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
  #3041  
Old 04-22-2019, 12:47 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,054
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This case may not be the case which the SCOTUS finds most suitable for setting the standard for evaluating 2A cases. In some ways this is a pretty limited case.

From what I've been reading, Gura must have said that there was something significant stirring.

Well, if cert was set to be granted at the time it appears he said something to that effect, then I suspect we'd already know that.

It doesn't seem very likely that SCOTUS had decided to deny cert or I suspect we'd already know that.

So it doesn't look to me like the SCOTUS has either granted or denied the cert and they've not apparently re-listed either.

That is why I wonder about a summary reversal.

The Justices could simply do a reversal based on the fact that Kalifornia has set a technically impossible standard and then work with an other case or two to set the general standard/tone for evaluating and litigating 2A cases.

Anyway, that's my logic and I freely acknowledge that it is not a highly informed suggestion framed by a lawyer. IANAL and I don't have insider information.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #3042  
Old 04-22-2019, 12:49 PM
darkshire's Avatar
darkshire darkshire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,308
iTrader: 78 / 100%
Default

soo... what happened, it was redistributed or ?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3043  
Old 04-22-2019, 1:06 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,837
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
This case may not be the case which the SCOTUS finds most suitable for setting the standard for evaluating 2A cases. In some ways this is a pretty limited case.

From what I've been reading, Gura must have said that there was something significant stirring.

Well, if cert was set to be granted at the time it appears he said something to that effect, then I suspect we'd already know that.

It doesn't seem very likely that SCOTUS had decided to deny cert or I suspect we'd already know that.

So it doesn't look to me like the SCOTUS has either granted or denied the cert and they've not apparently re-listed either.

That is why I wonder about a summary reversal.

The Justices could simply do a reversal based on the fact that Kalifornia has set a technically impossible standard and then work with an other case or two to set the general standard/tone for evaluating and litigating 2A cases.

Anyway, that's my logic and I freely acknowledge that it is not a highly informed suggestion framed by a lawyer. IANAL and I don't have insider information.
They are probably holding it while NY case plays out. That would make the most logical sense. I don't see a dissent in denial of cert Pena since the NY case was granted.
Reply With Quote
  #3044  
Old 04-22-2019, 1:10 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,054
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
They are probably holding it while NY case plays out. That would make the most logical sense. I don't see a dissent in denial of cert Pena since the NY case was granted.
Interesting. I didn't know that kind of thing is/was done.

I'm also not sure if that is consistent with the Gura expectations, but I didn't see what he wrote, only some rather circumspect comments about what he wrote.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #3045  
Old 04-22-2019, 1:10 PM
jj805's Avatar
jj805 jj805 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Moorpark
Posts: 4,500
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkshire View Post
soo... what happened, it was redistributed or ?
We don't know yet. All we are doing is speculating at this point.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3046  
Old 04-22-2019, 1:12 PM
pink_toaster's Avatar
pink_toaster pink_toaster is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 667
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
Is it possible that SCOTUS could be working on a Summary Reversal?

Understand, I'm not claiming any particular insight and I certainly have no insider information.

But if his case sort of disappeared I'd imagine that Gura might inquire as to what had happened and it is possible that someone in the SCOTUS infrastructure could have told him that the case was not killed but that a different avenue was being taken.

A Summary Reversal might fit into that - or it might not.
What is a Summary Reversal?
__________________
Guns and diamonds are a girl's best friends!
Reply With Quote
  #3047  
Old 04-22-2019, 1:19 PM
M60A1Rise's Avatar
M60A1Rise M60A1Rise is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 270
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by everyday_hero View Post
Set aside $$$ for off-roster firearms purchase & a portion of charitable money to CalGunsFoundation. Always wanted a Ruger Charger.
THIS !

I want a Circuit Judge bad.
Reply With Quote
  #3048  
Old 04-22-2019, 1:20 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,054
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pink_toaster View Post
What is a Summary Reversal?
SCOTUS doesn't get additional briefings and doesn't hear oral arguments. They simply reverse the ruling of the lower court and typically issue a per curiam opinion.

I believe that effectively there is an explicit or implied grant of certiorari but the typical process of briefings and such is not indulged. They just slap down the lower court.

