG of MP CG of MP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 681
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Would we have been happy if Germany or Japan had been able to cordon off and deprive 15-25 percent of America its liberties?
__________________
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.
Miranda vs. Arizona
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes...
District of Columbia vs. Heller
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 07-29-2014, 12:15 PM
CZ man in LA's Avatar
CZ man in LA CZ man in LA is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 2,090
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyGunner View Post
You make it sound like this is a "small" part.

While those states and one district 'only' represent just under 26% of the U.S. population as far as population centers the story is a little different.

Your list includes:

4 of the top 10 most populous cities in the U.S., including #'s 1 & 2 representing 57.9% of these residents. It's easy to see how these have become our battlegrounds. (N.Y.C., L.A., Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas & San Jose) Only Chicago on this list represents any sort of a "win" or even positive change in recent decades.

(If you add Philadelphia, which, while technically issuing, seems to be playing a lot of the games L.A., N.Y.C., Newark, Baltimore, Boston, &, until yesterday D.C., play to turn 'issue' into 'low or no issue', you have 6 of 10 and add #5, representing 64%. Remember P.A. shares long borders with N.Y, N.J. & Maryland.)

The numbers begin to be a little less impressive-6 of 34 with populations ≥ 500,000 population. (~ 17.5%)

26 of 113 with populations ≥ 200,000. (23%)

130 of 293 with populations ≥ 100,000 residents. (49 in CA alone!) That's almost 44.5% of all residents in 'urban' America. 70 of these cities are in California.

I don't, personally, feel like the battle has been won.
Also need to look at LA as a County as a whole rather than just the city itself. It's not just the City of LA, the entire LA County is restrictive as the LASD has jurisdiction in all of LA County.

LA County alone just passed the population mark of 10 million December of last year. There are more people living in LA County than the entire country of Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, or Israel. That makes LA County the most populous county in the US. At 10 million, that means 1/5th of CAnians live in Los Angeles, and close to 3.5% of the entire population of the US.
__________________
"Prohibit the peasants from owning katanas, wakizashis, arrows, spears, or matchlock rifles. If the peasants are armed, they will not pay nengu (taxes) and they will not be subordinate to the officials."

Toyotomi Hideyoshi's Sword Hunt Edict of 1588, establishing the class division between the peasants (commoners) and the samurai (the governing elites).


Last edited by CZ man in LA; 07-29-2014 at 12:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 07-29-2014, 1:01 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,588
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyGunner View Post
You make it sound like this is a "small" part.

While those states and one district 'only' represent just under 26% of the U.S. population as far as population centers the story is a little different.

Your list includes:

4 of the top 10 most populous cities in the U.S., including #'s 1 & 2 representing 57.9% of these residents. It's easy to see how these have become our battlegrounds. (N.Y.C., L.A., Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas & San Jose) Only Chicago on this list represents any sort of a "win" or even positive change in recent decades.

(If you add Philadelphia, which, while technically issuing, seems to be playing a lot of the games L.A., N.Y.C., Newark, Baltimore, Boston, &, until yesterday D.C., play to turn 'issue' into 'low or no issue', you have 6 of 10 and add #5, representing 64%. Remember P.A. shares long borders with N.Y, N.J. & Maryland.)

The numbers begin to be a little less impressive-6 of 34 with populations ≥ 500,000 population. (~ 17.5%)

26 of 113 with populations ≥ 200,000. (23%)

130 of 293 with populations ≥ 100,000 residents. (49 in CA alone!) That's almost 44.5% of all residents in 'urban' America. 70 of these cities are in California.

I don't, personally, feel like the battle has been won.
None of that really matters in the courts though. The Ninth Circuit represents some of the most liberal gun states in the union. Legislatively, Each state is given 2 senators and so many congressman based on population. Ironically its the house that is in our favor even though the majority of congress people from CA are in the minority house.

Peruta and Richards are a huge win for this state and the entire Ninth circuit. Moore was a huge win for Illinois. The numbers of states that are resisting the 2A are shrinking rapidly.

Not to mention that Peruta as it sits right now is responsible for many sheriffs to have already changed their stance and start issuing. The overwhelming majority of sheriffs in this state issue for "self defense" currently. Move up north here, you'll have yours in no time.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 08-16-2014, 2:07 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,183
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default RI federal CCW case

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A 25-year-old Bristol man is suing that town’s police chief over the denial of a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Jarren R. Gendreau is challenging Bristol’s permitting policy in federal court, arguing it violates his constitutional right to bear arms by conditioning approval on a “proper showing of need” to carry a handgun in self defense.

