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.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #8481  
Old 05-17-2017, 3:45 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,086
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
The devil would be in the details of what you mean by, "ruled in Peruta's favor." If such a ruling leaves room to dance around within the current law (e.g. if they ruled simply that self-defense does, indeed, constitute good cause for carrying a concealed weapon) then expect no-issue sheriffs to do that dance (e.g. "suddenly I don't feel like anyone who comes in my office is of good moral character.") If the ruling leaves room to dance around with a new law then expect emergency legislation. (e.g. "you can have your license but concealed carry is not allowed in any sensitive places such as within 20 miles of another person.")
That's my concern, as well. The "good moral character" aspect has always bothered me, they can deny you for any negative thing they want. Not smiling during the interview, a parking ticket from 1974, cheating on a spelling test in 3rd grade, a neighbor that says you let your dog poop on their lawn... WAY too much wiggle room there. That aspect needs to go away just as much as the "good cause" aspect.

Additionally, like you, what worries me is that even if we win, the opinion will pull a Heller and say something like "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose ... The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

I can imagine the opinion saying, "The second amendment protects the right to bear arms outside the home, though it does not prohibit a state from mandating certain requirements to be met first, or prohibiting carry in certain areas." The net result being: yay, we're basically in the same position we were in before.
  #8482  
Old 05-17-2017, 6:26 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,840
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
That's my concern, as well. The "good moral character" aspect has always bothered me, they can deny you for any negative thing they want. Not smiling during the interview, a parking ticket from 1974, cheating on a spelling test in 3rd grade, a neighbor that says you let your dog poop on their lawn... WAY too much wiggle room there. That aspect needs to go away just as much as the "good cause" aspect.

Additionally, like you, what worries me is that even if we win, the opinion will pull a Heller and say something like "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose ... The Courtís opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

I can imagine the opinion saying, "The second amendment protects the right to bear arms outside the home, though it does not prohibit a state from mandating certain requirements to be met first, or prohibiting carry in certain areas." The net result being: yay, we're basically in the same position we were in before.
As I've stated probably a dozen times now, that's not what Heller said . . . this time your quoting out of context to make a point.


Scalia:

1. Bans on Open Carry cannot pass muster.

2. Prohibitions on things such as Concealed Carry can...bearing in sensitive places, not-so-common arms . . . among other things.

Hence why I'm awaiting Peruta cert, Normal cert and likely Nichols cert and challenges to national ccw reciprocity.

To see whether SCOTUS respects Heller and 600 years of precedent/tradition or tries to toss it out or run around it.


=8-)
  #8483  
Old 05-17-2017, 7:01 AM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 68
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent Pulse View Post
I have a question. Suppose the SCOTUS accepted the case and ruled in Peruta's favor and San Diego county's "Good Cause" law is struck, would the CCW law in Yolo County for "Good Case" also be struck or just the one for San Diego?

I'm trying to learn how the aftermath of SCOTUS rulings work in stuff like this.

Any information would be greatly appreciated.
The ruling would have nationwide consequences.
For example, NJ and MA both had complete bans on the civilian ownership of stun guns. In Caetano v Massachusetts, the Supreme Court ruled that stun guns are protected under the 2A (first and only time ruling in favor of the 2A since Heller/McDonald).
Someone in NJ tries to order a stun gun after the ruling and is denied based on state law. The NJ 2A foundation sues NJ based on the SCOTUS ruling.
NJ concedes that it's law is unconstitutional and agrees to write "reasonable regulations" that allow for civilian ownership.
But, I fully expect those regulations will be onerous. And, if SCOTUS overturns "good cause", expect the anti-state to write rules like "you may carry a flintlock pistol on the first Tuesday of the month after 100 hours of training and posting a $1 million bond for liability."
  #8484  
Old 05-17-2017, 7:17 AM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 68
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
Perhaps Ginsburg is writing a dissent for a grant of certiorari.
...Or, they are throwing us a total curveball and writing an order remanding the case back to the 9th Circuit to answer the question they danced around "is carry protected in some form".
I'll put the odds at:
60% denial of cert with dissent
39% cert granted
1% remanded back to 9th circuit.
  #8485  
Old 05-17-2017, 9:36 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,736
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
I'm still in.
Good job, and thanks! I REALLY respect anyone that's willing to be money on the outcome, but bets/odds don't have to have a stake, they're just better with a stake!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
Prieto would - he's that big of an *sshole

