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 10-05-2010, 2:59 PM
Bill_in_SD's Avatar
Bill_in_SD Bill_in_SD is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 372
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Question about Qualified Immunity, since it is in the Motion to Dismiss. Small, but it is there.

Is this where the Sheriff cannot be sued in the performance of his duties unless something like negligence or fraud can be proven?
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-05-2010, 4:55 PM
Funtimes's Avatar
Funtimes Funtimes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 947
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
Whoa!!!

A first-time post which is pretty much nailing it! I don't remember the "most notably" part from the text, but Heller specifies the right to defend your self in your home and there are implications to carry outside the home although they don't get explicit. But IIRC, Heller talked about sensitive places and there would be little point in addressing those if they meant carry to be only inside the home. McDonald similarly indicates support for carry outside the home.

Welcome to CGN I think it will be very good having you on board.

Sorry allow me to correct myself, the term is presented in heller reads, "such as self-defense within the home". However, the following statement did present itself in Mcdonald Section IV Page 33, in the Opinon of Justice Alito, J.

"Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and beararms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home."

This is where I got that from. I have been reading quite a few cases as I prepare *crosses fingers* for a legal suit in hawaii. Sorry for the misquote.

Thank you for the welcome OleCuss. I have been lurking for a little bit to review whats going on in CA; everything here directly affects Hawaii.

Last edited by Funtimes; 10-05-2010 at 5:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-05-2010, 5:16 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,680
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Funtimes View Post
S
...review whats going on in CA; everything here directly affects Hawaii.
And "fixing" Hawaii can fix the rest of USA given Hawaii has a direct copy of 2nd Amendment in its state constitution.

I'd recommend you have a nice chat with Jason Davis of http://www.Calgunlawyers.com for numerous reasons
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-05-2010, 5:28 PM
Crom's Avatar
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,627
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.D.Allen View Post
A decision in Peruta will cover Imperial County as well won't it?
Yes. I believe it would.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonewalker View Post
I should clarify my opinion. Heller v. DC only struck down a handgun possession ban. They left the other intricacies for DC to deal with. The majority opinion talks about carrying as a fundamental right but their decision only permitted handgun possession, it did not deal with carry laws or permitting processes.

So... they only restricted the city from banning possession, which at the very least means keeping a handgun in your home. To possess something you must have a place to...possess it. They implied carrying was covered but that's not what their decision was about. The SCOTUS has not specifically decided that carry is a fundamental right

therefore...

DC or any other jurisdiction is free at this point to restrict carry without violating the 2nd amendment. Peruta and Sykes will go forward without the 2nd amendment covering carry.

Or am I totally incorrect here?
We're getting a little bit off topic here, but its a good discussion...

Carry was not before the court as you said, but the 2A right was. The vehicle was a prohibition on handguns. The 2A right is to keep and carry. Not just keep. The Supremes are wordsmiths and they knew this when they authored the opinion in Heller and McDonald.

Carry is part of the fundamental 2A right and as far as the 2A movement is concerned, the only places we can't carry are sensitive places such as inside schools and in government buildings.

A fundamental right is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions usually set by the legislature. In California we have neither. We can't LOC, or conceal carry without permit. And permits are very hard to get in heavily populated urban cities. UOC is not really a form of self defense.

The supreme court very well may hear a right-to-carry case in the near future depending on the outcomes of the following cases:
  1. Maryland (4th Circuit), Woolard v. Sheridan
  2. Washington D.C. (Federal), Palmer v. District of Columbia
  3. California (9th Circuit), Sykes v. McGinness & Peruta v. County of San Diego
  4. New York (2nd Circuit), Kachalsky v. Cacace
  5. Illinois (7th Circuit), Mishaga v. Monken
  6. Colorado (10th Circuit), Peterson v. LaCabe
__________________
Calguns Litigation Wiki
Quote:
Our conclusion [is] that the right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense. --PERUTA v. County of San Diego, Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2014
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 10-05-2010, 8:06 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,227
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill_in_SD View Post
Question about Qualified Immunity, since it is in the Motion to Dismiss. Small, but it is there.