I don't know all the details about that process and my impression is that the per curiam opinion isn't intended to try to set much in the way of precedent at the SCOTUS level but also doesn't leave intact the precedent the lower court was trying to set.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #3049  
Old 04-22-2019, 1:40 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 399
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M60A1Rise View Post
THIS !



I want a Circuit Judge bad.
Is that going to be legal or a short barrel shotgun and still banned.
Reply With Quote
  #3050  
Old 04-22-2019, 1:40 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,004
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
They are probably holding it while NY case plays out. That would make the most logical sense. I don't see a dissent in denial of cert Pena since the NY case was granted.
Why hold it? They could just keep re-listing it until the NY case plays out. Something is a-happening behind the scenes. I just don't know what it is.
Reply With Quote
  #3051  
Old 04-22-2019, 1:42 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 135
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The connection with NYSRPA and Pena (and Mance?) might be "sure, the state can regulate firearms, but people have the right to buy what they want out of state" and dance around the issue of if the Roster is constitutional. Or maybe they want to just define "common use".
Reply With Quote
  #3052  
Old 04-22-2019, 1:57 PM
M60A1Rise's Avatar
M60A1Rise M60A1Rise is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 270
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
Is that going to be legal or a short barrel shotgun and still banned.
Circuit is 18.5 so pretty sure it's a carbine , maybe not. I think the issue with it is the heat shroud as well. But my hope this the roster falling will be the straw to break the backs. We should stick to the topic , sorry.
Reply With Quote
  #3053  
Old 04-22-2019, 2:10 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 579
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
The connection with NYSRPA and Pena (and Mance?) might be "sure, the state can regulate firearms, but people have the right to buy what they want out of state" and dance around the issue of if the Roster is constitutional. Or maybe they want to just define "common use".
But you CANNOT buy what you want out of state when it comes to handguns. Federal law does not permit the sale of handguns to nonstate residents. And you cannot buy out of state with a transaction processed by a California FFL, since a California FFL cannot sell you a nonroster handgun. Separately, an out of state FFL cannot sell you a long arm that is not legal to possess in California; the transaction must comply with the laws of the state of residence, which includes the ban on "assault weapons".
Reply With Quote
  #3054  
Old 04-22-2019, 2:34 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,837
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Why hold it? They could just keep re-listing it until the NY case plays out. Something is a-happening behind the scenes. I just don't know what it is.
By holding I include re-listing as well.
Reply With Quote
  #3055  
Old 04-22-2019, 3:19 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 135
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
But you CANNOT buy what you want out of state when it comes to handguns. Federal law does not permit the sale of handguns to nonstate residents. And you cannot buy out of state with a transaction processed by a California FFL, since a California FFL cannot sell you a nonroster handgun. Separately, an out of state FFL cannot sell you a long arm that is not legal to possess in California; the transaction must comply with the laws of the state of residence, which includes the ban on "assault weapons".
Exactly, that is my point which is why I mentioned Mance which deals with that very question (for handguns). If they rule that baring interstate sales of weapons is unconstitutional, then, the roster becomes de facto moot. I am simply just looking at how NYSRPA could relate to Pena.
Reply With Quote
  #3056  
Old 04-22-2019, 4:49 PM
pdsmith505 pdsmith505 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 141
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
Exactly, that is my point which is why I mentioned Mance which deals with that very question (for handguns). If they rule that baring interstate sales of weapons is unconstitutional, then, the roster becomes de facto moot. I am simply just looking at how NYSRPA could relate to Pena.
Lets assume that Mance gets a favorable nod from SCOTUS and they say that handguns must be treated the same as rifles with respect to interstate sale.

So what?

The FFL in Arizona still has to comply with all the laws regarding firearm sales in the purchaser's state of residence.

Roster would still apply.
Reply With Quote
  #3057  
Old 04-22-2019, 4:57 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 135
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdsmith505 View Post
Lets assume that Mance gets a favorable nod from SCOTUS and they say that handguns must be treated the same as rifles with respect to interstate sale.

So what?

The FFL in Arizona still has to comply with all the laws regarding firearm sales in the purchaser's state of residence.