And then the CA Leg would declare us a "Sanctuary State" from 2A rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolverine View Post
Technically it would only apply to the named parties. But every other sheriff would know that they would immediately lose in court so they won't even bother.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Lot of ifs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade Gunner View Post
As you point out Kennedy is a weak link and Roberts unpredictable. SCOTUS is really a 4L-2M-3C Court. To get a pro 2A court both Kennedy and Ginsburg have got to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
Perhaps Ginsburg is writing a dissent for a grant of certiorari.
Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
As an off-topic aside... I watched a video of Ed Peruta recorded yesterday prior to the announcement of another relist. It's not really worth watching (IMHO) as it's just rambling on about his shooting/marksmanship at a young age, etc., but right at the beginning he said "It gets a little old after, what, 8 or 9 years?" [So it's not just me. ] Also, he just got out of the hospital after suffering some kind of (relatively "minor") cardiac event. Oh, and he says he now "agree(s) with Nichols" that open carry is the right protected by the Constitution.
Come on all you long-time posters! This is the final stretch for this epic case with over 1 million views!!!

The ONLY way to give respect to this case, as epic and closely watched and political/judicial football as it is is to make a stand and guess:

Cert- yes or no
If yes, if it manages to become a national news item
If no, how many relists AND how many pages the dissent is

You also qualify if you give % chances of various outcomes and likelihoods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
As I've stated probably a dozen times now, that's not what Heller said . . . this time your quoting out of context to make a point.


Scalia:

1. Bans on Open Carry cannot pass muster.

2. Prohibitions on things such as Concealed Carry can...bearing in sensitive places, not-so-common arms . . . among other things.

Hence why I'm awaiting Peruta cert, Normal cert and likely Nichols cert and challenges to national ccw reciprocity.

To see whether SCOTUS respects Heller and 600 years of precedent/tradition or tries to toss it out or run around it.


=8-)
Why the hell would they respect precedent? Scalia threw out militia weapons when all the AMERICAN precedent is basically behind militia weapons and not pure self defense weapons. This fealty to the constitution only makes sense if you can count to 5 where fealty is the most important thing. And, like it or not, even IF we manage to replace another judge, Roberts is NOT fealty uber alles. He has, in fact, changed his opinion JUST to appeal to people in SPITE of precedents. So the very idea that you question, or have HOPE that will be the case is in spite of all the evidence of how the court acts to the contrary, Mr. Rabbit. Even Scalia's "precedent" of following "originalism" carved out "long-standing prohibitions" by "not casting doubt" on them. As great as Heller was, that paragon of originalism is, at it's heart, a MAJOR compromise with a NON-ORIGINALIST. The idea that we're going to get something even more originalist than what the media heralded as the most originalist decision ever is... naive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
...Or, they are throwing us a total curveball and writing an order remanding the case back to the 9th Circuit to answer the question they danced around "is carry protected in some form".
I'll put the odds at:
60% denial of cert with dissent
39% cert granted
1% remanded back to 9th circuit.
THANK YOU PHIREMIN.

YOU GET IT.

Nice job on making odds! Now, if you'd just give the odds on the number of pages of the dissent from denial of cert. if Peruta is denied cert, I will give you a gold star!
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
  #8486  
Old 05-17-2017, 10:24 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What's the line in Vegas?
  #8487  
Old 05-17-2017, 11:05 AM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 511
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Come on all you long-time posters! This is the final stretch for this epic case with over 1 million views!!!
I think Kennedy and Roberts are No votes, which along with the usual suspects, makes for a denial of cert. How many join in the dissent, is the unknown.
  #8488  
Old 05-17-2017, 11:17 AM
angelinointexas angelinointexas is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 302
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Racist origins of "May Issue" in CA dates back to 1924.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nick View Post
Once again, if that was for me, NRA's had a good summary in "Rooted in Racism" in 2011, but I've read about it quite a few years ago. A few other sources to get you started (as I can't find that article in America's 1st Freedom, and I'm not about to spend too much time on it):

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2013...aled-carry-law

http://gunwiki.net/Gunwiki/LegalCaliforniaTimeline

And you can always look it up yourself. It's not like this is a big secret. The reasons for the 1924 law were openly discussed in newspapers (different times), and Gov. Richardson said as much himself when signing that law.

Wow. Dude you know your stuff man. I looked for it and found it here.

upload image
Quote:
The following article appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on July 15th, 1923, page 3, column 1.

It mentions that California's CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) law was passed specifically to prevent Chinese, Latinos and legal immigrants (non-naturalized permanent residents) from being armed.

