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
  #361  
Old 06-27-2017, 11:10 AM
smith629 smith629 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 891
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

You guys do realize that the supreme court decided to hear a case on gay wedding cakes instead of a landmark 2nd amendment case, right?

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...me-sex-wedding

Wedding cakes: 1, Second Amendment: 0.
Reply With Quote
  #362  
Old 06-27-2017, 11:13 AM
dameron762's Avatar
dameron762 dameron762 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 46
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smith629 View Post
You guys do realize that the supreme court decided to hear a case on gay wedding cakes instead of a landmark 2nd amendment case, right?

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...me-sex-wedding

Wedding cakes: 1, Second Amendment: 0.
This post speaks volumes.
__________________
The peaceful mind makes the perfect shot.
Reply With Quote
  #363  
Old 06-27-2017, 11:34 AM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 70
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussG1 View Post
I am 100% sure the non cert was an active plan by the constitutional judges.
Respectfully, I disagree.
I think the holdouts for cert are Roberts and Kennedy. I think the frustration expressed by Thomas and Scalia (in previous dissents) is knowing that they actually have the votes to issue a opinion in favor of carry, but Roberts and Kennedy would just rather not deal with the issue so they vote "no".
In fact, Thomas (in this dissent) stressed that the court should grant cert even if they disagree with a right to carry, because it's an important issue.
If Roberts or Kennedy actually wanted to say no to carry, they have 4 willing liberal judges who would be happy to work with them to form a majority opinion restricting carry.
Frankly, I can't see Thomas voting no (strategic denial) and then writing a dissent. It would seem a bit disingenuous.
No. It's 4 liberal voting "no" because they know they would lose.
3 reliable conservatives (Alito, Gorsuch (was Scalia), Thomas) voting yes.
Roberts/Kennedy who fundamentally believe there is a right to carry, but don't want to be the justices to enforce it so they vote no.
Reply With Quote
  #364  
Old 06-27-2017, 12:31 PM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 4,708
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

I think all of us need to stop thinking that SCOTUS is going to come riding into town on a white horse and save us from our selves. SCOTUS hears a gun case (historically )ONCE ever 50-100 years!. Since Heller was in 2008, I wouldn't hold my breath for ANY gun case making it up, much less a carry issue (which really ISN'T an issue in the VAST majority of states). Just b/c the carry issue is a big deal to folks here in CA, DOESN'T mean it matters much to the NATION. The SCOTUS looks at cases from all over the country.

So... just so we all understand it, the SCOTUS DOESN'T care that:
1. CA won't let you carry a gun down the street (open or concealed)
2.CA wants to take away hi-cap mags (MOST other states haven't even THOUGHT about it.)
3. CA wants to take away all semi-auto rifles etc. etc.
4. CA has a safe gun roster that makes NO sense.

The reason why we have REAGIONAL courts, is so they can deal with REGIONAL issues. NONE of those issue mean much to the nation that by-and-large doesn't have to deal with it. The SCOTUS is a NATIONWIDE court. They only take what they perceive as NATIONWIDE issues.

Sad to say it... but it's the truth.
Reply With Quote
  #365  
Old 06-27-2017, 12:35 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smith629 View Post
You guys do realize that the supreme court decided to hear a case on gay wedding cakes instead of a landmark 2nd amendment case, right?

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...me-sex-wedding

Wedding cakes: 1, Second Amendment: 0.
Maybe the number of wedding cakes exceeds the number of firearms in the U.S.?
Reply With Quote
  #366  
Old 06-27-2017, 12:39 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is online now
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 743
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smith629 View Post
You guys do realize that the supreme court decided to hear a case on gay wedding cakes instead of a landmark 2nd amendment case, right?