Is this where the Sheriff cannot be sued in the performance of his duties unless something like negligence or fraud can be proven?
Someone who is an attorney may have better info than me, but here goes:

You should read the California government code 821. It goes through all the ways that California government entities are immune, even if they do things that are wrong and malicious:

Quote:
A public employee is not liable for injury caused by his
instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding
within the scope of his employment, even if he acts maliciously and
without probable cause.
Oh and if the public employee is enforcing an unconstitutional law, he's immune so long as he's not acting with malice:

Quote:
820.6. If a public employee acts in good faith, without malice, and
under the apparent authority of an enactment that is
unconstitutional, invalid or inapplicable, he is not liable for an
injury caused thereby except to the extent that he would have been
liable had the enactment been constitutional, valid and applicable.
Read all the other sections in 821. Their immunity is extreme and covers just about all situations, including acting maliciously and so on. Civil rights violations are one of the few places where they don't have immunity.

Someone else can probably explain this better than I can.
__________________
NRA life member

Exposing Leftists
Zomblog
The future of California?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 10-05-2010, 8:15 PM
RKV's Avatar
RKV RKV is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Santa Barbara County
Posts: 219
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Maybe immune under state law, but fortunately there is

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

IF you can find a jury to convict, that is.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-05-2010, 9:02 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,491
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

1. Peruta and Sykes seek injunctive relief from future behavior - as such qualified immunity doesn't matter - neither case seeks money damages from the counties.

2. One case forgotten above is Batemen v. Perdue which is SAF/Gura suing NC over it's emergency powers regulations. The section entitled "III. THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES A RIGHT TO CARRY ARMS IN PUBLIC." starts on page 10/17 of the reply to the motion to dismiss and unintentionally refutes the Brady Amicus quite well.

-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
  #48  
Old 10-05-2010, 9:05 PM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 135
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It's amazing how the Brady Center lawyers contort every sentence they can pull out of case law and present it totally out of context to promote an gun phobic agenda. Nowhere does the 2nd amendment state any qualification or boundaries on the right to 'bear'. The only reason Heller and MacDonald were responded as they did to bearing a gun "in the home" was because of the limited scope of the legal question presented to the court, which they addressed in like kind. These decisions were not explicit or even implicit in characterizating of bearing a gun in the home as a limitation on the fundamental right. They said public carry could be subject to reasonable regulation, e.g., sensitive locations, persons not allowed to own guns in the first place, etc. The Brady bunch then twist that into meaning the home is the only place the right to bear applies.

It's truly amazing what facts, logic, and precedence can be totally ignored or prejudiced by people with irrational agendas.

Last edited by dawgcasa; 10-05-2010 at 9:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10-05-2010, 10:09 PM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,784
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterJim View Post
People who have never carried don't have any clue about the quieting influence of having deadly force available on the law-abiding citizen. Perhaps the criminal goes off or the mentally defective, but otherwise ordinary folks do not do so........

jim
I carried concealed this summer for the first time while on vacation in Arizona. I had a hard time grasping my feelings on doing it at the time. I was very aware of my surroundings at all times, but not obsessively so. On reflection, your statement above really hit home with me. It gave me a sense of quiet empowerment. In my case, it could almost be described as calming. That I could, for the first time actually defend myself and my family if it came down to it. We went to many crowded tourist spots and the thought of a Fort Hood shooting type incident happening in such places was chilling.

I usually LUCC, UOC, and LOC (where legal) while camping and traveling in CA since I've yet to acquire a CCW. I envy the residents of the Constitutional Carry States like Arizona. I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this forum, CGN, CGF, CRPA, NRA, CRPF, 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.

Sorry, starting to sound corny now. People don't talk like that any more Carry on...

..
__________________
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
  #50  
Old 10-05-2010, 11:27 PM
gazzavc's Avatar
gazzavc gazzavc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Down by the "S" bend
Posts: 962
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crom View Post
from gun grabber named Franklin Zimring professor of law at Berkley Law School who states that concealed handguns are dangerous and should be restricted.

And right there sums up everything rotten to the core about our education system.

A professor of law no less. Shouldn't they be called a professor of opinions ??
Who the bloody hell does he think he is to brainwash law students. Its disgusting that a learned man could be so bloody stupid.
__________________
http://photos.imageevent.com/gazzavc/editingjunk/bren%20plate%202.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 10-07-2010, 11:37 AM
ZombieTactics's Avatar
ZombieTactics ZombieTactics is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Roseville area
Posts: 3,552
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I carried concealed this summer for the first time while on vacation in Arizona. ... It gave me a sense of quiet empowerment. In my case, it could almost be described as calming ...
I concur. When carrying, I am actually a MUCH nicer, calmer person altogether.
__________________
|

I don't pretend to be an "authority." I'm just a guy who trains a lot, shoots a lot and has a perspective.