Note that this was from a time in California in which Hispanics were segregated into separate public schools.
This link has the actual bill.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/11...y-law-has.html


http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/AB263-Hawes-1923.pdf

This can only strengthen Peruta's case. The Supreme Court must throw out this antiquated racist "may issue" law.
  #8489  
Old 05-17-2017, 11:53 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,736
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
I think Kennedy and Roberts are No votes, which along with the usual suspects, makes for a denial of cert. How many join in the dissent, is the unknown.
But we can speculate and guess! And that's the ENTIRE POINT of calguns!

If it was just about news, then we could rely on FPC or whatever.

No, calguns is about discussing, guessing, hypothesizing, etc.

So come on! Now that you've decided it will be denied cert, how many relists will it get? How many pages of dissent? How many justices sign the dissent?

Of COURSE it's unknown. That's why we're discussing it, instead of just reading a press report and yelling or cheering. We are here to speculate!
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
  #8490  
Old 05-17-2017, 11:55 AM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 68
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
THANK YOU PHIREMIN.
YOU GET IT.

Nice job on making odds! Now, if you'd just give the odds on the number of pages of the dissent from denial of cert. if Peruta is denied cert, I will give you a gold star!
Over/Under is 8 pages.
70% Thomas will be the author.
50% Alito will sign on.
30% Gorsuch will sign on.
5 more relists (thatís all thatís left in the term)
First, Thomas is the most vociferous justice when it comes to dissenting from cert.
Thomasís dissents in Friedman (magazine size limits) and Jackson ( gun must be locked-up) were both 6 pages. However, this a much bigger issue (denying a fundamental core right versus infringing at the edges) deserving of a longer dissent with a more in-depth analysis supporting a right to carry.
This will take a while to write, but the last Conference in June 22.
Alito wrote a concurring opinion in Caetano (stun gun case) where he chided the court for its ďgrudging per curiumĒ concluding that stun guns are protected and he ripped the MA court for trampling on Heller. He seems ready to take a case like this. I see a good chance he joins a dissent.
I put the odds on Gorsuch lower, just because he is new. And, a dissent joined by 3 justices would basically be calling out Roberts as the turncoat. Not sure the new guy is ready to put himself into the hot seat just yet.
  #8491  
Old 05-17-2017, 12:00 PM
Peaceful John's Avatar
Peaceful John Peaceful John is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 308
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
...Or, they are throwing us a total curveball and writing an order remanding the case back to the 9th Circuit to answer the question they danced around "is carry protected in some form".
I'll put the odds at:
60% denial of cert with dissent
39% cert granted
1% remanded back to 9th circuit.
SCOTUS has overcome every opportunity to issue a clear 2nd A ruling for a projectile weapon outside the home. There is no reason to believe this might have changed because J. Gorsuch is now seated, as he simply replaces a previous conservative Justice. Because the Court has repeatedly demonstrated it's political nature in Second Amendment cases, and the political line of least resistance is to remand, I would quote odds on Peruta as:

60% Remand
39% Deny
01% Grant
__________________
America -- once a country, now a game show.
  #8492  
Old 05-17-2017, 1:27 PM
ECG_88's Avatar
ECG_88 ECG_88 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 409
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaceful John View Post
SCOTUS has overcome every opportunity to issue a clear 2nd A ruling for a projectile weapon outside the home. There is no reason to believe this might have changed because J. Gorsuch is now seated, as he simply replaces a previous conservative Justice. Because the Court has repeatedly demonstrated it's political nature in Second Amendment cases, and the political line of least resistance is to remand, I would quote odds on Peruta as:

60% Remand
39% Deny
01% Grant
SO if the its gets remanded back to the 9th and they come back with the same result, we get another shot at the supreme court right? Then we are back where we are now, just a couple more years down the road?
__________________
Emotional appeal is a marketing tactic and not a foundation for effective argument.
  #8493  
Old 05-17-2017, 1:40 PM
Lonestargrizzly's Avatar
Lonestargrizzly Lonestargrizzly is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4,660
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ECG_88 View Post
SO if the its gets remanded back to the 9th and they come back with the same result, we get another shot at the supreme court right? Then we are back where we are now, just a couple more years down the road?
Unless Justice Gorsuch issues a writ of mandamus to the CA DOJ to undo all this mess.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbie1234 View Post
DO NOT RESPONSE TO THIS POST NO MORE.
"ssagsdgr" is A SPAM(mer).
GO TO EDIT AND DELETE YOUR REPLIES, WE DO NOT TOLERANCE SPAMMER ON OUR FORUM. THOSE SPAMMER IS LIKED "FORUM TERRORIST"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonestargrizzly View Post
Forum terrorist is in my sights, request permission to engage...
  #8494  
Old 05-17-2017, 1:48 PM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,784
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