He asks U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. to direct Chief Josue D. Canario to issue the permit and to bar the police chief from denying future permits on the similar grounds, namely that an applicant has not shown “good reason to fear an injury.”


<snip>

Rhode Island law dictates that authorities in any city or town “shall” issue a license or permit to carry a loaded handgun to a person 21 or older “if it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear an injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol or revolver, and that he or she is a suitable person to be so licensed.”

<snip>

Fabisch said he opted to file suit in federal court because appeals courts have been split on Second Amendment issues. “It was really an opportunity to create some good precedent in the First Circuit,” Fabisch said.

The case has gotten financial support from the Citizens’ Rights Action League and the Rhode Island Firearm Owners’ League, he said.

(bolding and underlining added)

More at:
http://www.providencejournal.com/bre...ermit-poll.ece

and:
http://www.rifol.org/litigation.php

I'll add this case to the OP once it gets to CA1.

Looks like the federal judge hearing the case is an Obama appointee and that Dems used a cloture vote to get him on the bench (used only 3 times prior to him in US history). He's also a Dem financial supporter to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._McConnell,_Jr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack...ted_nominees_2
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

215+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 08-16-2014 at 2:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 08-28-2014, 1:19 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,183
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Aug 28th: end of the day

So, August 28th is over as far as SCOTUS normal work hours (EST). Does anyone know if cert. was requested in Pantano?
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

215+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 03-26-2015, 6:18 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,183
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Giving this a bump for newbies who don't know the history of recent federal Carry Case litigation. The OP gives a good overview.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

215+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 03-26-2015, 7:05 PM
rlc2's Avatar
rlc2 rlc2 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 462
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Arrow Thank you, this is a huge resource-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Giving this a bump for newbies who don't know the history of recent federal Carry Case litigation. The OP gives a good overview.
Many Thanks! Lots of misinformation out there, and not many detailed chronological resources, like this. If its ok, I will post a link back here on other firearms forums, and suggest others do the same to counter the defeatism of some POTG, and the deliberate paid agitprop and disinformatzia in forums or comments sections of the MSM.

Here is an article at Scotusblog- interpreting Tyler v Hillsdale, the 6th CA view on strict scrutiny application to 2A.
While it is on your supplemental list, and strictly speaking - is on 922, the discussion in the decision starting at page 20 is invaluable,
to the point of the OPs purpose describing evolution of laws bearing on CCW, in particular the widely differing definitions of "scrutiny".

"Judge Boggs’s opinion summoned a series of arguments to support the conclusion that the most demanding standard should be used — including his interpretation of the Heller decision as at least hinting at that, and his view that a “heightened scrutiny” standard has no place in the Constitution."

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/ap...toughest-test/

+1 on posters resisting the urge to go OT here.
__________________
Where there is unity there is always victory.
~ Publius Syrus

NRA Lifetime Member, SAF Lifetime Member

Last edited by rlc2; 03-26-2015 at 7:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 10-19-2015, 7:10 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,183
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Peruta update:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
when the CA9 en banc decision comes down, it won't help us even if we win Peruta since Kammie and Yolo said they will appeal it to SCOTUS and CA9 will most likely issue a stay of the decision until SCOTUS decides whether to grant cert or not.

IIRC, after an en banc decision the loser has 90 days to ask for cert, then there's time for reply and amici briefs, etc., factor in that they'll probably have it on their calendar for discussion for a month or two, so that's probably another 6 months right there and then there's SCOTUS' summer 2016 break and you're looking at next fall (2016) for just a decision re. cert. or not.

1) If we win the en banc decision and there's no cert., expect most of the remaining 15 anti sheriffs to change their policies immediately and accept SD = GC.

2) If we lose the en banc decision and there's no cert., we're right where we are: having to fight it out politically at the county level, trying to get sheriffs in anti counties to liberalize issuance or to replace those sheriffs. Sacto won't try to go to No Issue, but will try to find other hurdles to throw in our way. Best to get as many folks in issuing counties in CA to get CCWs now so that they've got a vested interest in politically protecting their ability to carry.

If cert. is granted, we're probably looking at late spring 2017 for a SCOTUS decision.

3) If we win at SCOTUS, great for the remaining 8 non-SI states, they'll all have to go SD = GC.

4) If we lose at SCOTUS, antis in "liberal" states that are SI may introduce May Issue bills. In CA, we'll be in the same position as #2 above.