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...me-sex-wedding

Wedding cakes: 1, Second Amendment: 0.
Regardless of how you feel about religious rights, public-facing businesses, and gays as a protected class in anti-discrimination law, there's one thing you can't argue: Charlie Craig and David Mullins have been married for almost 5 years, they had a cake to celebrate it, and Ed Peruta still has absolutely no legal way to carry a firearm for self-defense in San Diego.
Reply With Quote
  #367  
Old 06-27-2017, 12:43 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
Regardless of how you feel about religious rights, public-facing businesses, and gays as a protected class in anti-discrimination law, there's one thing you can't argue: Charlie Craig and David Mullins have been married for almost 5 years, they had a cake to celebrate it, and Ed Peruta still has absolutely no legal way to carry a firearm for self-defense in San Diego.
Piggy back rides for cops?

Admittedly that will only last for max 30 seconds, and it won't be available all the time, but I suppose that would be one way to fleetingly achieve that goal.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #368  
Old 06-27-2017, 12:43 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,640
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
Regardless of how you feel about religious rights, public-facing businesses, and gays as a protected class in anti-discrimination law, there's one thing you can't argue: Charlie Craig and David Mullins have been married for almost 5 years, they had a cake to celebrate it, and Ed Peruta still has absolutely no legal way to carry a firearm for self-defense in San Diego.
Excellent post.
__________________
Don't panic. MOST people who registered AWs are still waiting. They didn't lose your app or forget about you, they are just REALLY SLOW. If there's a problem with your app, they'll tell you. Otherwise, all you can do is wait.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #369  
Old 06-27-2017, 1:18 PM
hkguy80 hkguy80 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 66
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
Regardless of how you feel about religious rights, public-facing businesses, and gays as a protected class in anti-discrimination law, there's one thing you can't argue: Charlie Craig and David Mullins have been married for almost 5 years, they had a cake to celebrate it, and Ed Peruta still has absolutely no legal way to carry a firearm for self-defense in San Diego.
Neither do I in Los Angeles.
Reply With Quote
  #370  
Old 06-27-2017, 1:41 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 531
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
Regardless of how you feel about religious rights, public-facing businesses, and gays as a protected class in anti-discrimination law, there's one thing you can't argue: Charlie Craig and David Mullins have been married for almost 5 years, they had a cake to celebrate it, and Ed Peruta still has absolutely no legal way to carry a firearm for self-defense in San Diego.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hkguy80 View Post
Neither do I in Los Angeles.
Neither do I, nor any other person, in the entire state of Hawaii.

(From the Hawaii State Constitution (please note title of the section, if you like bitter irony):

Article I
RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
Section 17. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.)

Last edited by surfgeorge; 06-27-2017 at 1:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #371  
Old 06-27-2017, 2:14 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,399
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
I think all of us need to stop thinking that SCOTUS is going to come riding into town on a white horse and save us from our selves. SCOTUS hears a gun case (historically )ONCE ever 50-100 years!. Since Heller was in 2008, I wouldn't hold my breath for ANY gun case making it up, much less a carry issue (which really ISN'T an issue in the VAST majority of states). Just b/c the carry issue is a big deal to folks here in CA, DOESN'T mean it matters much to the NATION. The SCOTUS looks at cases from all over the country.

So... just so we all understand it, the SCOTUS DOESN'T care that:
1. CA won't let you carry a gun down the street (open or concealed)
2.CA wants to take away hi-cap mags (MOST other states haven't even THOUGHT about it.)
3. CA wants to take away all semi-auto rifles etc. etc.
4. CA has a safe gun roster that makes NO sense.

The reason why we have REAGIONAL courts, is so they can deal with REGIONAL issues. NONE of those issue mean much to the nation that by-and-large doesn't have to deal with it. The SCOTUS is a NATIONWIDE court. They only take what they perceive as NATIONWIDE issues.

Sad to say it... but it's the truth.
It really does not matter where a injustice is taken place at, its the SCOTUS job to deal with it if someone was unable to get proper treatment in the lower courts. Most cases that make that make it to SCOTUS or not nationwide issues but start in one place. As I have said before the feds know that what CA is doing is wrong but they just ignore it and will likely continue to do so unless something happens that causes them to have to deal with it.
Reply With Quote
  #372  
Old 06-27-2017, 2:25 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,780
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
Just b/c the carry issue is a big deal to folks here in CA, DOESN'T mean it matters much to the NATION. The SCOTUS looks at cases from all over the country.