My odds on Peruta are:

99% deny
1% remand
0% grant

I've been watching these cases for too long, and now I'm just cynical. We need to replace one or two more SCOTUS justices before we have a prayer of getting another gun rights case to the supremes. The bottom line is the courts hate gun rights almost as much as Democrats and they'll do anything to avoid giving the 2A the protection it deserves.
__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
  #8495  
Old 05-17-2017, 1:50 PM
nicky c nicky c is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 279
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Would be a really interesting scenario if they end up sending it back down, telling the 9th to just answer the original question instead of side stepping with their antics.
  #8496  
Old 05-17-2017, 2:49 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,736
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thank you Phiremin, peaceful John, and Bulgron!

Anyone else PLEASE contribute odds, over indeed, etc!

Make Peruta discussion great again!

Even if you don't have money on the line, wagering helps keep you just that little bit more engaged.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
  #8497  
Old 05-17-2017, 9:01 PM
lorax3's Avatar
lorax3 lorax3 is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Santa Clara
Posts: 4,664
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Blog Entries: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
I'm still in.
I know. Was hoping to make a little more $$
__________________
You think you know, but you have no idea.

The information posted here is not legal advice. If you seek legal advice hire an attorney who is familiar with all the facts of your case.
  #8498  
Old 05-18-2017, 5:52 AM
butchy_boy's Avatar
butchy_boy butchy_boy is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 91
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

20% grant
60% deny
20% remand
  #8499  
Old 05-18-2017, 7:15 AM
SimpleCountryActuary's Avatar
SimpleCountryActuary SimpleCountryActuary is offline
Not a miracle worker
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,951
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default The Hamster Wheel Pauses for this Important Message

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicky c View Post
Would be a really interesting scenario if they end up sending it back down, telling the 9th to just answer the original question instead of side stepping with their antics.
That might be best because:

1. It would embarrass the whole En Banc 9th Circus;
2. It could (probably would) give Mr. Trump a chance to get one or two more conservative Justices on SCOTUS;
3. It would embarrass the whole En Banc 9th Circus.

Best!
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA."

Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees.
  #8500  
Old 05-18-2017, 7:26 AM
SpookyWatcher SpookyWatcher is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 66
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Screenshot from 2017-05-18 07-37-12.jpg
  #8501  
Old 05-18-2017, 7:27 AM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,784
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimpleCountryActuary View Post
That might be best because:

1. It would embarrass the whole En Banc 9th Circus;
2. It could (probably would) give Mr. Trump a chance to get one or two more conservative Justices on SCOTUS;
3. It would embarrass the whole En Banc 9th Circus.

Best!
I don't understand point #2, above. How does SCOTUS remanding get Trump a chance to put more Justices on SCOTUS?
__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
  #8502  
Old 05-18-2017, 7:33 AM
Lonestargrizzly's Avatar
Lonestargrizzly Lonestargrizzly is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4,660
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpookyWatcher View Post
Does that say Cert granted?
Can you post the link to that page please.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbie1234 View Post
DO NOT RESPONSE TO THIS POST NO MORE.
"ssagsdgr" is A SPAM(mer).
GO TO EDIT AND DELETE YOUR REPLIES, WE DO NOT TOLERANCE SPAMMER ON OUR FORUM. THOSE SPAMMER IS LIKED "FORUM TERRORIST"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonestargrizzly View Post
Forum terrorist is in my sights, request permission to engage...

Last edited by Lonestargrizzly; 05-18-2017 at 7:38 AM..
  #8503  
Old 05-18-2017, 7:45 AM
Crazydave's Avatar
Crazydave Crazydave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 290
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonestargrizzly View Post
Does that say Cert granted?
Can you post the link to that page please.
maybe wishful thinking here's the real website:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search....les/16-894.htm
  #8504  
Old 05-18-2017, 7:59 AM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 139
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonestargrizzly View Post
Does that say Cert granted?
Can you post the link to that page please.
Also looks to say May 35, 2017
__________________
  #8505  
Old 05-18-2017, 8:47 AM
Crazydave's Avatar
Crazydave Crazydave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 290
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajb78 View Post
Also looks to say May 35, 2017