Roster would still apply.
Right, and then you could go after those laws on the precedent, interstate commerce implications, and/or on "common use" grounds.
Reply With Quote
  #3058  
Old 04-22-2019, 5:18 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 429
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
Right, and then you could go after those laws on the precedent, interstate commerce implications, and/or on "common use" grounds.
And 9th will scoff at all that, just like with ammunition.
Reply With Quote
  #3059  
Old 04-22-2019, 5:22 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,435
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

All that just seems overly complicated to me. Why wouldn't they (scotus) stick to the simpler question: is the roster constitutional? One step at a time
Reply With Quote
  #3060  
Old 04-22-2019, 6:59 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 135
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sputnik View Post
All that just seems overly complicated to me. Why wouldn't they (scotus) stick to the simpler question: is the roster constitutional? One step at a time
Just saying they have a lot of angles to attack, thus them keeping Pena might be one avenue they wish to seek. :P
Reply With Quote
  #3061  
Old 04-22-2019, 7:22 PM
pacifico23 pacifico23 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohana
Posts: 2,710
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

tldr please
Reply With Quote
  #3062  
Old 04-22-2019, 7:36 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,425
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacifico23 View Post
tldr please
It's pretty difficult to summarize a case that has taken from 2009 to today to wind its way up to SCOTUS.

Perhaps if you had a specific question?
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #3063  
Old 04-22-2019, 7:58 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,435
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
Just saying they have a lot of angles to attack, thus them keeping Pena might be one avenue they wish to seek. :P
I agree. There must be many ways they could do this should they choose to.
(Fingers perpetually crossed)
Reply With Quote
  #3064  
Old 04-23-2019, 12:31 AM
mrdd mrdd is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Somewhere Over The Rainbow
Posts: 1,699
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
It's pretty difficult to summarize a case that has taken from 2009 to today to wind its way up to SCOTUS.
Ten years. Just think about that.

There is something seriously wrong with the Federal Judiciary.
Reply With Quote
  #3065  
Old 04-23-2019, 8:44 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,568
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdd View Post
Ten years. Just think about that.

There is something seriously wrong with the Federal Judiciary.
When a case concerns protecting the leftists' most disfavored of Constitutional rights, it will always take an unreasonably long time to trickle through left-leaning courts that have no deadlines.

Enter Jeff Foxworthy: If the phrase, "A right delayed is a right denied," sounds like your modus operandi instead of a cautionary statement, you might be a 9th circuit judge.
Reply With Quote
  #3066  
Old 04-23-2019, 10:21 AM
HarryS HarryS is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 262
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I wonder if the fulminations of Harris and Smallwell might move SCOTUS to take a case or two.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #3067  
Old 04-23-2019, 10:25 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,568
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronlglock View Post
And how long did legalizing gay marriage take? Weeks? Months?

Original district court complaint filed July 19, 2013. Decided on December 23, 2013.
6th circuit reversal on January 16, 2014.
Petitioned for cert on November 14, 2014. SCOTUS ruling on June 26, 2015.

Start to finish: 1 year, 11 months, 8 days.


Peña is at 9 years, 11 months, 25 days... so far.

NYSRPA v NY is moving lightning-quick, by comparison, at merely 6 years, 26 days so far.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 04-23-2019 at 10:38 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #3068  
Old 04-23-2019, 11:05 AM
slayer61's Avatar
slayer61 slayer61 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Norcal
Posts: 1,134
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

The term "glacial" comes to mind.
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Paul

tiocfaidh ár lá
Bobby Sands
Reply With Quote
  #3069  
Old 04-23-2019, 11:51 AM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,004
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Original district court complaint filed July 19, 2013. Decided on December 23, 2013.
6th circuit reversal on January 16, 2014.
Petitioned for cert on November 14, 2014. SCOTUS ruling on June 26, 2015.

Start to finish: 1 year, 11 months, 8 days.


Peña is at 9 years, 11 months, 25 days... so far.

NYSRPA v NY is moving lightning-quick, by comparison, at merely 6 years, 26 days so far.
1 year, 11 months, 8 days vs. 9 years, 11 months, 25 days and counting is obscene. Nothing like a disfavored right getting slow-walked.
Reply With Quote
  #3070  
Old 04-23-2019, 1:50 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,425
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Speculation on SCOTUS changes is OT for this thread - there's a SCOTUS thread in National.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 04-23-2019 at 5:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3071  
Old 04-23-2019, 10:30 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,425
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Nope, nope - please stick to Pena and the Roster and developments (if ever they might surface) in the suit.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


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 2:21 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.