....
....

The reason why we have REAGIONAL courts, is so they can deal with REGIONAL issues. NONE of those issue mean much to the nation that by-and-large doesn't have to deal with it. The SCOTUS is a NATIONWIDE court. They only take what they perceive as NATIONWIDE issues.

Sad to say it... but it's the truth.
That's not what Thomas said in his dissent.

The fact that CA makes up 10% of the nations population makes everything that happens here a national issue. Not to mention NY (another 7-8%) of the Nation. Now you are talking about 1 in 6 persons being affected by may-issue carry laws that are arbitrary and capricious.

The antis are one retirement/death away from losing everything that they are bitterly clinging to.

What I don't understand is why some LGBT protected class group in San Francisco or Los Angeles are not the ones suing for civil rights violations. The old white guys have swung and missed multiple times.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #373  
Old 06-27-2017, 2:28 PM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,133
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
I think all of us need to stop thinking that SCOTUS is going to come riding into town on a white horse and save us from our selves.
but but but but

Caetano proved that SCOTUS was going our way

Good morning, welcome to reality folks

The gating factor is firearms

Caetano was a win because it was a stun gun

case closed cal bar is right SCOTUS is useless unless we get at least one more Trump appointee
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #374  
Old 06-27-2017, 3:07 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 2,004
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Umm NO

OC WAS addressed in the amended complaint that went to the 3-judge panel.

Try to distinguish UOC that HAD been legal in CA (unloaded open carry) with the open carry everyone else enjoys.

The whole gyst of what was argued to the 3-judge panel was "if there is only one way to carry - you have to make that available to law abiding folks". They agreed.

The en banc Court (and SCOTUS for now) ignored the question raised in the suit and answered a question NOT raised.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #375  
Old 06-27-2017, 3:10 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,774
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
I believe someone pointed out (Sarabellum?) that if you legally use a gun to defend yourself that you were carrying illegally, it's all gravy/grandfathered in, considered legal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Maybe it's all gravy (not prosecuted) because of the likelihood for the case to win a pro-2a case law on appeal.

Surely it's happened before. I'm betting that's just a can of worms that DAs really don't want to open.

It's worth mentioning that it IS legal (in CA at least, I'm not sure about elsewhere) to concealed carry without a permit if you feel (and can prove) your life is in immediate danger. ("immediate", as in, running away from someone who is trying to kill you.. not just a generalized feeling that someone is out to get you [in the eyes of the court, that's what restraining orders are for])
Let's be a little more clear. If you guys are referring to PEN 26045 (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ctionNum=26045.), it's not quite as open as you present.

The statute only recognizes unlicensed concealed carry when an individual,
Quote:
...reasonably believes that person is in grave danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a current restraining order issued by a court against another person who has been found to pose a threat to the life or safety of the person who possesses the firearm.
And,
Quote:
It is not the intent of the Legislature to limit, restrict, or narrow the application of current statutory or judicial authority to apply this or other justifications to a defendant charged with violating Section 25400 or committing another similar offense.
Finally.
Quote:
Upon trial for violating Section 25850, the trier of fact shall determine whether the defendant was acting out of a reasonable belief that the defendant was in grave danger.
This section is an affirmable defense, but you will be arrested and tried before you will find out if you were "legal".
Reply With Quote
  #376  
Old 06-27-2017, 4:13 PM
ironpegasus ironpegasus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 543
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
What I don't understand is why some LGBT protected class group in San Francisco or Los Angeles are not the ones suing for civil rights violations. The old white guys have swung and missed multiple times.
Because they are afraid of being called nasty names like those "evil old white guys" for daring to support their natural right to self defense? Look at how the left is tearing into everyone (left, right or center). If their agenda doesn't perfectly match the communist manifesto democrat platform, they get their lives (and often livelihood) destroyed. The old white guys are the tail end of the greatest generation who actually knew what it was like to face true adversity. Today's snowflake generation is unlikely to have the same level of temerity needed to stick it out to the end.
Reply With Quote
  #377  
Old 06-27-2017, 6:23 PM
MolonLabe2008's Avatar
MolonLabe2008 MolonLabe2008 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,223
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
I think all of us need to stop thinking that SCOTUS is going to come riding into town on a white horse and save us from our selves. SCOTUS hears a gun case (historically )ONCE ever 50-100 years!. Since Heller was in 2008, I wouldn't hold my breath for ANY gun case making it up, much less a carry issue (which really ISN'T an issue in the VAST majority of states). Just b/c the carry issue is a big deal to folks here in CA, DOESN'T mean it matters much to the NATION. The SCOTUS looks at cases from all over the country.