BOTTOM LINE: Do NOT expect anything to change for at least 1 year.... Sucks, but that's reality (assuming I haven't made a mistake).
But ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
If SCOTUS takes Friedman (an AWB and mag limit challenge), will CA9 stay Peruta's en banc decision on CA's GC requirement for a CCW? If so, that means Peruta will be on ice until 2016 June. It will push any possible win in Peruta out that much further (cert decision Sp or Fall 2017 and a decision in 2018)....
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

215+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 10-19-2015 at 7:12 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 11-11-2015, 2:42 PM
rlc2's Avatar
rlc2 rlc2 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 462
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Talking Again, thank you- huge resource-Sticky?

Mods, can we make this a sticky? Easy way to point newbs to the history, and current status for "how much longer" questions,
including those coming in cold, new to Calguns, after interest in Friedman and Caetano.
__________________
Where there is unity there is always victory.
~ Publius Syrus

NRA Lifetime Member, SAF Lifetime Member
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 06-09-2016, 6:48 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,183
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Giving this a bump since many doom and gloomers think all is lost....

And the OP is focused mainly on just the concealed carry cases.

fyi: some cases haven't been updated, esp the non-carry cases (e.g., Kolbe).
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

215+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 06-09-2016 at 10:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 06-10-2016, 7:42 AM
lawaia's Avatar
lawaia lawaia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 2,099
iTrader: 44 / 100%
Default

Wow! Haven't looked at this map in a while, and I must say that it just blows my mind! Amazing the progress made in just a few years!

Thanks for the reminder of progress, in spite of the recent setback with Peruta!
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 06-10-2016, 12:57 PM
Ceemack Ceemack is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 93
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I believe West Virginia just passed "Constitutional carry".
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 06-10-2016, 1:17 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,183
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceemack View Post
I believe West Virginia just passed "Constitutional carry".
The national map in the OP is as the nation was when we won McDonald, and Heller was then able to be applied to the anti Concealed Carry states using the federal courts. That's the topic of this thread (although I do have several other cases listed after that section of the OP).
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

215+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 06-10-2016, 1:31 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
The national map in the OP is as the nation was when we won McDonald, and Heller was then able to be applied to the anti Concealed Carry states using the federal courts. That's the topic of this thread (although I do have several other cases listed after that section of the OP).
The status today (don't forget MO has a concarry bill on the governor's desk)

http://www.gun-nuttery.com/maps/2016.gif

Last edited by press1280; 06-10-2016 at 1:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 07-26-2017, 5:39 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,747
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You say that every circuit have weighed in, but the 5th, 6th, and 10th circuits haven't weighed in either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
CA1: MA and RI.
CA2: NY (and CT, but although it is not legislatively Shall Issue, it is judicially since the judges issue permits on a Shall Issue basis.)
CA3: DE and NJ
CA4: MD
5th?
6th?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
CA7: IL
CA9: HI and CA
10th?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
D.C. Cir.: Washington, D.C.

So, it looks like we have D.C. Cir. and CA1 as the only circuits that have yet to have cert. requests re. RKBA in public denied.
[/QUOTE]

They're all shall-issue or con-carry, but still, for sake of completion, they haven't weighed in, so SCOTUS could be evil and say they're waiting for all circuits to weigh in...
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 07-26-2017 at 5:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 07-26-2017, 7:53 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,183
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
You say that every circuit have weighed in, but the 5th, 6th, and 10th circuits haven't weighed in either.


5th?
6th?

10th?



So, it looks like we have D.C. Cir. and CA1 as the only circuits that have yet to have cert. requests re. RKBA in public denied.

They're all shall-issue or con-carry, but still, for sake of completion, they haven't weighed in, so SCOTUS could be evil and say they're waiting for all circuits to weigh in...
Reread what the title of this thread is: "CCWs: status of federal civil lawsuits attacking May or No Issue CCW laws". Those circuits do not cover any May Issue or No Issue states. It is legally impossible for plaintiffs in those circuits to file "federal civil lawsuits attacking" state CCW laws that do not exist in those circuits....

ETA: Additionally, I began the OP with this explanation:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
From 2011 after we won McDonald (2010 June 28):



Compare that to (from Wikipedia):



Thus, the non-Shall Issue states fell into the following federal CAs:

CA1: MA and RI.
CA2: NY (and CT, but although it is not legislatively Shall Issue, it is judicially since the judges issue permits on a Shall Issue basis.)
CA3: DE and NJ
CA4: MD
CA7: IL
CA9: HI and CA
D.C. Cir.: Washington, D.C.

In CA1, May Issue was challenged in ...
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

215+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 07-26-2017 at 8:05 PM..
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 6:23 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.