|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
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.. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Last edited by Paladin; 12-09-2017 at 9:36 PM.. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
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The Ninth Circuit has just handed down it's unpublished decision in Raulinaitus v Ventura County Sheriff's Department.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
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
3 weeks from CA9 orals to decision: "Losing fast"...
"Don't throw us in that briar patch!" "Chess, not checkers!" En banc next!
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life. |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
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. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Anything new with this case? IOW, did they ask for an en banc appeal? Cert?
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Last edited by Paladin; 05-25-2018 at 5:34 PM.. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
I don't see any docket at SCOTUS with that name so likely no. But it's possible he did file for en banc which would extend the clock.
It would leave an odd scenario where Birdt can appeal to SCOTUS with a split in hand..... |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|