So... just so we all understand it, the SCOTUS DOESN'T care that:
1. CA won't let you carry a gun down the street (open or concealed)
2.CA wants to take away hi-cap mags (MOST other states haven't even THOUGHT about it.)
3. CA wants to take away all semi-auto rifles etc. etc.
4. CA has a safe gun roster that makes NO sense.

The reason why we have REAGIONAL courts, is so they can deal with REGIONAL issues. NONE of those issue mean much to the nation that by-and-large doesn't have to deal with it. The SCOTUS is a NATIONWIDE court. They only take what they perceive as NATIONWIDE issues.

Sad to say it... but it's the truth.
That's why it is imperative that Trump nominates pro-gun judges to the Federal courts.
Reply With Quote
  #378  
Old 06-27-2017, 7:46 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is online now
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 743
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkguy80 View Post
Neither do I in Los Angeles.
Aye, we have both a sheriff and an interest in getting a ccw permit in common (along with, statistically speaking, somewhere between 20K-500k other people assuming the permit rate in Los Angeles County would be is somewhere between the current permit rate for the state of California and the national average rate.)

Last edited by champu; 06-27-2017 at 8:38 PM.. Reason: clarifying my maths
Reply With Quote
  #379  
Old 06-27-2017, 8:23 PM
naeco81 naeco81 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Atherton, CA
Posts: 1,837
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

It's frustrating when our rights are being trampled, but the State is getting off on technicalities and I think we shouldn't lose sight of that. Their own briefs in opposition make this clear. Read them, you'll see; they only tangentially discuss the core 2A issues at all. Mostly they're asking the court to wait for other cases and insisting that en banc answered the correct question by limiting scope to if 2A guarantees CCW.

It's unfair in spirit, for sure that was indefensible of the 9th, but given that's how it happened, structurally these are common reasons for SCOTUS to deny cert. Absent significant political consensus on the high court we need a clean case where the circuit courts rule on the primary question first: does 2A protect a general right to carry outside the home? Heller did answer this when they dissected the meaning of 2A and understood bear to equal carry. I think that's why the State is afraid to let the issue be heard, so they're dancing around these technicalities but Grace/Wrenn have potential to see an answer from the district on the core question itself.

We should get another shot at this.
You can check out the oral arguments in both cases here:

Last edited by naeco81; 06-27-2017 at 9:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #380  
Old 06-27-2017, 9:30 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,191
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I came across a note to myself that after Peruta gets decided, there are 3 Birdt cases that get restarted: Birdt v LAPD & LASO; Thomson (w/Birdt as his attny) v Torrance PD & LASO (which may be a GMC challenge); and some other case.

