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
  #1  
Old 12-06-2017, 2:43 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 900
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Sigitas Raulinaitis v. VCSD 9th Circuit *Lost* 12/27/2017

http://michellawyers.com/raulinaitis...unty-sheriffs/


Jon Birdt just had argument today in this case. I thought he did a good job. It challenges Ventura's interpretation of the residency requirement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOJC1nDCIqE

It is the second argument in the video link above. Starts at 2815 of the video

Last edited by wolfwood; 12-06-2017 at 2:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-06-2017, 8:22 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 900
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpPC...ature=youtu.be

here is the direct video
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-09-2017, 9:34 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,689
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post


here is the direct video
Thanks.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

225+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.


Last edited by Paladin; 12-09-2017 at 9:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-10-2017, 7:49 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,250
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
http://michellawyers.com/raulinaitis...unty-sheriffs/


Jon Birdt just had argument today in this case. I thought he did a good job. It challenges Ventura's interpretation of the residency requirement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOJC1nDCIqE

It is the second argument in the video link above. Starts at 2815 of the video
I guess...... although his 2A/self defense arguments are going nowhere IMO.

The residency argument is another matter but why would CA9 not simply kick this back to the CA state courts? Seems they should be the one determining residency within the state.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-27-2017, 5:48 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,331
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default Another CCW case bites the dust.

Gents,

The Ninth Circuit has just handed down it's unpublished decision in Raulinaitus v Ventura County Sheriff's Department.

In sum, Mr. Raulinaitus owned residential property in Ventura County and applied to the Ventura County Sheriff's Department for a CCW permit. The application investigation revealed that even though he owned property in Ventura County, he was a primary resident of Los Angeles County. The Ventura County Sheriff denied the application.

On appeal Mr. Raulinaitus argued a Second Amendment basis for the issue of the CCW and that the Ventura County Sheriff abused his discretion in denying the permit on residency grounds.

The court dealt with the appeal very quickly. It went right to Peruta on the Second Amendment issue "the general public does not have a right under the Second Amendment to carry a concealed firearm in public." On the discretion issue, it found that the Sheriff had the broad discretion to issue permits, and that he made an appropriate conclusion as to Mr. Raulinaitus' county of residence.

Folks, the effort to reform California's firearms laws must be intelligently pursued. Loose cannon efforts where a plaintiff re-argues the same ground previously covered and lost, doesn't do anyone any good. All it does is to line the pockets of the plaintiff's attorney. On the other hand, it actually does a lot of harm. The cumulation of a number of adverse opinions strengthens the opposition. There have been some significant advances in the state of the law. Heller and McDonald being the two best examples. What is needed is a combined strategy, a careful selection of forums (and that kinda rules out California and Ninth Circuit for the moment), and a careful selection of cases to bring forward. Once a case goes, it's important for the plaintiff to remain fully committed to seeing the case go to conclusion.

Here's a link to the decision: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datasto...2/14-56615.pdf
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-27-2017, 6:22 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,689
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

3 weeks from CA9 orals to decision: "Losing fast"...

"Don't throw us in that briar patch!"

"Chess, not checkers!"

En banc next!
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

225+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-27-2017, 7:55 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,729
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
3 weeks from CA9 orals to decision: "Losing fast"...

"Don't throw us in that briar patch!"

"Chess, not checkers!"

