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
  #201  
Old 05-24-2018, 6:18 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,035
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Flanagan is officially over in the lower court. The court entered judgement for the state and awarded the State costs.
So, time to have a sandwich and nap until, oh, about 2020 Jan 01 for a decision by the 3 judge panel of CA9. And then, en banc or asking SCOTUS for cert....
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 05-24-2018, 7:14 PM
CalAlumnus's Avatar
CalAlumnus CalAlumnus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 759
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
I really didn't get the gist of this case. It was supposedly open carry but they were asking for CCW permits as relief?
My take is that they were asking for any form of carry. They said that since open carry is banned, their only option was concealed. But that is effectively banned in many areas by the “good cause” requirement.

The ruling sought is effectively, “Some form of carry is protected under the Constitution; the Legislature can regulate whether it is open or concealed.”

Obviously this is broad strokes, but someone correct me if I’m totally wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 05-26-2018, 3:50 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,319
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalAlumnus View Post
My take is that they were asking for any form of carry. They said that since open carry is banned, their only option was concealed. But that is effectively banned in many areas by the “good cause” requirement.

The ruling sought is effectively, “Some form of carry is protected under the Constitution; the Legislature can regulate whether it is open or concealed.”

Obviously this is broad strokes, but someone correct me if I’m totally wrong.
That's basically what they argued in Peruta. I'm not aware that they even challenged the actual OC statutes or asked for OC licenses.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 05-26-2018, 5:45 AM
CalAlumnus's Avatar
CalAlumnus CalAlumnus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 759
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
That's basically what they argued in Peruta. I'm not aware that they even challenged the actual OC statutes or asked for OC licenses.
No, Peruta was about concealed only, with the final ruling saying that “concealed carry isn’t protected.”

Peruta started before open carry was (effectively) banned, which limited its ability to argue that some form of carry was protected.
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 05-26-2018, 6:10 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,319
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Right, I mean Flanagan didn't challenge the OC statutes. Peruta clearly didnt.
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 06-08-2018, 12:44 AM
JaredKaragen JaredKaragen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 187
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"I've been denied concealed, I must be provided some form of..."

Makes perfect sense to me as an argument....
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 06-08-2018, 1:45 AM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 421
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JaredKaragen View Post
"I've been denied concealed, I must be provided some form of..."

Makes perfect sense to me as an argument....
As far as the courts are concerned (from the decisions I've read), the method of carry they've provided is: "You can shove it up your ..."
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 06-08-2018, 8:25 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 988
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The NRA just filed its notice of appeal
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 06-09-2018, 7:11 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,509
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Could it now get stayed pending the outcome of young? Or possibly rolled in?
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 06-10-2018, 10:43 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 988
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
Could it now get stayed pending the outcome of young? Or possibly rolled in?
DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Mediation Questionnaire due on 06/12/2018. Transcript ordered by 07/05/2018. Transcript due 08/03/2018. Appellants California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., Michelle Flanagan, Samuel Golden, Dominic Nardone and Jacob Perkio opening brief due 09/12/2018. Appellee Xavier Becerra answering brief due 10/12/2018. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [10897314] (JBS) [Entered: 06/05/2018 02:39 PM]

Hopefully a decision in young will come out before their first brief is due. If not it might get stayed. It will not be rolled in.

Of course Nichols needs to be decided before Flanagan and that is directly on CA law.

Last edited by wolfwood; 06-10-2018 at 10:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 07-26-2018, 8:51 AM
ritter ritter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 105
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Mediation Questionnaire due on 06/12/2018. Transcript ordered by 07/05/2018. Transcript due 08/03/2018. Appellants California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., Michelle Flanagan, Samuel Golden, Dominic Nardone and Jacob Perkio opening brief due 09/12/2018. Appellee Xavier Becerra answering brief due 10/12/2018. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [10897314] (JBS) [Entered: 06/05/2018 02:39 PM]

Hopefully a decision in young will come out before their first brief is due. If not it might get stayed. It will not be rolled in.

Of course Nichols needs to be decided before Flanagan and that is directly on CA law.
Wolfwood,

When time permits, I'd love an updated analysis on this in light of your excellent (temporary or otherwise) Young decision.

Many thanks for your work.
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 07-26-2018, 1:16 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,273
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The decision in Young v Harris is out but I do not believe final until time runs for moving for reconsideration, an en banc hearing, or a stay is granted pending petition for a writ. Meanwhile, even if it cannot be cited as precedent you bet it will be raised in the opening brief.
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 07-26-2018, 1:49 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 2,000
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Time will not "run out". 9CA rules say they can exceed time periods at their discretion (just like what happened in Peruta when the time for sua sponte had run out and they did it anyway).
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 07-26-2018, 2:30 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,319
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
Time will not "run out". 9CA rules say they can exceed time periods at their discretion (just like what happened in Peruta when the time for sua sponte had run out and they did it anyway).
That took a YEAR btw
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 07-26-2018, 2:30 PM
ritter ritter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 105
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

A question I have is why we (the courts) are still arguing over whether or not 2A equals keep and bear. Heller was pretty specific. After lengthy discussion of what those terms meant in the historical context, it states:

Quote:
Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.
The DC Circuit Court picked up on that in Wrenn:
Quote:
This reading finds support in parts of Heller I that speak louder than the Court’s aside about where the need for guns is “most acute.” That remark appears when Heller I turns to the particular ban on possession at issue there. By then the Court has spent over fifty pages giving independent and seemingly equal treatments to the right to “keep” and to “bear,” first defining those “phrases” and then teasing out their implications. See id. at 570-628. In that long preliminary analysis, the Court elaborates that to “bear” means to “‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Id. at 584 (quoting Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting)). That definition shows that the Amendment’s core must span, in the Court’s own words, the “right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Id. at 592 (emphasis added).
Am I missing something here or must there be an endless round of court cases to reprove/disprove what the US Supreme Court has already ruled?
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 07-27-2018, 1:00 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 2,000
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

There already has been and it will continue until SCOTUS weighs in on carry, feature & capacity bans of arms in common use, waiting periods, rosters, etc.

AND after SCOTUS weighs in, recalcitrant States like CA will have to be sued item by item - unless Congress passes civil rights legislation (like the Voting Rights Act) that says certain States who have abused peoples rights cannot legislate on those areas without first getting Federal permission. I'd be cool with that here in CA - as long as we had the clear SCOTUS / Federal law guidance I mentioned.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools

Last edited by Drivedabizness; 07-27-2018 at 1:00 PM.. Reason: spelling
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 3:56 AM.




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.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.