Does anyone know about the Birdt 2nd A cases?
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #381  
Old 06-27-2017, 9:47 PM
naeco81 naeco81 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Atherton, CA
Posts: 1,837
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Does anyone know about the Birdt 2nd A cases?
Birdt v Beck?
Reply With Quote
  #382  
Old 06-27-2017, 10:31 PM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 70
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
I think all of us need to stop thinking that SCOTUS is going to come riding into town on a white horse and save us from our selves. SCOTUS hears a gun case (historically )ONCE ever 50-100 years!. Since Heller was in 2008, I wouldn't hold my breath for ANY gun case making it up, much less a carry issue (which really ISN'T an issue in the VAST majority of states). Just b/c the carry issue is a big deal to folks here in CA, DOESN'T mean it matters much to the NATION.
As Thomas said, the right to carry remains a major unanswered question that comes up again and again. They regularly take 1st Amendment cases. And, as others others have stated, much of the US population lives in states denying the right (CA, HI, NY, NJ, MD etc).
I'd argue we are 1 justice away from a case being heard (and by the way, that door swings both ways).
Replace a liberal or soft conservative (Roberts/Kennedy) and they have a 4th vote for cert. and probably a ruling in favor of carry.
Replace a conservative with a liberal, and you have a liberal majority that will take the opportunity to close the door forever.
Reply With Quote
  #383  
Old 06-27-2017, 10:48 PM
kmas kmas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: So Cal
Posts: 1,102
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
We still haven't won from McDonald or Heller either. Court decisions have no teeth without enforcement. There is no controlling legal authority to make anyone obey those decisions here.

Paper laws and paper decisons = no change here.
Yes, damn depressing ...
Reply With Quote
  #384  
Old 06-28-2017, 6:32 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,339
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I came across a note to myself that after Peruta gets decided, there are 3 Birdt cases that get restarted: Birdt v LAPD & LASO; Thomson (w/Birdt as his attny) v Torrance PD & LASO (which may be a GMC challenge); and some other case.

Does anyone know about the Birdt 2nd A cases?
Those are likely DOA due to Peruta.
Reply With Quote
  #385  
Old 06-28-2017, 9:31 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 13,997
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smith629 View Post
You guys do realize that the supreme court decided to hear a case on gay wedding cakes instead of a landmark 2nd amendment case, right?
It fits the pattern - we all get fuc$#@ in the a@@, which is the only thing that matters to the leftist activist justices.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #386  
Old 06-28-2017, 9:34 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 13,997
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Those are likely DOA due to Peruta.
I'm not sure about this.

The way Peruta was manipulated was to claim the case was ONLY about concealed carry, then avoid to answer the question of "carry outside the home." Birdt cases are about *open carry*, which is exactly what the court refused (albeit by using a massive stretch) to answer in Peruta.


EDIT: For some reason I was thinking about "Nichols' cases" which are in the pipeline too...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member

Last edited by IVC; 07-01-2017 at 9:14 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #387  
Old 06-28-2017, 10:53 AM
RussG1's Avatar
RussG1 RussG1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Jose Calif
Posts: 122
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
As Thomas said, the right to carry remains a major unanswered question that comes up again and again. They regularly take 1st Amendment cases. And, as others others have stated, much of the US population lives in states denying the right (CA, HI, NY, NJ, MD etc).
I'd argue we are 1 justice away from a case being heard (and by the way, that door swings both ways).
Replace a liberal or soft conservative (Roberts/Kennedy) and they have a 4th vote for cert. and probably a ruling in favor of carry.
Replace a conservative with a liberal, and you have a liberal majority that will take the opportunity to close the door forever.
100% agree-- we may have dodged a bullet -- by not getting cert.
Reply With Quote
  #388  
Old 06-28-2017, 11:25 AM
tsnoforn tsnoforn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 216
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussG1 View Post
I am 100% sure the non cert was an active plan by the constitutional judges.

They knew that they did not have the votes to win. So they spoke to the country via the descent. Gorsuch and Thomas said " We are here for you America!!"

We need to wait for Kennedy and RBG to take leave -- and 'then' move the chess pieces.


I think this is the most accurate statement. This was not the case for Californians. Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito address the real problem (its not the supremes) and that is the action of the 9th circuit was completely unconstitutional.

