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 > The CRPA Forum
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

The CRPA Forum News, Questions, and Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-29-2018, 10:05 AM
JunkYrdDog's Avatar
JunkYrdDog JunkYrdDog is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 452
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Exclamation Question about CRPA

Was thinking of joining the CRPA, but before I do I wanted to ask if they have filed for a TRO against the CA open carry bans since the Young V Hawaii decision.

What I would like to know is why there are no pro #SecondAmendment groups here in CA filing a TRO against the CA #Opencarry laws since this decision.

The time it is going to take for this case to possibly go en banc means with a granted TRO, citing this decision, means that Californians could be utilizing open carry while we wait a year or so.

Get with the program, get that TRO filed!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-31-2018, 2:16 AM
Kestryll's Avatar
Kestryll Kestryll is offline
Head Janitor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Occupied Reseda, PRK
Posts: 20,863
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Instead of blindly listening to a fool do a bit of your own research.


This ruling is not finalized by any means and if it were it only applies to the Hawaii law in question.
When it becomes law, assuming it does, we still have to address the California ban on open carry.
Fortunately the CRPA already has a lawsuit to overturn the CA ban on OC sitting at the Ninth, Flanagan v. Becerra. If Young v. Hawaii remains a win it will be used to in Flanagan as precedence and then we should be able to carry.

Currently there are several rather severe circuit court splits involving 2A, SCOTUS is going to have to address them soon because having the law of the land being different depending on what State you're in is a major problem.

SCOTUS has not been willing to take up a 2nd amendment case since MacDonald and there's a lot of suspicion it has been because Kennedy didn't want to deal with it. With Kavanaugh replacing Kennedy a solid 2A case like Young or Flanangan has a good chance of being granted cert. This is a major risk for the anti-gun side and they might prefer to eat the loss in the Ninth to avoid setting National precedence that functionally moots their side.
__________________
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
  #3  
Old 08-31-2018, 11:44 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,312
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JunkYrdDog View Post
Was thinking of joining the CRPA, but before I do I wanted to ask if they have filed for a TRO against the CA open carry bans since the Young V Hawaii decision.

What I would like to know is why there are no pro #SecondAmendment groups here in CA filing a TRO against the CA #Opencarry laws since this decision.

The time it is going to take for this case to possibly go en banc means with a granted TRO, citing this decision, means that Californians could be utilizing open carry while we wait a year or so.

Get with the program, get that TRO filed!!!!!!
From the Litigation forum ~20 min before the above post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JunkYrdDog View Post
What I would like to know is why there are no pro #SecondAmendment groups here in CA filing a TRO against the CA #Opencarry laws since this decision.

The time it is going to take for this case to possibly go en banc means with a granted TRO, citing this decision, means that Californians could be utilizing open carry while we wait a year or so.

Get with the program, get that TRO filed!!!!!!


I will even pay the $400 filing fee if needed!!!!!!!!!!
From that same thread ~24 hours later....

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
This is why a TRO/PI likely would not work. Preliminary injunctions are a "extraordinary remedy" that is not granted as a right. It is up to the judge whether or not to grant one even if there is precedent that says the litigant must win at the merits stage of his case.

In ruling on a preliminary injunction a court balances a four factor test. The four factors are: (1) the threat that the moving party will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; (2) the moving party’s likelihood of success on the merits; (3) the possible hardships to the moving party if the injunction is not granted outweigh the possible harm to the defendant if the injunction is granted (also called the balance of equities); and (4) granting the injunction will be in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted).

The Court has every right to tell someone that files a PI that you are likely to win on the merits of the case based upon current precedent but that precedent may change soon due to en banc proceedings. Thus, it is in the public interest to not enjoin the law through a TRO or Preliminary injunction. Or the Court can say the balance of hardships do not weigh in your favor because it would be a hardship on the State to enjoin a law prior to the en banc proceedings being decided.

Those are just a couple of many ways the Court can rule against you. It is up to the judge you are in front of to issue you a PI despite Young being on the books. Courts tend to wait for a ruling on the merits before doing anything much less enjoining a law. Here, the PI will likely denied. Then the Court will likelystay the case to wait for the Ninth in Young prior to ruling on the merits. Anyone that suggests the Courts are chomping at the bit to enjoin California's carry laws is mistaken.
/thread
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
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 5:41 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.