Check the ZombieTactics Channel on YouTube for all sorts of gun-related goodness CLICK HERE
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-07-2010, 11:52 AM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZombieTactics View Post
I concur. When carrying, I am actually a MUCH nicer, calmer person altogether.
"An armed society is a polite society" - Robert Heinlein.

And not just because you are scared of retaliation.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner.

All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10-07-2010, 12:24 PM
sighere's Avatar
sighere sighere is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oxnard
Posts: 321
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm with Grizzly Guy. While it's rather maddening to read the amicus brief, their push is relentless even while ignoring the facts, and twisting them around. Heller in fact goes into a pretty detailed discussion of what "bear" means, and concludes that it means to carry upon one's person. The court did not rule on CC in public in Heller, because it was not at issue. (they like narrow decisions). It's clear that your rights do not end at your doorstep, so the whole Brady argument, while seemingly reasonable on its face, is a farce when viewed in this light.

They are definitely pushing for the lowest level of scrutiny. My personal opinion is that any learned judge would quickly dispense with the "reasonableness" doctrine. Lets see... a regulation is constitutional if it's reasonable....That just does not fly when you're talking fundamental incorporated rights. I seriously doubt that the strict scrutiny standard will be applied either. Possession of deadly force in public, while IMHO is your right, it deserves some kind of special treatment. I guess we'll stay tuned to see what the courts divine...
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10-07-2010, 12:25 PM
sighere's Avatar
sighere sighere is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oxnard
Posts: 321
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I wish they'd televise the Peruta hearing, I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that one!
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 10-07-2010, 1:22 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm sure a transcript will be made available at some point.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-07-2010, 1:57 PM
CaliforniaLiberal's Avatar
CaliforniaLiberal CaliforniaLiberal is offline
#1 Bull Goose Loony
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4,058
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I carried concealed this summer for the first time while on vacation in Arizona. I had a hard time grasping my feelings on doing it at the time. I was very aware of my surroundings at all times, but not obsessively so. On reflection, your statement above really hit home with me. It gave me a sense of quiet empowerment. In my case, it could almost be described as calming. That I could, for the first time actually defend myself and my family if it came down to it. We went to many crowded tourist spots and the thought of a Fort Hood shooting type incident happening in such places was chilling.

I usually LUCC, UOC, and LOC (where legal) while camping and traveling in CA since I've yet to acquire a CCW. I envy the residents of the Constitutional Carry States like Arizona. I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this forum, CGN, CGF, CRPA, NRA, CRPF, 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.

Sorry, starting to sound corny now. People don't talk like that any more Carry on...

..

This is NOT corny. You speak truly from the heart and you need not apologize.

This is a precise and correct description of where we are today and you, nor anyone else should feel abashed about proclaiming it.

CalGuns and many other gatherings of citizens who care, with the same sentiments are growing all over the country, gathering legal, financial and political power to rain down from the mountain tops. The Anti 2nd Amendment forces are dismayed and faltering.

We live in interesting times.

Let your flag fly Chuck!
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10-07-2010, 4:43 PM
craneman's Avatar
craneman craneman is offline
Gold Member...Oh Behave!
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,133
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gazzavc View Post
And right there sums up everything rotten to the core about our education system.

A professor of law no less. Shouldn't they be called a professor of opinions ??
Who the bloody hell does he think he is to brainwash law students. Its disgusting that a learned man could be so bloody stupid.
Man, I am with you on that one!! That is the $100,000 question right there. Too many judges have ruled on opinion, not fact. There is NO room for opinion when it comes to your constitutional rights. I have not a clue why this has been allowed in the past, unfortunately I am fairly sure it will continue far into the future. Shamefull.......
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10-07-2010, 7:21 PM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,784
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal View Post
This is NOT corny. You speak truly from the heart and you need not apologize.

This is a precise and correct description of where we are today and you, nor anyone else should feel abashed about proclaiming it.

CalGuns and many other gatherings of citizens who care, with the same sentiments are growing all over the country, gathering legal, financial and political power to rain down from the mountain tops. The Anti 2nd Amendment forces are dismayed and faltering.

We live in interesting times.

Let your flag fly Chuck!

Flying High it is (see sig below). Thanks for the affirmation
__________________
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
  #59  
Old 10-07-2010, 7:27 PM
CaliforniaLiberal's Avatar
CaliforniaLiberal CaliforniaLiberal is offline
#1 Bull Goose Loony
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4,058
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

^^^^^

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 6:13 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.