The worst issue is not the decision to grant cert, it is getting the 9th circuit to obey the law of the land.

It is the 9th circuit that must dealt with. Also California gun owners must take greater efforts to win at the polls. Even sheriff's elections.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #389  
Old 06-28-2017, 12:29 PM
desert dog's Avatar
desert dog desert dog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 756
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

My worst fear:

* Grace will get denied like Peruta did (very likely outcome).

* Norman is years away from reaching SCOTUS. (likely)

* RBG and Kennedy hang in there for another 3 years (also very likely)

* Trump loses election 3 years from now (strong possibility)

* RBG/Kennedy conveniently retire under Democrat presidency. Libs cross fingers that Thomas, well into his 70s, kicks the bucket.

* lib prez gains control of SCOTUS within the next 5 years, and libs own SCOTUS for decades.

All of these "rosy" scenarios and "waiting for the perfect case" mentality hinge 100% on Trump winning the next election. Trumps approval rating is plummeting, not only in fake Liberal news polls, but among Republicans and his own supporters. This possibility should not be overlooked by those adhering to the "long game".

Last edited by desert dog; 06-28-2017 at 12:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #390  
Old 06-28-2017, 12:54 PM
Bangzoom's Avatar
Bangzoom Bangzoom is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 6,425
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by desert dog View Post
My worst fear:

* Grace will get denied like Peruta did (very likely outcome).

* Norman is years away from reaching SCOTUS. (likely)

* RBG and Kennedy hang in there for another 3 years (also very likely)

* Trump loses election 3 years from now (strong possibility)

* RBG/Kennedy conveniently retire under Democrat presidency. Libs cross fingers that Thomas, well into his 70s, kicks the bucket.

* lib prez gains control of SCOTUS within the next 5 years, and libs own SCOTUS for decades.

All of these "rosy" scenarios and "waiting for the perfect case" mentality hinge 100% on Trump winning the next election. Trumps approval rating is plummeting, not only in fake Liberal news polls, but among Republicans and his own supporters. This possibility should not be overlooked by those adhering to the "long game".

His approval rating is just fine...dont believe the myth

If we make the LIEberals play on a level playing field in the next election...they will lose...BIGLY
__________________


Who do you think "Our" means when they say "Diversity is our strength"?



Reply With Quote
  #391  
Old 06-28-2017, 1:54 PM
Whiterabbit Whiterabbit is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 6,913
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

yep.

If we were to have the 2020 election today, Trump would have a winning number of electoral college votes and the popular vote would swing even more bigly away from him as CA voted 80 or 90% for a dem, and all blue states swing harder for the dem.

Will be irrelevant for a presidential victory. The dems will then cry foul even though they choose to "play a 50 state game" ala sanders while GOP targets for the win.
Reply With Quote
  #392  
Old 06-28-2017, 2:51 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 531
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by desert dog View Post
My worst fear:
* Norman is years away from reaching SCOTUS. (likely)
That's a good list of "fears"... not sure about the percentage likely probability of each of them...

Norman's request for cert is due in two weeks. While SCOTUS may grant another 30 or 60 day postponement of deadline to file, it wouldn't likely go beyond that and would certainly be ruled upon in the fall of 2017 (okay it could be "rescheduled" umpteen times and not make the deadline in January for cases to be heard (if granted) prior to fall 2018 term). What makes you think it will be "years"?
Reply With Quote
  #393  
Old 06-28-2017, 2:55 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,339
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
I'm not sure about this.