that would be "two-weeks" out right
  #8506  
Old 05-18-2017, 9:27 AM
Wolverine's Avatar
Wolverine Wolverine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 738
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
I don't understand point #2, above. How does SCOTUS remanding get Trump a chance to put more Justices on SCOTUS?
I think he meant that if remanded back to the 9th circuit then it won't come back up to SCOTUS for a year or likely two. In that time Trump will likely have an opportunity or two to replace some retiring/croaking justice(s).
  #8507  
Old 05-18-2017, 9:36 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpookyWatcher View Post
I suspect whatever that text reads is humorous... but I can't read it. I need a laugh about Peruta. Someone please post a version with a large enough font that geezers can read it.

* * * * *

I see that the resident prognosticator with many years of experience (long before I became a member) following ALL kinds of Second Amendment related cases as to when the conference results were announced has not repeated his claims for that announcement this week. If all those years of experience were valid last week (despite his having been 100% wrong last week) they'd still apply this week, right? I mean, MANY YEARS of EXPERIENCE wouldn't be invalidated by one fluke of a conference announcement outside the parameters of his comprehensive analysis.

"Friday morning (possibly even Thurs afternoon, 2:00 pm PST)."
  #8508  
Old 05-18-2017, 9:48 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,601
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

I'm interested to see if Gorsuch or Roberts concurs when dissent of cert is published. That will be telling.
  #8509  
Old 05-18-2017, 10:15 AM
SpookyWatcher SpookyWatcher is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 66
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
I suspect whatever that text reads is humorous... but I can't read it. I need a laugh about Peruta. Someone please post a version with a large enough font that geezers can read it.

* * * * *

I see that the resident prognosticator with many years of experience (long before I became a member) following ALL kinds of Second Amendment related cases as to when the conference results were announced has not repeated his claims for that announcement this week. If all those years of experience were valid last week (despite his having been 100% wrong last week) they'd still apply this week, right? I mean, MANY YEARS of EXPERIENCE wouldn't be invalidated by one fluke of a conference announcement outside the parameters of his comprehensive analysis.

"Friday morning (possibly even Thurs afternoon, 2:00 pm PST)."
Don't know how to post the more detailed screenshot.

But it says:

"May 35 2017 Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions - C.A. Penal Code 23850 and 26350 combined with current CCW licensing scheme violates the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to bear handguns and other arms outside the curtilage of one's home."

That's my 1 in 80 chance prediction for Granted and of course the obligatory
  #8510  
Old 05-18-2017, 10:41 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpookyWatcher View Post
Don't know how to post the more detailed screenshot.

But it says:

"May 35 2017 Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions - C.A. Penal Code 23850 and 26350 combined with current CCW licensing scheme violates the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to bear handguns and other arms outside the curtilage of one's home."

That's my 1 in 80 chance prediction for Granted and of course the obligatory
So you think they've already read Nichols and are not willing to wait for it to get there? One in 80... that sounds about right. As does May 35.
  #8511  
Old 05-18-2017, 11:55 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,736
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
I suspect whatever that text reads is humorous... but I can't read it. I need a laugh about Peruta. Someone please post a version with a large enough font that geezers can read it.

* * * * *

I see that the resident prognosticator with many years of experience (long before I became a member) following ALL kinds of Second Amendment related cases as to when the conference results were announced has not repeated his claims for that announcement this week. If all those years of experience were valid last week (despite his having been 100% wrong last week) they'd still apply this week, right? I mean, MANY YEARS of EXPERIENCE wouldn't be invalidated by one fluke of a conference announcement outside the parameters of his comprehensive analysis.

"Friday morning (possibly even Thurs afternoon, 2:00 pm PST)."
Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
So you think they've already read Nichols and are not willing to wait for it to get there? One in 80... that sounds about right. As does May 35.
Why are you being mean? Bad week? Need a hug? Nap? Sandwich?

Paladin may have made an appeal to authority and been wrong, but he only said there was a chance and didn't ask for donations. Seems to be on the right side of the ledger.

Now if you want to critixcize him for not making odds of accept/deny, page length of dissent, etc. that's totally valid. Of course, you haven't joined the betting circle either.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
  #8512  
Old 05-18-2017, 12:24 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Why are you being mean? Bad week? Need a hug? Nap? Sandwich?

Paladin may have made an appeal to authority and been wrong, but he only said there was a chance and didn't ask for donations. Seems to be on the right side of the ledger.

