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
  #7801  
Old 02-22-2017, 12:55 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 299
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
However, should there be even 1 State in the 9th with a "concealed carry right" in it's constitution, Peruta overturns that enshrined State Right via California's ban and regulatory scheme. That's pretty scarey where California can determine, via the 9th circuit, what Rights exist in other States and other States' Constitutions.
The Hawaii constitution Article I, section 17 reads identical to the Second Amendment, and is titled "Right to Bear Arms".

Hawaii filed an amicus for Peruta en banc that claimed that 1. there is no constitutional right to concealed or open carry, and 2. even if there was it wouldn't apply to "public spaces", and 3. everywhere outside the home where another person might appear is a "public space".

Hawaii is a couple of steps ahead of California, and cheerleading.
Reply With Quote
  #7802  
Old 02-22-2017, 4:04 PM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 343
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CessnaDriver View Post
I suspect some of those states simply would say go pound sand.
The problem with this sort of thinking is the Supremacy Clause. If there is no Right to bear arms in public then there is no Right to bear arms in public even if the State says so.

That State based say so only creates a privilege which can vanish as soon as the next *** sits in the legislative/administrative chair. Or which can be regulated out of existence at a whim. One only need to look at Texas to see how often the pendulum can swing. And this has happened ONLY BECAUSE there is nothing to support bear in the 2A so even Texas has been able to infringe because it's only a privilege until the Right is established solidly and firmly. Under the 9th's decision, it's a privilege. Period.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #7803  
Old 02-23-2017, 3:10 PM
pacrat pacrat is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 4,302
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
Yes it is! While not as interesting, the amicus brief of the Western States Sheriffs' Association should hopefully refute those who are continually arguing that LEOs are not on our side.

The WSSA has members in 15 western states. They are not representative of the LEA and LE Unions in Ca which have a history of selling out the rights of citizens in Ca.

The WSSA members in Ca are from Siskiyou and Yolo counties.

If Sheriff [shoot to kill Bill] Gore, was Pro 2A. There would not be a Peruta case.


Last edited by pacrat; 02-23-2017 at 3:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #7804  
Old 02-23-2017, 11:38 PM
CMonfort's Avatar
CMonfort CMonfort is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 465
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Here is the alert on the amicus briefs that were filed in support of the petition with links to each brief :

http://crpa.org/important-amicus-bri...ta-carry-case/

-Clint
Reply With Quote
  #7805  
Old 02-23-2017, 11:54 PM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 601
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Please excuse my ignorance of procedural timing, my question is this: without the nominee for the vacant SCOTUS position actually being a member of the court yet, what is the risk level that the court will decline to hear the case? Should the pro-gun rights interests have waited until that seat was filled?
Reply With Quote
  #7806  
Old 02-24-2017, 12:04 AM
CMonfort's Avatar
CMonfort CMonfort is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 465
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by splithoof View Post
Please excuse my ignorance of procedural timing, my question is this: without the nominee for the vacant SCOTUS position actually being a member of the court yet, what is the risk level that the court will decline to hear the case? Should the pro-gun rights interests have waited until that seat was filled?
No problem, happy to answer your question. SCOTUS rules set a timeline for filing the cert petition, and all available extensions under those rules were obtained. The brief was filed as late as it possibly could have been filed.
Reply With Quote
  #7807  
Old 02-24-2017, 12:13 AM
nicky c nicky c is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 235
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMonfort View Post
Here is the alert on the amicus briefs that were filed in support of the petition with links to each brief :

http://crpa.org/important-amicus-bri...ta-carry-case/

-Clint
It's pretty hard to dismiss that very compelling amicus brief from the Attorneys General of 26 states...
Reply With Quote
  #7808  
Old 02-24-2017, 12:19 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Banned-aid
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: 916
Posts: 7,686
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicky c View Post
It's pretty hard to dismiss that very compelling amicus brief from the Attorneys General of 26 states...
Not to mention 9 governors
Reply With Quote
  #7809  
Old 02-24-2017, 12:23 AM
Caper's Avatar
Caper Caper is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 83
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicky c View Post
It's pretty hard to dismiss that very compelling amicus brief from the Attorneys General of 26 states...


I don't know. They don't have a problem dismissing the Constitution.
__________________
There is science, logic, reason; there is thought verified by experience. And then there is California.
Edward Abbey

I'm just a peckerwood who lives in the hills with too many guns.
Bob Lee Swagger
Reply With Quote
  #7810  
Old 02-24-2017, 7:39 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
rotubirtnoC NGC
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 300
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicky c View Post
It's pretty hard to dismiss that very compelling amicus brief from the Attorneys General of 26 states...
See Friedman v Highland Park.
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 2:13 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.