The way Peruta was manipulated was to claim the case was ONLY about concealed carry, then avoid to answer the question of "carry outside the home." Birdt cases are about *open carry*, which is exactly what the court refused (albeit by using a massive stretch) to answer in Peruta.
Birdt filed an OC case? I don't think so .
Reply With Quote
  #394  
Old 06-28-2017, 9:48 PM
ColdDeadHands1's Avatar
ColdDeadHands1 ColdDeadHands1 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains
Posts: 3,246
iTrader: 67 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
They didn't ask for relief in the form of the OC ban being overturned. So this was in essence a CCW case only.
Possibly the fatal flaw in this case!
__________________


"Let me guess... This isn't about the alcohol or tobacco?"
Reply With Quote
  #395  
Old 06-29-2017, 1:08 AM
Battosai1 Battosai1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 186
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

You all play their game and expect to win. Damn fools all of you.
Reply With Quote
  #396  
Old 06-29-2017, 6:24 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,640
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Battosai1 View Post
You all play their game and expect to win. Damn fools all of you.
You're right, we should all just bravely give up like you did.

__________________
Don't panic. MOST people who registered AWs are still waiting. They didn't lose your app or forget about you, they are just REALLY SLOW. If there's a problem with your app, they'll tell you. Otherwise, all you can do is wait.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #397  
Old 06-29-2017, 8:05 AM
Big Ben's Avatar
Big Ben Big Ben is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 723
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
Respectfully, I disagree.
I think the holdouts for cert are Roberts and Kennedy. I think the frustration expressed by Thomas and Scalia (in previous dissents) is knowing that they actually have the votes to issue a opinion in favor of carry, but Roberts and Kennedy would just rather not deal with the issue so they vote "no".
In fact, Thomas (in this dissent) stressed that the court should grant cert even if they disagree with a right to carry, because it's an important issue.
If Roberts or Kennedy actually wanted to say no to carry, they have 4 willing liberal judges who would be happy to work with them to form a majority opinion restricting carry.
Frankly, I can't see Thomas voting no (strategic denial) and then writing a dissent. It would seem a bit disingenuous.
No. It's 4 liberal voting "no" because they know they would lose.
3 reliable conservatives (Alito, Gorsuch (was Scalia), Thomas) voting yes.
Roberts/Kennedy who fundamentally believe there is a right to carry, but don't want to be the justices to enforce it so they vote no.
I agree with this line of thinking. I think Roberts and Kennedy are avoiding the question, because their overarching judicial philosophy would require them to to support the right to carry, but their concerns about politics/legacy have them wanting to dodge the question.
Reply With Quote
  #398  
Old 06-29-2017, 9:02 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,697
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
It fits the pattern - we all get fuc$#@ in the a@@, which is the only thing that matters to the leftist activist justices.
Exactly - кто кого. Who _____s whom.

The outcome.

That's all leftists care about. It used to be about class issues but now it's about identity issues. кто кого.

We need some "living document" extreme right justices. We need to start playing their game.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #399  
Old 06-29-2017, 11:44 AM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

My brain goes with the thought that with the 'wafflers' in the middle, there's a strong desire by those justices on the court who are uncertain in their ability to pull the 'wafflers' to the right to not take a case until such time there is a strong conservative majority. The calculus is that denying cert now only burdens those people in 'may issue' states under the 9th circuit while the people living in the 40 states that are shall issue or constitutional carry are unaffected. If they grant cert prematurely and don't have the five votes, a very bad precedent gets set affecting the entire nation, and indeed the whole issue of 'tiers' of rights, that could take generations to unwind. If they wait until Kennedy retires and/or RBG dies, hopefully within Trump's term, the tide shifts and they can then take the next case that comes up and dispel the clouds once and for all in an opinion that finally kills the whole progressive notion of there being some rights that are more important or favorable than others. Who knows, maybe within that window of time our Congress finally grows some balls and passes national reciprocity with recognition of non-resident permits.

While this whole thing is a terrible distortion of justice and what the true interpretation of the 2nd amendment should mean ... better that we live with the burden of this really confusing juxtaposition for a few more years than decades of the 2nd amendment being firmly codified as a 2nd tier right nationally.

Last edited by dawgcasa; 06-29-2017 at 12:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #400  
Old 06-29-2017, 12:35 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,191
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
You're right, we should all just bravely give up like you did.

We'll NEVER stop fighting for our RKBA in CA because ...

__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 09-19-2017 at 10:01 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 10:52 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.