Now if you want to criticize him for not making odds of accept/deny, page length of dissent, etc. that's totally valid. Of course, you haven't joined the betting circle either.
I didn't mention any names. It's now "mean" to quote someone? Did you read his response to me questioning the basis for his (later proved erroneous) prediction, which included name-calling and factual errors? I mean the "lengthy" one he posted originally, not the version in which he later deleted everything except for one or two relatively innocuous sentences? Did you call him out for being "mean" in that one? No, you didn't. Why not?

Yeah, I admit it, I have a "thing" about people who claim they know **** they don't know (see, for example: almost all civilian disarmament advocates' views on "public safety" and firearms, etc.), and then when questioned about it get on their high-horse and pontificate in a self-aggrandizing manner about their "experience" and how I'm just an ignorant newbie, and then it turns out they're completely wrong, and their "signature" is:

"Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic."

So sue me.

PS Good week, plenty of hugs, nap available, plenty of sandwiches.
  #8513  
Old 05-18-2017, 5:34 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,736
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
I didn't mention any names. It's now "mean" to quote someone? Did you read his response to me questioning the basis for his (later proved erroneous) prediction, which included name-calling and factual errors? I mean the "lengthy" one he posted originally, not the version in which he later deleted everything except for one or two relatively innocuous sentences? Did you call him out for being "mean" in that one? No, you didn't. Why not?

Yeah, I admit it, I have a "thing" about people who claim they know **** they don't know (see, for example: almost all civilian disarmament advocates' views on "public safety" and firearms, etc.), and then when questioned about it get on their high-horse and pontificate in a self-aggrandizing manner about their "experience" and how I'm just an ignorant newbie, and then it turns out they're completely wrong, and their "signature" is:

"Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic."

So sue me.

PS Good week, plenty of hugs, nap available, plenty of sandwiches.
No, I didn't read it. I do read links though. On mobile so searching sucks. And I admit I have little patience for passive aggression/aggression for causes I am not informed on.

And I can understand being mean to someone who is mean to you. But I don't think I have been! So why not play the Peruta guessing game with us?
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
  #8514  
Old 05-18-2017, 7:18 PM
gunsmith gunsmith is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,950
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

so, it was "relisted" again?
can they just keep relisting until we all die of old age?
Gee whiz, I aint getting any younger.

20% grant
20% deny
20% remand
40% I will die of old age before they read "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"
and say "well, duh, that's what it says"
__________________
NRA Life Member
  #8515  
Old 05-18-2017, 8:42 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,601
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

99.5% deny
.4% grant
.1% remand

I think I'm being generous
  #8516  
Old 05-18-2017, 8:42 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,601
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

99.5% deny
.4% grant
.1% remand

I think I'm being generous
  #8517  
Old 05-18-2017, 9:04 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 511
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunsmith View Post
so, it was "relisted" again?
can they just keep relisting until we all die of old age?
Gee whiz, I aint getting any younger.

20% grant
20% deny
20% remand
40% I will die of old age before they read "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"
and say "well, duh, that's what it says"
That could be a strategy...
  #8518  
Old 05-19-2017, 4:32 AM
the-right-way the-right-way is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 180
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by butchy_boy View Post
20% grant
60% deny
20% remand
Remand?
  #8519  
Old 05-19-2017, 5:50 AM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,215
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Grant, Vacate, Remand (GVR), the worst insult the Court can give as it's a one-liner equivalent to "you've really screwed up, apply proper precedent from case ___ and try again"

Per curiam is usually one to many pages going into detail as to why they're overturning the case below, but both GVR and per curiam are from a unanimous court without a hearing on the merits.
  #8520  
Old 05-19-2017, 7:32 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 448
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the-right-way View Post
Remand?
A good example of a remand was Caetano v. Massachusetts which can be read here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...10078_aplc.pdf

NB: That decision did not strike down the ban on stun gun possession, which seems to be a common misconception (elsewhere if not on this forum.) What it did was tell the lower court, "We may or may not agree with your ends, but your means were no good. You can't use the arguments that the weapon in question was not around in the 18th century or that it isn't suited for military use. Try again." The prosecution simply dropped the case before it was reheard, so Caetano was really the only person that decision helped.

In Peruta, a remand wouldn't be the end of things, we would be back to en banc in the 9th circuit and they would have to try and contort logic further to uphold the bans consistent with whatever clarifying rules were present in the remand order.
Closed Thread

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 9:22 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.