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 06-15-2018, 10:58 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,058
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default David Radich v. James Deleon Guerrero Ninth Circuit *Oral argument June 15th 2018

Ninth Circuit oral arguments held on Saipan's handgun ban.
The Guy arguing is Gura's co counsel from McDonald

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MbDxG8xgc4


[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MbDxG8xgc4
[/yt]
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-16-2018, 12:33 AM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,591
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

How do the courts tend to look at the colonies compared to the States? Do they even feel the need to bother with incorporation doctrine?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-27-2018, 4:36 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 452
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
How do the courts tend to look at the colonies compared to the States? Do they even feel the need to bother with incorporation doctrine?
The Ninth is bound by Heller, and it doesn't matter that Saipan is a colony. The colonies themselves--or at least the families running them--tend towards anti-gun antipathy.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-27-2018, 7:42 PM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,591
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
The Ninth is bound by Heller, and it doesn't matter that Saipan is a colony. The colonies themselves--or at least the families running them--tend towards anti-gun antipathy.
So they treat them as still needing incorporation to apply the Bill of Rights, or do they apply them directly?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-27-2018, 9:49 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 452
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
So they treat them as still needing incorporation to apply the Bill of Rights, or do they apply them directly?
AFAIK. the territories and possessions are subject to federal law and the US Constitution the same as everywhere else.n Its residents are US citizens.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-27-2018, 10:06 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,058
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
AFAIK. the territories and possessions are subject to federal law and the US Constitution the same as everywhere else.n Its residents are US citizens.
except for America Samoa
They expressly reserved the right to not apply the whole Constitution so they could keep their land laws which do not allow non Samoans to own land.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-02-2018, 10:49 AM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 2,006
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

The judge far right argues facts not in evidence. School children are far more likely to be hit by lightning than to be shot at school.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-03-2018, 2:36 PM
Citizen_B's Avatar
Citizen_B Citizen_B is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 949
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Bizarre case. CNMI doesn't like SCOTUS's ruling on one issue of the 2A, and argues bizarre reasoning. PTA doesn't have standing, no injured party.

Hurwitz makes assumptions out of scope of case.

Fletcher presents a idiotic scenario that if an organization spends money for a hypothetical purpose without evidence, that they could be an injured party and therefor has standing. Stupid and a waste of time. Hypotheticals are out of scope. Counselor didn't have a good reply for them though. Fletcher goes on to point out the relevant SCOTUS case which affirms no standing, yet says SCOTUS was wrong.

The judges need to quiet down and let CNMI prove their standing, not keep asking the other side to do it. It was clearly presented why the PTA doesn't have legal responsibility. It was apparent the judges are not 2A supporters.

CNMI wants to cherry pick which amendment to follow and which to not. Radich counselor clearly stated that - well done.

Regardless I think they rule no standing. If they do grant standing, the 9th has lost it's marbles.
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 11:44 PM.




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.
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.