En banc next!
This case was a looser on its facts, which had nothing to do with the 2A. But, there may be a silver lining if, as RickD427 said, the court repeated that "the general public does not have a right under the Second Amendment to carry a concealed firearm in public" and under CA law the public does not have to right to openly carry a firearm in public either. Thus, leaving no ability to carry a firearm in public for self defense. We just need another assured vote in the SCOTUS.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-27-2017, 9:29 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,331
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
This case was a looser on its facts, which had nothing to do with the 2A. But, there may be a silver lining if, as RickD427 said, the court repeated that "the general public does not have a right under the Second Amendment to carry a concealed firearm in public" and under CA law the public does not have to right to openly carry a firearm in public either. Thus, leaving no ability to carry a firearm in public for self defense. We just need another assured vote in the SCOTUS.
Good analysis here. The battle is really best fought in other Circuits and timed to arrive at SCOTUS once the next justice is appointed. The issue needs to arrive at the Ninth Circuit as settled law from SCOTUS and not raised to the Ninth Circuit for an original appellate decision. IMHO, there is a lot of value to the "Catch-22" argument, but its not gonna work in the Ninth.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-28-2017, 9:27 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,250
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Once Peruta was handed down this case was doomed.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-28-2017, 9:36 AM
CG11's Avatar
CG11 CG11 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: I.E.
Posts: 196
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

That is the 9th circuit court in a nutshell -"The general public does not have a right" period. Remember this come election day.
__________________
I'm not that happy to see you - It's a gun.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-28-2017, 9:52 AM
Kestryll's Avatar
Kestryll Kestryll is offline
Head Janitor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Occupied Reseda, PRK
Posts: 20,777
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Gents,

The Ninth Circuit has just handed down it's unpublished decision in Raulinaitus v Ventura County Sheriff's Department.

In sum, Mr. Raulinaitus owned residential property in Ventura County and applied to the Ventura County Sheriff's Department for a CCW permit. The application investigation revealed that even though he owned property in Ventura County, he was a primary resident of Los Angeles County. The Ventura County Sheriff denied the application.

On appeal Mr. Raulinaitus argued a Second Amendment basis for the issue of the CCW and that the Ventura County Sheriff abused his discretion in denying the permit on residency grounds.

The court dealt with the appeal very quickly. It went right to Peruta on the Second Amendment issue "the general public does not have a right under the Second Amendment to carry a concealed firearm in public." On the discretion issue, it found that the Sheriff had the broad discretion to issue permits, and that he made an appropriate conclusion as to Mr. Raulinaitus' county of residence.

Folks, the effort to reform California's firearms laws must be intelligently pursued. Loose cannon efforts where a plaintiff re-argues the same ground previously covered and lost, doesn't do anyone any good. All it does is to line the pockets of the plaintiff's attorney. On the other hand, it actually does a lot of harm. The cumulation of a number of adverse opinions strengthens the opposition. There have been some significant advances in the state of the law. Heller and McDonald being the two best examples. What is needed is a combined strategy, a careful selection of forums (and that kinda rules out California and Ninth Circuit for the moment), and a careful selection of cases to bring forward. Once a case goes, it's important for the plaintiff to remain fully committed to seeing the case go to conclusion.

Here's a link to the decision: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datasto...2/14-56615.pdf
Birdt, not surprised...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA Life Member / SAF Life Member
Calguns.net an incorported entity - President.
The Calguns Shooting Sports Assoc. - Vice President.
The California Rifle & Pistol Assoc. - Director.
DONATE TO NRA-ILA, CGSSA, AND CRPAF NOW!
Opinions posted in this account are my own and unless specifically stated as such are not the approved position of Calguns.net, CGSSA or CRPA.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-28-2017, 11:50 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,154
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Birdt, not surprised...
Thats a personal attack
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-28-2017, 12:24 PM
Kestryll's Avatar
Kestryll Kestryll is offline
Head Janitor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Occupied Reseda, PRK
Posts: 20,777
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Thats a personal attack
Just an observation of fact based on history.


Besides, Birdt is not a member here.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA Life Member / SAF Life Member
Calguns.net an incorported entity - President.
The Calguns Shooting Sports Assoc. - Vice President.
The California Rifle & Pistol Assoc. - Director.
DONATE TO NRA-ILA, CGSSA, AND CRPAF NOW!
Opinions posted in this account are my own and unless specifically stated as such are not the approved position of Calguns.net, CGSSA or CRPA.
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 6:53 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.