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
  #161  
Old 10-02-2017, 8:57 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,944
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Hey Javier - we all know your "motivation" - and it AINT public safety
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 10-05-2017, 1:59 PM
stag6.8 stag6.8 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,035
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Now since D.C. is done (no appeal to SCOTUS)and now there is a circuit split..and the Flanagan case was made AFTER open carry was banned...unlike peruta...any comments on how the 9th circuit will decide this?...Fabio gets goosed...paladin..k c brown...wolfwood?
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 10-05-2017, 2:49 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 202
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wrenn, at least in terms of CCW, is not at issue in this case, since the trial court (correctly) concluded, at the time that he issued his ruling, that his hands on concealed carry were tied by the Peruta decision. Therefore, that question is not before the court on this msj. On top of that, he is not going to revisit his prior ruling now and go against an explicit ruling in his own circuit, although the split of authority technically (but not practically for political reasons) would allow him to do so.

The one and only proposition for which Wrenn is citeable here is that there is a Constitutional right to bear arms outside the home, an issue not encompassed by Peruta, or, as I vaguely recall, any other circuit court of appeal decision (all having merely assumed that such a right exists). I believe that this trial court is thus bound by that portion of the decision in the absence of contrary authority.
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 10-08-2017, 11:38 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,533
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stag6.8 View Post
Now since D.C. is done (no appeal to SCOTUS)and now there is a circuit split..and the Flanagan case was made AFTER open carry was banned...unlike peruta...any comments on how the 9th circuit will decide this?...Fabio gets goosed...paladin..k c brown...wolfwood?
I won't be watching this case until it gets to CA9.

FWIW, until Jan, I'll just be watching Norman (for cert) and national reciprocity.

From Jan to July, I'll just be watching Norman (if granted cert), Nichols, national reciprocity and a few CA sheriffs' races (Sac, Sonoma, OC and SD).

Haven't decided re. beyond July. ETA: Flanagan will probably be here.

I'll let someone else do a state ConCarry thread this year.

I may post "high fives" for Pena or Kolbe wins (hopefully). Dittos with a "swing" or Leftist SCOTUS justice "leaving" the Court.

I won't be posting much otherwise. Even on those topics I won't be posting much.

That's my current expectation.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

225+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 10-08-2017 at 3:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 01-29-2018, 6:09 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,533
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I won't be watching this case until it gets to CA9.

FWIW, until Jan, I'll just be watching Norman (for cert) and national reciprocity.

From Jan to July, I'll just be watching Norman (if granted cert), Nichols, national reciprocity and a few CA sheriffs' races (Sac, Sonoma, OC and SD).

Haven't decided re. beyond July. ETA: Flanagan will probably be here.
Since the date of the trial decision determines the deadline for appeal, and since the date of the trial is related to the date of the decision...

Is the Flanagan trial still set for Feb 6th at 9:00am, one week from now? Do they video and post them?
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

225+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 02-05-2018, 8:52 AM
stag6.8 stag6.8 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,035
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Since the date of the trial decision determines the deadline for appeal, and since the date of the trial is related to the date of the decision...

Is the Flanagan trial still set for Feb 6th at 9:00am, one week from now? Do they video and post them?
Since this is tommorrow, anybody has info. on this?
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 02-05-2018, 2:12 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 581
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

No, all trial deadlines were vacated pending ruling on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 02-05-2018, 6:15 PM
stag6.8 stag6.8 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,035
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
No, all trial deadlines were vacated pending ruling on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment.
In layman's terms what does summary judgment means...and what follows afterwards?
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 02-05-2018, 8:10 PM
gunuser17 gunuser17 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 22
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

When a party to a lawsuit files a motion for summary judgment, they are saying that no trial is needed because:

1. There is no dispute as to any material fact at issue in the case - in other words - everyone essentially agrees to the facts or if there is a dispute, it is a meaningless dispute.

2. Based on the undisputed facts, the case can be decided by the judge without a jury by applying the law to the undisputed facts.

So - say you call your broker Monday and tell him to sell a stock. The broker waits until Wednesday to sell the stock. The stock drops in value by 50% on Tuesday. The call is recorded so there is really no dispute as what was said. You may file a motion for summary judgement saying his failure to sell the stock on Monday entitles you to damages. He may file a cross-motion for summary judgment saying that he was entitled to two days to execute the sale. The only real dispute is what does the law say in relation to these facts and under the law, is the broker liable.
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 02-06-2018, 9:40 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,560
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunuser17 View Post
When a party to a lawsuit files a motion for summary judgment, they are saying that no trial is needed because:...
Thanks for the explanation. It seems like that would apply in most gun rights cases, right? It's all based on documents that are pretty clear. The only question is, are the statute and policy consistent with the meaning of the 2A, right?
__________________
I will spit whenever I hear the word Libertarian from now on.

In the 2016 election, Libertarian voters threw the swing states of Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Maine to Hillary, for a total of 38 electoral college votes. Hillary would have created a permanent a permanent entitlement class and permanent Democratic control over the US.
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 02-06-2018, 11:32 AM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,944
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Except of course, in the 9th Circuit the 2A is not recognized as the fundamental, enumerated individual right that Heller said it as and MacDonald applied against the States.

So yes - theoretically, CA's laws are such obvious infringements that they ought to be immediately struck down or enjoined. The mag ban is a good example (as well as the previous ammo ban that was also in Federal Court IIRC). Others like Peruta (discretionary CCW issuance) were overturned as errant by a 3-judge panel (we got the win) only to have the 9CA take the unprecedented to overturn them en banc.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 02-06-2018, 3:44 PM
stag6.8 stag6.8 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,035
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

will this case be filed and heard before the 9th circuit...after...summary judgement issues, etc. has been resolved?...is it going forward?
Im sure im not the only person who would like more information.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 02-06-2018, 4:06 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,944
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

This case was filed in the 9th Circuit. So yes, assuming the losing side at the District Court level chooses to appeal on summary judgement, and/or if the case goes to trial, and that the Appeals Court agrees to hear the appeal (if any).
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 02-09-2018, 3:48 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 581
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Wrong case. This (Flanagan) is about right to carry.

You are thinking about the Wiese case, I believe.
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 02-10-2018, 2:59 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,533
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
BREAKING: CRPA FILES NRA SUPPORTED LAWSUIT CHALLENGING CALIFORNIA’S BAN ON PUBLICLY CARRYING FIREARMS

-- See also the Michel & Associates case page here. --
So it looks like the filings ended in mid Nov: 3 months ago, 3 months down. So give it another 6 months for a decision and that brings us to mid Aug 2018.

Assume looser appeals to CA9. The process to a 3-judge panel decision there we'll guess takes ~1.5 years (quick is my guess), bringing us to ~Feb 2020.

Whether that goes en banc or not is anyone's guess.

After that, SCOTUS!

Sound about right?

ETA: Or do you think the trial court judge will sit on Flanagan until CA9 decides Nichols so that the judge can then use it and Peruta to make their decision?
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

225+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 02-10-2018 at 7:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 02-10-2018, 11:42 PM
MJB's Avatar
MJB MJB is offline
CGSSA Associate
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,808
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yep

Your Grandkids will see some light
__________________
One life don't blow it!
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 8:41 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.